Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 179

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Creators LLC

For the interested.

"Wiki Creators LLC is an ethical Wikipedia management services business that offers useful editing, page creation, and security services to assist individuals, companies, brands, NGOs, and many more in improving their online presence on Wikipedia. ... Many of the Wikipedia editors with whom we collaborate make the modifications accurately. ... We’ve discovered that a gradual, steady approach is the most effective. We bear in mind that the Wikipedia page should be improved for the benefit of everyone, not just the client."

They also list a few articles they say they've been working on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at their website... "Wiki Creators LLC also ensures that no knowledge about your product will incorrectly edit on your Wikipedia page." "We have officially recognized as Wikipedia content contributors. We transcend the content quality and stand pro with our tactics since we have a comprehensive understanding and expertise in Wikipedia administration and production." [headscratch emoticon] --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I think I read once regarding scam-mail, that one tactic is to include some spelling/grammar errors etc, because if you can spot/be deterred by them, you are not the customer they want anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Yup. Spam emails/autodialers cost nothing, but the scammer's time does. So, worst case (for the scammer) is that they invest time in talking to/emailing with a person, who then bails before the scammer gets their money.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Bear in mind that we have past experience with similar scammers (who knows, maybe the same ones) falsely claiming specific Wikipedia articles to be examples of their work. Take any such claims with a big grain of salt. BD2412 T 17:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
While I found it believable that they had at least edited those articles, that doesn't make it true. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Creators LLC 2

Not sure where to report the above? I couldn't find anything on them after a simple search of Wikipedia. Thanks. Samw (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Samw Beat you to it, check 2 threads up above. I note that we link to different websites. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry I didn't read! (Wikipedia's search isn't very good.  :-( ) Samw (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I see there is a domain: https://wikicreatorsllc.com/ William Avery (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Informing science

Could someone review this article and its history, please? It hasn't been edited for a while, but one of the accounts obviously as a CoI name, and the others are SPAs that have made only one or two edits other than to this article. The topic "Informing science" appears to be a neologism. The publisher "Informing Science Institute", to which a section of the article is devoted, is on the updated

Beall's list (of "predatory open-access publishers"; see [1]
). This is not mentioned in the article. There is refence-bombing, but no inline citations.

A related draft article, User:NSB123/sandbox/Informing Science Institute, was rejected at AfC and subsequently deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Note also "I was asked by the founder of the Informing Science Institute to develop a Wikipedia article on "informing science'.", posted by Grandon.Gill. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
And by the same editor on the article's talk page: "The Wikipedia entry was never intended to advance a point of view but, instead, to explain one. It provides a needed overview of the frameworks employed in the transdiscipline and an overview of the activities of its organizing body.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
While I think the subject is marginally notable, I don't see much that we can use from the current article (unsourced, possibly
WP:TNTing? Russ Woodroofe (talk
) 12:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding support to this COI nomination. All the references are to IS's own publications. In addition, though this probably carries no weight, I have been active in the field of Science communication for a decade and never heard of "Informing science" - it is also not mentioned in, and does not mention the science communication article. I would advocate AfD. Zeromonk (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Even if an article is justified, I can't see how you can get from this to a reasonable article. Endorse AfD. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


Thank you, all. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informing science. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Declared COI editors exchanging requested edits

This would seem to be gaming the system. Two editors with COI exchanging edit requests, or at least one is proposing it. I've dealt with Andreincowtown a bit and they have been very good with following our COI guideline. It's the suggestion by Occasionalpedestrian (a COI editor for Heineken) that COI edits be exchanged that is a bit troubling. Normally I would discuss it with them first, but I am not sure where we stand on that policy./guideline -wise. --- Possibly ☎ 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was against the guidelines so I will remove this request. I would not want to do anything that is gaming the system. Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
that is good, thanks. I still wonder what our policy thoughts in general are on this. --- Possibly ☎ 16:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't immediately think of a policy that would cover that, but such a quid pro quo appears to violate the spirit of
WP:FORUMSHOP. Vexations (talk
) 16:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a form of paid editing.
MrOllie (talk
) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


This is a very interesting example of COI. However, I would begin with an Assumption of Good Faith when Occasionalpedestrian states "I didn't realise this was against the guidelines so I will remove this request. I would not want to do anything that is gaming the system." What supports that assumption is that the communication was not done secretly or "Off Wiki." I imagine that pairs or groups of people could make such arrangements in confidence outside of the Wiki system, and that would, as MrOllie suggests, constitute a quid pro quo exchange of services.

As always, thank you for your time and advice, and to Possibly for raising the issue. Best wishes, Andrewincowtown (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

South al-Mutlaa

This looks like a PR agency driven effort. I NPP'd it, redirected and then sent it to Draft when it was reverted, so it could be worked on. Editor 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 opened a AN entry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#South_al-Mutlaa article deleted by User:Scope_creep without following the Wikipedia deletion policy and due process for article deletion and then another editor Bidoon, who arrived at 1.59 on the 14th October 2021, moved it back to mainspace. scope_creepTalk 13:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Scribes and Elite Wiki Writers

First things first - I previously e-mailed [email protected] about this and ticket 2021082810000152 was opened (by Joe Roe, I believe), for anybody who has access to that. Secondly, there are many more articles (and drafts) than the ones I listed above, these are just a sampling that I've looked at. I'm opening this thread in order to get some more eyes on the sourcing specifically.

Collapsed Info that was less relevant than previously thought

I checked all the sources in all the articles and drafts listed above using Wayback Machine. Admittedly Wayback Machine is not perfect, but it's something. Anyway, below is what I got from Wayback Machine.

Lunchclub, an article started in May 2021, has nine sources. Of the nine, six were last revised in May 2021 and one was started in May 2021.

Michelle Hanlon, an article started in May 2021, has eighteen sources. Of the eighteen, eleven were last revised in May 2021 and three were started in May 2021 (two of which list a much earlier publish date at the top).

Papier (company), an article started in May 2021, has twenty sources. Of the twenty, seventeen were revised in May 2021, two were started in May 2021 (including one which lists a much earlier publish date at the top), and multiple other sources include dates at the top the predate Wayback Machine's first archived version by years).

Katie Knipp, an article started in May 2021, has twenty sources. Of the twenty, fourteen were revised in May 2021 and three were started in May 2021 (again, some with wrong dates at the top).

Elyse Walker, an article started in May 2021, has thirty-one sources. Of the thirty-one, twenty were revised in May 2021 and eight were started in May 2021 (again, some of which have wrong dates at the top).

Draft:Martin Toe, a draft started in May 2021, has thirteen sources. Of the thirteen, ten were revised in May 2021, two were started in May 2021, and multiple have dates on the top that predate Wayback Machine's original version.

Draft:Harry Nathan Gottlieb, a draft started in May 2021, has ten sources. Of the ten, eight were revised in May 2021 (or more recently) and two were started in May 2021, with multiple having dates on the top much earlier than Wayback Machine's original version.

These are all the ones that I've had time to check. I also haven't had time to dig into the exact changes between versions listed on Wayback Machine to see what, exactly, was altered. There are about fifty other articles and drafts that I haven't been able to examine more thoroughly yet to see if their sources will have similar results.

I would like to get some more eyes on the sources and, again, please see ticket 2021082810000152 for more information. Useight (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for notifying me of this discussion. I just used the Wayback Machine to compare what had actually been changed on some of the articles. I compared the first snapshot with the last snapshot and the two most significant changes (as indicated by the variation scale). I used three of the pages listed by Useight (talk · contribs) as a sample and ran two sources on random from each page through the comparison tool of Wayback Machine.
Here are my findings:
  • Michelle Hanlon: Sample A, ads changed on the page. Sample B, ads changed and the feature image seems to have been given a caption that wasn't there at the time of publication.
  • Lunchclub: Sample A, ads changed on the page and WSJ's top menu bar seems to have different buttons. Sample B, the time of how long ago the article was published and there are other changes on the TechCrunch website, the article remains the same.
  • Katie Knipp: Sample A, website was redesigned while the article remains the same. Sample B, changes to the website structure and menu.
My assumption is that other articles would have similar changes to them, as well. An experienced editor/admin would be able to better clarify things on this. Please let me know if I can be of any help. BettytheBeth (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
For context, the issue here is that Wiki Scribes claim (in off-wiki communication) to be able to manufacture sources for clients who are not notable. I think they're making that up, but it does imply that the outfit is not as squeeky-clean as they make out to be. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is an accurate summary. I wasn't certain how much context to specifically give in this thread. The question is whether Wiki Scribes' claim is legitimate or marketing, which goes hand-in-hand with determining whether the sourcing on the articles/drafts are legitimate. It has come to my attention that Wayback Machine may be of limited use in this particular situation, based on what kicks off its timeline for crawling particular webpages. Useight (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
manufacture sources for clients who are not notable I don't think that is necessarily true, and hasn't been for some time. I think with the right skills, with enough moxy and good budget it is possible, and in many instances, is probably quite easy. In the last two years, it had became increasingly difficult to delete these types of articles, so it doesn't a lot of references to sway the argument. One or two stories, put in by the connection, with the right money, is all it needs to the sway the argument. They are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the methods. There is several examples of this on Youtube. One of them, a kind of trickster, tried to make himself notable. Eventually he was on the radio and got a story written about him in mainstream news. It was innocent. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is news for AfD regulars. But placing stories in the media is one of the primary functions of most PR agencies, from the cheapest ones to the most expensive and reputable. The line between native advertising and space-filling articles is really not that clear. Positioning a company in 3 borderline reliable sources is relatively easy with some money. MarioGom (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@MarioGom: He wasn't a PR person, just a young guy of 19-20, an influencer type, making a vlog and trying it out. That was point. It seemed to be really easy. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Useight: I think you might have misunderstood how the wayback machine works. Using this as an example you will see at the bottom it says This calendar view maps the number of times <link> was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated (emphasis mine). What's more, you'll also see on that page it says Fri, 21 May 2021 23:28:46 GMT (why: wikicollections, wikipedia-eventstream, wikipediaoutlinks) - this means that the reason it was crawled in the first place was because it was included in a Wikipedia article and this does not mean that it did not exist before that date. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Smartse:, indeed. I am now aware that the Wayback Machine is not going to be reliable in determining if the problem exists (see Joe Roe's comment for a succinct explanation of the potential problem). Wiki Scribes claims to be able to create/modify sources to falsify notability for their clients. The question is whether this is marketing puffery or if they are actually doing this. Unfortunately, it seems Wayback Machine is less helpful than I previously thought at determining this. However, we need to not get caught up in that and keep the real question in mind: is Wiki Scribs' claim of being able to falsify notability actually happening? And, for that, we need more eyes on the sources. Useight (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't find it surprising at all that they make the offer - I've seen enough people get paid articles before where they've also hired people to publish some pieces on them to establish notability. It doesn't need to hold up to close scrutiny at AfD - it just needs to be enough that no-one thinks to propose it. There was one case where the subject hired people to write reviews and articles about them and their work, hired people to create the WP article using those as references, hired more people to remove tags, and then hired someone to delete it years later when they decided that they didn't want the article anymore - specifically arguing at AfD that the sources are not very good and/or wrong. There is nothing stopping an organised group managing the entire thing, from establishing notability through to ongoing maintenance. - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Hillster and BettytheBeth have just been blocked, as Checkuser evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharmenderDeol links them to a number of UPE accounts. Spicy (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Occupational Hazard

Just want to say first that I'm not familiar with dealing with conflicts of interest, so I might be seeing something that isn't there/ this might not actually be a big deal. I was reading the article when I noticed that the paragraph at the end of the lead about a research paper seemed a bit out of place, and... overly positive? (I don't know about you, but "working long hours is bad for you" does not exactly revolutionise my global understanding... whatever that means.) Sure enough, checking the edit history showed it was a pretty recent edit from an IP editor with no recent edits (interestingly, the IP geolocates to Switzerland, like the two organisations who worked on the paper). I'm guessing someone involved with the research added this paper to the article? Though, I've not done anything to the article- not sure if this should be removed or just toned down, so I wanted to get the attention of more experienced editors. Apologies if this is dumb :)

CharredWaffle (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP's edit as calling a study "landmark" and saying it "revolutionised global understanding" would need a secondary source, not just a link to the study itself. Melcous (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It's one edit... I am going to guess it is someone in Bern Switzerland who is proud of their study, and who also does not know our COI guidelines and avoidance of embellishment. In future you can always revert them, and then come here if they are persistent at adding the material. --- Possibly ☎ 04:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD-related SPI

Hello,

The Sanketio31 SPI was closed a few days ago. It was determined that they were a group of accounts co-ordinating votes at AfD. Unfortunately, the substantial number of AfDs they participated at means that in a few instances they manipulated consensus – resulting in an outcome that would not have occured had they not been co-ordinating their activity. I've pasted below the table from the SPI filing, which contains (I hope all) of the overlap between accounts. Some if not most of these AfDs will require re-review, and I've highlighted the ones where the socks had a direct effect on the outcome in yellow. I think it's worth nothing that the stale accounts weren't blocked, but all were confirmed, so whether those accounts should be factored into the re-review is up to the admin. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended content
AfD Sanketio31 nomination? Result (keep/delete)[1] Sanketio31 votes Results without Sanketio31 votes Close
WP:Articles for deletion/Mel Sanson Yes 4/0 4/0 0/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Anu Singh Lather Yes 6/0 3/0 3/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Hal Lawton Yes 5/1 4/0 1/1 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Nielsen (CEO) Yes 5/1 4/0 1/1 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Keyva King Yes 3/0 2/0 1/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Terminus Group Yes 4/1 3/1 1/1 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Kevin Boehm (2nd nomination) Yes 5/4 3/0 2/4 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Craig Hanna (2nd nomination) Yes 3/1 3/0 0/1 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Amadou Gallo Fall Yes 5/0 1/0 4/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Sarah Law Yes 5/0 1/0 4/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Quentin Cheng (2nd nomination) Yes 7/0 1/0 6/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Ryan Coe Yes 2/4 1/0 1/4 Delete
WP:Articles for deletion/Equity Mates Media Yes 4/8 1/0 3/8 Delete
WP:Articles for deletion/Mazen Khaled Yes 3/0 1/0 2/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Jason Foodman SpareSeiko 5/6 5/0 0/6 Redirect
WP:Articles for deletion/Special Strong Yes 7/4 5/0 2/4 Delete
WP:Articles for deletion/IHateJulian Yes 7/3 5/0 2/3 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1931) No 5/5 2/0 3/5 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/François Bergeron Yes 8/5 5/0 3/5 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Anil Acharya No 3/2 0/1 3/1 No consensus
WP:Articles for deletion/ClearTax (company) No 5/4 0/2 5/2 Delete
WP:Articles for deletion/Boyer Rocks No 4/0 2/0 2/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Wallbox (2nd nomination) No 5/0 2/0 3/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/List of military disasters (4th nomination) No 9/9 1/1 8/8 No consensus
WP:Articles for deletion/Arif Saeed No 5/5/1 1/1/0 4/4/1 Delete
WP:Articles for deletion/Sonita Lontoh No 4/3 1/1 3/2 No consensus
WP:Articles for deletion/Anthony Michael Douglas Yes 0/2 0/1 0/1 Delete
WP:Articles for deletion/Harvey Neville No 2/2/5 0/0/5 2/2/0 Redirect
WP:Articles for deletion/Waleed Malik No 0/3/2 0/1/1 0/2/1 Redirect
WP:Articles for deletion/Usman Khan (cricketer, born 1985) No 0/2/2 0/1/1 0/1/1 Redirect
WP:Articles for deletion/Perl package manager No 3/0 2/0 1/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Sudhir Singh Yes 0/3 0/1 0/2 Delete
WP:Articles for deletion/URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity No 5/0 2/0 3/0 Keep
WP:Articles for deletion/Case Notes (radio show) No 1/2/2 0/1/1 1/1/1 Redirect
WP:Articles for deletion/Anthony Michael Douglas Yes 0/2 0/1 0/1 Delete
WP:Articles for deletion/Marek Sacha No 3/3 0/1 3/2 No consensus
WP:Articles for deletion/LEAD Technologies (2nd nomination)[2] No 7/7/2 0/2/0 7/5/2 Draftify
WP:Articles for deletion/Gustavo Lopez (music executive) Yes 0/5[3] 0/2 0/3 Delete

References

  1. ^ A third number indicates the total number of redirect votes
  2. ^ 3rd number here indicates draftify votes
  3. ^ It was originally 4/2 (both Sanketio31 accounts voting keep), but after MER-C voted delete with a valid rational, one (unrelated) account was indeffed and the others switched from keep to delete.
Of the yellow-highlighted articles in the expandable text, I'd say that
WP:DRV. The other yellow articles look worthwhile to relist. Russ Woodroofe (talk
) 14:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Jose Ping-ay

Obvious COI (same surname) with the subjects of the BLPs involved. Editor had been given multiple notices/warnings on COI editing by multiple users on her Talk page. There have been no attempts by the editor to work within the COI framework nor communicate with the community at large. The recreation of the deleted BLP is the last straw, hence the report here. – robertsky (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If there are any more problematic edits/page creations from this user, and they fail to communicate here or on talk pages, I think
WP:ANI is the next stop. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 22:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Jade Ping-ay has ignored multiple talk page messages and continued to COI edit, since January 20, 2021. --- Possibly ☎ 01:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

John Lott

The user "ExProfessor" who identifies as "a former professor of economics" primarily adds content about

talk
) 12:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I asked the editor if they had a COI in October 2020.[2] They didnt respond.
talk
) 13:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sebastian Roché

User has held himself out to be the subject of the article.[3][4] User is attempting to assert ownership over the article, with respect to his age (which I have not been able to do an archive search to verify the source) and nationality (no independent source provide for dual British–French citizenship). Based on this comment, I'm turning the issue over here, although I note that HighInBC has partial-blocked the user from the Roché article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As my colleague C.Fred has pointed out I have partially indef blocked this user from the article they claim to be the subject of, and invited them to use the talk page instead. I did this independently of this COIN report as I had not seen it at the time. As mentioned in the block log any administrator may reverse this without consulting me if they feel the issues have been resolved, though I am of course available for discussion. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to sbjects of articles wanting the real them to be portrayed, but the wiki page says he was born and educated in France. One of his parents is apparently Scottish (fr: écossais). There are a few French and English sources saying he has "Scottish blood". The appropriate place for the Scottish bit is in the part that described his upbringing, and in citizenship, if proven by sources. I'm going to remove Scottish from the lede as it is not sourced anywhere. If he is now pBlocked, it is probably no longer a COIN issue and can be discussed on the article talk page. --- Possibly ☎ 04:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

user:ASUKomm

The user ASUKomm is a 2016[5] verified paid editing account in deWP. Here and in deWP the account is editing the article about Mathias Döpfner, the Billionaire CEO of the Axel Springer Media Company. The process and the edits of the user in deWP show clearly that the user is generally informed about the necessary disclosure in Wikipedia. But despite knowing this a disclosure about the paid editing activities was not done in enWP for years. --Jensbest (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  • @Jensbest: Please notify the user of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page. --SVTCobra 11:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Obviouisly the user is violating the rules despite proven knowledge about them (from deWP) for years. I guess blocking the user is overdue. --Jensbest (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Did a bit of trimming of the article in question (still lots to do), also added a paid editing disclosure template to the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear all, As Jensbest wrote, we verified our corporate account in the German language Wikipedia according to the rules there. Unfortunately we were not aware of the differences between the German and English Wikipedia when it comes to COI editing. Naively we thought the same rules would apply to all languages. A few months ago we then took a closer look. When we became aware of our mistake, we stopped the activity immediately. As a consequence, we were not planning on using this account here in WPen anymore. In addition, we will only continue to participate in WPen by suggesting possible changes to articles on the respective talk page using a single user account and by disclosing our COI. Best, Lars from ASUKomm (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

University of Sheffield‎

There seems to be qa conflict at this university about the proposed closure of the Department of Archeology and alleged shenanigans by University officials. More eyes on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have emailed [email protected] with off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. If anyone reading this has the relevant permissions to act on that, that would be great. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: I'm sorry, but what is the relevant to (besides your email)? Does it pertain to any discussion here? --SVTCobra 04:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
My bet is it has something to do with this block ☆ Bri (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mark E. Curry

Omicrontrench began editing this article in 2019 one month after negative content was added to the lead, while Dublin2020 stopped editing in March 2017. Both accounts have exclusively made edits that are related to Mark Curry or his companies, with most of them directly to the Mark Curry article itself, including creating the article in 2017 (Dublin2020 also uploaded the photo of Curry in the article, with the source described as "Took Picture"). Omicrontrench's first edit was to replace a news article negative of Curry with a press release [6]. Their second edit was to remove negative content from the lead of the Curry article [7], and then to add content to minimize criticism against one of Curry's companies [8]. Subsequently, they have started to repeatedly restore promotional material that is either unsourced or sourced to press releases (e.g., "an outspoken public representative for the LGBT business community"), while removing sourced content (such as the birth place and parents' jobs) [9]. They have also so far refused to disclose on their talk page whether they have a conflict of interest. –

talk
) 23:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Dublin2020 hasn't edited in 3.5 years, so they are out of the picture more or less. Omicrontrench does need to explain the photo and their edits... --- Possibly ☎ 04:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Busuu

I received an odd email from what looks like an anonymously-generated email address suggesting that this page was a paid advertisement. The article creator does seem rather fishy, having made a few dozen edits over a span of a few months in 2008, culminating in the creation of this article before they disappeared forever. I'm not keen to entertain the motives of anonymous email senders, and I am equally suspicious of being the recipient of this one (although I don't know if anyone else did), but I am also suspicious of this article. BD2412 T 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: wasn't paid editing OK prior to it being added to the WMF terms of use in 2014? the 2012 COI policy says, somewhat sheepishly, "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests..." so Lestaire is in compliance it would seem. The more recent IP editors look fishy, in the last 100 edits or so. --- Possibly ☎ 05:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There are a number of registered SPAs in the edit history as well. I suspect a long-running thing. BD2412 T 05:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

William Templeton (screenwriter) ‎

All of their edits appear to have violated

WP:COI. Templeton authored an autobiography which they continue to edit (Christopher Templeton), they continually edit Manuel Salazar (artist) which they also authored and have a COI with, and now they are repeatedly removing COI maintenance templates on William Templeton (screenwriter) who is their father. They got their first COI warning back in 2012 but it appears to have had no effect. Notfrompedro (talk
) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

CoI has been declared, at least on William's article. Most of the recent edits there are adding citations to replace {{
WP:BITE explains how to deal with inexperienced users. this revert of one of Christopher's edits removed a valid citation, which should be restored. Christopher Templeton (the article) was created via AfC and Christopher Templeton (the user) has not touched it since 2019. The first discussion of potential CoI on the user's talk page was earlier today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
18:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The reference you link to was to support the sentence "writing a string of episodic dramas for American prime time television during the 1950s and 1960s" and it does not such thing. Here is a COI warning from 2012 so today was not the first time he was approached about it. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Apologies I missed the nine year old templated message. Given that the user has only ~300 edits over that time, it's not unereasonable if they've overlooked it in this decade, too. The BFI citation is a page listing "a string of episodic dramas for American prime time television during the 1950s and 1960s" with William as writer is it not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes there was a nine year old warning which illustrates that this person has been self-promoting and/or editing with a COI for almost a decade. And was aware of it. The BFI citation does not show "a string of episodic dramas" it shows a selected filmography of films and television films. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I did a major rewrite of the Manuel Salazar article, as it was wildly POV. The subject's notable not for his art, but because of his killing of a police officer (possibly self-defense), and the decade-long court battle that engendered. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Real Food Healthy Body blog

Maybe this isn’t precisely a COI issue but I can’t think of a better noticeboard for an editing disagreement over what belongs in a blog put out by a fitness model. Also whether links to advertisements featuring the model are good BLP references. Thanks! The recent edit history should make it pretty clear. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Does not sound like a COIN issue... unless there's more? --- Possibly ☎ 04:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:DR for better venues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
 14:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:George Cervantes

The originator of the article is a

paid editing; other explanations are equally unpleasant. Robert McClenon (talk
) 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have already explained that I am not getting paid to create this page. I attend the same church that Mr. Cervantes attends on Sundays and volunteer at the same animal organizations that he does as well. I work with the Humane Society in Los Angeles, California and have seen what Cervantes has done for the orgaization and other animal groups in the area. I was just simply creating a page for him. I do not intent on collect any form of form of payment or anything of that nature. I already said this on a different page, but maybe I wrote it on the wrong location. I am so sorry if I didn't make that clear from the begining, but like i said there is no financial gains to be made here. This is simply a page to display what Cervantes has done for the animal community right here in LA. Thank you! --Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@
declare the COI. But by a change in circumstances, I do not mean finding yet another article about the same animal rescue efforts and celebrity matchmaking in all the other sources you had gathered. Cheers, --SVTCobra
19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to explain everything in detail. I will apply your tips on the next draft. Thank you! --Marcorubiocali (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The author did not apply any tips on the next draft, but simply created a new draft and then moved it to article space, and it has now been taken to
AFD. Either the author isn't trying to pay attention to advice, or they are paying attention and ignoring it on purpose. Robert McClenon (talk
) 01:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

JuJu Chan

As you can see from their contribs, they modify exclusively the article about the actress JuJu Chan or other articles about topics related to her, like her husband or some films she did. They constantly try to make her look younger, changing her birth year to 1989. They uploaded high quality photos of her (and her husband) and they claim they own the rights. In my opinion it is very likely that there is a conflict of interest, maybe it's also the same person with a sock puppet. Martin Mystère (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to notify anyone who's the subject of a discussion here. I've done that for you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't know it. --Martin Mystère (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out something really weird that happened few hours ago. Currently, a 2013
Eastweek article is used to support 1986 as her birth year, but after this discussion has been opened and the users have been notified, the birth date disappeared fom that source! You can see that "出生日期：1986年2月2日" is not present in the article nowadays, while the pages archived by the Wayback Machine show it clearly. And, of course, an IP from Hong Kong removed everything from the Wikipedia article saying that in the source there is "no age reference". --Martin Mystère (talk
) 12:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Martin Mystère: We advise subjects that if sources are wrong, they should approach the source to request an update or correction be made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
First time using this Talk. Not sure if this is the way to reply.
I am a hobby editor here, only interested in updating a few pages of people I want to contribute about with updated information I came across with. The East Week link you keep referring to is not a trustworthy source. There are other sources (including complaint reports) quoting that that media is not reliable .
I’ve found other sat down interviews with her age that is from more reliable sources , that’s why I’ve been reverting your edits. --Djjasonwu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Please, don't play with us. 99.9% of your edits are related to JuJu Chan, you have literally done only that. And don't let me talk about how you are cherry picking the complaints on East Week (one in 2015 and one in 1997, come on...) and you are suggesting us to use pufferies from Nextshark (deleted) or Vogue HK, the latter written by JuJu Chan herself (and it is not mentioning her age, by the way). If there is a conflict of interest and you are part of her team like Cecilial14, disclose it in your user page. --Martin Mystère (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
For a
WP:BLPPRIVACY, it might be reasonable to leave the birthdate off entirely... Russ Woodroofe (talk
) 11:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
We did it. This is something to discuss in the talk. --Martin Mystère (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Aren’t you just cherry picking also by selecting only East Weekly as proof of her birthday, and disregarding the others?
Sorry I didn’t realize she is the author of the Vogue article, my apologies for including it. If you are saying NextShark is a puffery, then isn’t Next Week basically the same? Here’s another article from Tatler with her age mentioned . To be clear, I DON’T work for JuJu Chan!
I think it’s more helpful if we stick with the facts instead of playing on conspiracy theories and assumptions. I’ve got no time to PLAY, as you suggest. Just wanted to give what is clearly more accurate information to wiki. I’ll leave it to you professionals to do what you like. --Djjasonwu (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not the right place to discuss about her birthday, this talk is. Here we discuss about a possible conflict of interests and allow me to doubt that an user who modified only JuJu Chan articles since 2012 and uploaded high quality photos of her (like another user, who admitted to be part of her PR team on Commons) is in fact related to her. But briefly: I am not selecting sources since, as you can see, in the Wikidata item I wrote all the serious sources that I found to support 4 different years. Unfortunately the databases (IMDb, etc...) are not reliable and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. When I have more news articles claiming different things (the age, for example) I take the oldest one, especially in a case like this one, in which the subject became internationally famous recently. Now the birthdate has been removed from the Wikipedia article, by the way. --Martin Mystère (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I invited User:BriefEdits for comment. --SVTCobra 00:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: We can write off Cecilial14 as an obvious COI due to her declaration. Cecilia114's edits all seem to promote upcoming projects, try to make the subject appear younger, or intentionally hide information; definitely a very manicured approach to editing. I think it was weird in September 2021 that they both did very similar edits to hide her NYU graduation year (Cecilial14's edit vs. Djjasonwu's edit) and that the subject's alumni profile page suddenly disappeared from the registry. It's my fault for not archiving it but the insistence on the unavailability of her graduation year only seems to perpetuate the myth that she is younger than she really is. I'm not sure if Djjasonwu is also COI but he definitely seems to contribute to a lot of disruptive edits. (Such as removing alma mater that's not NYU because I'm assuming that they could trace the graduation year and "infer" her real age or removing her non-stage name despite having added the same name 9 years ago). Regardless, both these users seem to be operating on some sort of agenda that is not productive for the subject's page. — BriefEdits (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I had declared that I was her PR manager in 2018, I was only hired to line up her appearances back then, and I haven't worked with the company for over a year. During the time with the company, also before, and after, I had never been asked to or being paid directly or indirectly to update or edit her page. I did it at my own time when I saw incorrect info, a link that is dead, and also some info that is not related to her filming career so I started making edits. I didn't know my position has a Conflict of interest in this... since I am not welcome here... I won't edit her page anymore. Cecilial14 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Well... You have also been hired to change her age, since that is your second edit (made in 2016). Moreover you uploaded photos, changed her name, created the article of her husband and removed infos as BriefEdits explained. --Martin Mystère (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Djjasonwu: Maybe you could tell us precisely where you have found this image, since you simply wrote "Source from Internet", or why you claimed to be the owner. --Martin Mystère (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I copy here the answer to the previous question:

[...] I found her reps’ emails online, so I sent out emails and asked for some photos. I got a couple back, so I used one. I saw a request has been placed to remove that photo. Sorry I don’t understand what photos can be uploaded and what cannot. [...]

Now the photo has been deleted. It was a high quality, 2,561 × 3,840 (2.41 MB) image that could not be found on internet and could only belong to the actress or to her PR team. We should ask ourselves if Djjasonwu, as Cecilial14, actually worked with them having a conflict of interests, instead of simply contacting her privately once. --Martin Mystère (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel of Urantia

This article is about a man who is a controversial cult leader. By reading the page you would think he is simply a musician. All edits I have made with added references have been reverted and deemed vandalism by the user Clear_insight. This user appears to have created this page and made nearly every contribution.

Nothyself (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you're adding unsourced defamatory claims in a
WP:BLP. This source None of the sources that you added say anything about him being a cult leader. They make no mention of cults. Schazjmd (talk)
00:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Going back to last month, you were trying to cite an article in a minor local paper that does not state he is a cult leader nor does it say the group is a cult (although it tries to imply that it is). You need better sources than that to support adding that type of content to a
WP:BLP. You should be discussing this on the article's talk page. You posted on the talk page that "Tons of substantiated information is available" so providing better refs should be possible. Schazjmd (talk)
00:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Then again, you've got to be a little concerned about any entity that has a page on its website entitled Why We Are Not a Cult. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I've added a COI warning to User talk:Clear insight as their account name and pattern of edits indicates that they may possibly have a conflict of interest with Gabriel of Urantia and Global Community Communications Alliance. Schazjmd (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I looked around and could not find anything directly saying GCCA/Gabriel of Urantia is a cult. There are a few sources that basically say they are "different". --- Possibly ☎ 01:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it is a cult. I did a before on it. It seems to be a mechanism to attract students to their school and sell the book and the music. He was formerly called TaliasVan of Tora. States on his Medium page, that he is a spiritual leader. scope_creepTalk 15:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, maybe the word cult is not used by every source but what else do we label it? There is a book published August 2021 New Age Grifter: The Story of Gabriel of Urantia And His Cosmic Family. Here is an article from the so-called Cult Education Institute on Gabriel of Urantia. He appeared on NBC's Dateline in 1998 and apparently has been trying to scrub it from the web ever since. The New York Times summarized the episode. He has changed his name many times so it can be hard to find sources on him. Nothyself (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GlenJohnHodgson

Editor using username of famous musician, creating promo piece about himself on userpage. I reported at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention and was told to bring it here. Equine-man (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no prohibition on people writing about themselves in their own sandbox; nor indeed on a CoI editor drafting an article outside mainspace and then requesting review by independent editors, as happened in this case, via AfC. That is what we ask CoI editors to do. Nothing for us to do here. I notice that the user's talk page is still a red link; you are required to notify anyone you mention here. Before reporting them here, you should have welcomed them and offered them advice on CoI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The user account was blocked by an admin, and there is no mainspace page currently. TiggerJay (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

World Council of Credit Unions

User's account name implies a connection between the user and the article subject. The user inserted content copied from the WCCU's about page into the article. Seems like a single-purpose account. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment my first time here, so pardon any issues in handling. They've been username blocked and I'll rev-del the copyvio, thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 18:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the current COI accounts are not a problem. I did some BOLD editing. It appears that this organization is notable, it will just take the effort of interested editors to improve the content with reliable, third-party sources. TiggerJay (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

David Oliver (magician)

This user had edited this page since 2008, but it was only today after reversions earlier in the week that this user declared themselves as the subject of the article (disclosures made on both my Talk page in edit history and on the article's Talk page). I tried to speedy delete the page citing

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as now the subject wants his article deleted, but was met with opposition. At the moment, I am neutral on the subject's notability, but am appalled myself at where to go next in this matter. Jalen Folf (talk)
03:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I counted about ten good sources for the sex abuse allegations, which is presumably what he wants deleted. One source was Newsweek, so I do not think the article will be deleted any time soon. Regarding the balance of the sex abuse allegations section, that could be checked by an editor with experience in that area. Regarding the COI, we'll just revert him as it seems like he is not helping the wiki with his edits. --- Possibly ☎ 03:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:BLPCRIME, I think the material about the arrest and indictment should probably be removed until he is actually convicted. (That is, I don't think he's such a public figure that the notability of the arrest overrides the BLP issues.) Russ Woodroofe (talk
) 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It is a sad situation and a cautionary tail to others. It likely would have failed notability prior to 2019, but his efforts to establish notability is now backfiring. What is more unfortunate is that the person who first brought this content to his page probably has a conflict of interest, because they also edited another page about another magician in a positive light. Oh well, fame cuts both ways... I agree that
ownership questions. TiggerJay (talk)
22:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with It likely would have failed notability prior to 2019. Perhaps if it were only based on the stories in the article, but there's in-depth coverage of this guy from The Boston Globe that predates that by quite a bit. Taken together with the nine-page feature story in Magic Magazine, and other coverage present in the article at that time, the individual would have likely satisfied
talk
) 05:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Gold Springs Resource

"GRC" is the company's ticker symbol. This account has made no edits on any other topic, and has made no disclosure of paid editing or COI, even though they've been warned. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No Labels

This article for this US dark money political funding group appears to have one or more paid editors given the advertising tone of sections like 'notable achievements' and directly quoting press releases from the organisation, I can't work out from the edit summary who has been adding this promotional material. Are there any templates or anything else that could be done to both warn the reader and/or put it on a list for review? Thanks John Cummings (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I made some edits to reduce the promotional tone and improve NPOV. I did remove the UPE template, however, as without any specific claims of UPE, it doesn't belong.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
single-purpose accounts
. See:
The username pattern is obvious, and the accounts' actions clearly show that they are not genuine newcomers: Lynda22's, RedRobin95's, and Nat832's first edits were to place userboxes on their user pages, and in
WP:NPOV. Kleinpecan (talk
) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much Kleinpecan, is there any way to flag this to say it needs help? John Cummings (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Aside from the {{Promotional tone}} template, which the article already is marked with, probably not. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I've put a warning on AbrahamLeib18's page. John Cummings, regarding your problem with learning where the promotional material comes from, are you aware of the "Who Wrote That?" browser extension? See [10]. It sounds (and is) a little complicated to get, for us non-techies, but once you get it, it's fantastically useful and intuitive. It supersedes the cumbersome Wikiblame tool. Bishonen | tålk 19:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC).
Thanks very much Bishonen, I guess most of my interest is in fixing the article, if you have any suggestions of where I could go for help with this it would be really appreciated. John Cummings (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Elliott Fisher

Refers to Fisher as "my client" but makes no disclosure. Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this article has been on here before under a different name, about 3 years ago. scope_creepTalk 14:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ulrich Kutschera

Diwata2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account User talk:Diwata2 is clearly connected to the subject of Ulrich Kutschera. They attempted five times to create the article, before finally succeeding (unsuccessful attempts 1 2 3 4). On six different occasions, they removed information about controversial statements Kutschera made to the press (1 23456). These had been added by five different editors. They also created the article Rajnish Khanna (twice, after seeing their first try speedily deleted as "unambiguous advertising" log). Khanna is a collaborator of Kutschera, as we know from the introduction of the article as it was created and reverse references to both Khan and his company, i-cultiver, which Diwana2 added here. Once the Khanna article existed, they also changed the latter reference to link the article. That reference mentions both as working with Winslow Briggs and, lo and behold, they added mentions and links to Kutschera in 2018 and to Khanna in 2021. The only other change on Briggs was the addition of a photo which they Winslow Briggs claim to hold copyright in], as they do for the photos of Rajnish Khanna. Staying on commons, they also once uploaded a photo of Alfred Kutschera. In that case, they claimed to have] "permission from the son, Ulrich Kutschera".

Diwata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The father's article on dewiki was created by User:Diwata. That user, who is now blocked indefinitely on dewiki for POV edits on that language version of Ulrich Kutschera's article, has only made one edit here, adding a photo of Kutschera. When that photo was deleted, it was uploaded again by U.Kutschera proving their rights in a VTR ticket. There is also a user Diwata~commonswiki, i. e. a user named Diwata until it had to be renamed when accounts were merged. That user also proved their identity in VTR ticket #2013070910004415 and uploaded a series of images credited to "Prof. Dr. Ulrich Kutschera".

Returning to Diwata2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they have not responded to requests to disclose CoIs on their talk page nor on the article's talk page, but instead reverted additions to the article after those requests were made. Karl Oblique (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Karl, you *must* notify all parties of this discussion. You can use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
My apologies! I have adde notices on the respective talk pages, User talk:Diwata2, User talk:Diwata, and User talk:U.Kutschera. I have struck one user account from the list above, because it does not exist here. --Karl Oblique (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Karl here that Diwata appears to be a SPA that is only here to promote Kutschera and co. That said,
WP:BLP does apply, and your current sourcing for a lot of these claims are lacking, and you need to find proper sources that cover these claims. Have these controversies been mentioned in German newspapers? Hemiauchenia (talk
) 06:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
If you check the last version I edited, October 31, 2021, there are ample sources for these claims. Just to check: you should see 35 references in total. Of those, seven are concerning various allegations. These are references 7-11, 26, and 27. Each one includes a link to a Google-translate-version under the slightly misappropriated lay summary. The publications in question are beyond reproach: Der Spiegel (article, reference #8) , Süddeutsche Zeitung (article, reference #11), Die Zeit (article, reference #9), etc. Karl Oblique (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Leftover

All accounts have been blocked for paid votes to delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Maher (writer). All people disclosed that they made paid votes but User:Billyatthewheels haven't yet. [11] Other paid articles from them are: Sawandi Wilson, Suraj Beera, Cupid Chan. 76.167.87.53 (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This complaint seems to make no sense. None of the delete arguments I can see have been redacted (we do not remove arguments wholesale unless they were advanced by an already blocked user) and the only thing here which implies any paid editing is the note from the
volunteer responce team agent which explicitly names Simplewikipedian (talk · contribs) - who's since been blocked - as one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano
22:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm bit confused about this notification. I started editing Wikipedia articles a few months ago as fun but soon I started to feel that I'm contributing something significant to the whole Wikipedia project. Obviously I am not expert in Wikipedia matters and I only make edits or try to create new pages in my free time only but I will definitely disclose COI if there is one. Thanks. Billyatthewheels (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin A5

User Wham2019 appears to be closely associated with the research group proposing a hypothetical concept of

WP:SCIRS reviews. The only edits this user has made in their editing history since beginning in 2019 have been to support the concept of vitamin A subtypes. COI disclosure has been requested on the user's talk page and vitamin A5 talk page, but this produced no response. Wham2019 has not participated in specific discussion on criticisms by sections used in the article. I suspect the user is a paid member of the research group whose publications are the only sources used in the vitamin A5 stub, and that these two concept articles - vitamin A2 and vitamin A5 - are placeholders to give credibility and visibility via Wikipedia for ideas not widely adopted in vitamin A science. Zefr (talk
) 16:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


-> Wham2019 answered all questions by Zefr, who is the ONLY one pushing for deletion. Zefr is NOT responding and considering answers from additional people in the talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wham2019 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Institute for Adult Learning

Hillarytwt is a

SPA editor who only edits Institute for Adult Learning, updating corporate information about the institute. I had placed 2 COI notices which the editor had not replied.Justanothersgwikieditor (talk
) 07:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Fairly confident that this is a case of undisclosed paid editing, based on a bit of searching (not including details per
WP:OUTING). --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 22:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Drm310: Hilarytwt stated that they own the copyright for commons:File:IAL Centre for Innovation & Development Logo.png. I've blocked them. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Ironic that the logo should probably have been marked {{PD-textlogo}} after all. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnathon Schaech

User John Schaech has spent three days editing the wiki page for Johnathon Schaech to include various non-neutral phrases such as "one of Hollywood’s most handsome leading men" [12], and claiming to have "starred" in various movies that the actor in question could, at most, be considered a supporting cast member. [13] [14] Klohinxtalk 04:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well for starters, this is a case of
assuming good faith if you see their post on Melcous
's talk page.
Their post also implied a years-long edit war exists on the article. I can see some
single-purpose account activity in 2015 from the accounts BiancaPage, Wandaful, Ljulie.solomon and Petercardlinjr (the latter two are definite COI, as one can determine with a bit of searching), but the accounts are all stale. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 05:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This editor User:Justinbrewer1 just newly arrived (been here since 2017 but never really edited until this huge drop) and reverted the minor copyedit I did, adding the Amazon shop reference back in. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)`

User Scope Creep has violated Wikipedia guidelines by making personal attacks on me. He accused me of being a paid editor which I am not. He accused me of having a conflict of interest which I do not. The user appears to be obsessed with Mr. Schaech by trying to denigrate his resume by making editorial edits that -from what i see in the Wikipedia rules- violate the standards of being fair and accurate. He also seems to think that any correction of his edit is a direct assault on him rather than a correction of the record. NO attempt was made to reach out to me before these public and scurrilous allegations were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinbrewer1 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Justinbrewer1: you say you know him. Are you part of his "team" as mentioned above? Are you just a friend? Doug Weller talk 14:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Just a friend Doug. I don't know of any team. Also I made the changes on my own and not at his direction. I explain a bit more down below in an answer to user Possibly. Thanks! Justinbrewer1 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeated edits appear to be vandalism by a user who seems to be obsessed with the subject. Edits that I made were based on fact. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you please, through direct quotation, provide evidence of edits made by scope creep that are in violation of Wikipedia standards, and explain exactly how such edits violate them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
actually I would ask the same of what was said about my edits. direct quotation would also be appreciated. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. But since you have been asked to provide the evidence first, perhaps you could start the process off by doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's so typical of users with a conflict of interest to accuse experienced editors who push back against their promotional editing of being actually the ones with the COI,[15] being "obsessed" with "denigrating" the subject,[16] and editing out of "malice"[17] that I almost regard it as a "tell" or dead giveaway. As far as any relation between Justinbrewer1 and John Schaech, I have inquired of a CheckUser, who'll probably get to it tomorrow. Meanwhile, since the John Schaech account has acknowledged representing several people (it signs as "John Schaech's team" here), I have blocked it, as that is against Wikipedia's principles. An account may only represent one person. Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC).

Update: the CU I asked (Doug Weller above) did not see grounds for checking the accounts. Bishonen | tålk 06:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC).
Describing the Wikipedia article for Johnathon Schaech as the résumé for the subject sets off a few red flags. This edit while perhaps not inappropriate, seems to have been retaliatory. Let's take it a little bit slower. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I would agree that taking things slower would be good on both ends of this. That however was not done every time other edits were made and then retaliatory revisions were made. I was publicly slammed with no attempt to discuss the edits with me. At least that is what it appeared to be. As for a use of a word like resume being a "red flag". These pages do reflect a person's life and career. That is what I meant. Nothing more. If that was offensive it was in no way my intention. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Straight out bullying and condescending . I DO know Schaech. the guidelines say that is allowed and not as you falsely claim at COI. Justinbrewer1 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not bullying. it is indeed a red flag, one which you just now confirmed. You knowing the subject is, on the other hand, a conflict of interest per
paid editor may be false but it does not preclude a conflict. If you are seeking to de-escalate this, I think you are going about it the wrong way. --SVTCobra
01:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Justinbrewer1: thanks for confirming that you know Schaech. We just need to know if you are coordinating with him to make edits, or how close that relationship is. In general we prefer that COI edits such as yourself (since you know him, you have a COI by our established standards) use the talk page for requested edits and refrain from editing the page directly. Thanks in advance for explaining your relationship to Schaech. --- Possibly ☎ 03:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. No, i am not editing at his direction. He had mentioned that factual information had been deleted. I had a similar problem on a page so I added back non-editorial information that was deleted yet factual. I did not undo what appeared to be deletions of things that were editorial in nature. And thank you for being so accommodating and understanding rather than going on the attack as others have. Much appreciated! Justinbrewer1 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • ownership of the article. I'm more than happy to step away and let others review my edits. If the sole issue was whether Tom Hanks' name should be included attached to one particular movie (as they have suggested) that would be one thing, but the subject of an article persistently editing (and enlisting multiple others) to include the names of multiple (more?) famous people on projects they have worked on are connected to seems to me to be another. Melcous (talk
    ) 12:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    • This is a mess. I see he's involved Amy Butcher who is now trying to involved Mark Pellegrino. I just restored a review to Butcher's article removed by an spa IP on the grounds it was too negative. And we have a new editor on his article whose first and only edit was to it. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Doug Weller, yes he has now tweeted Meredith Lake asking her to "tell your editor Melcous to stop bullying me". Just to be clear, I do not know Meredith Lake. I did create the wikipedia article about her. Is he assuming that everyone who has a wikipedia page has a relationship with the person who has edited it? Does he think I work for her? Again, this perhaps says more about his own misunderstanding of how the whole project works than anything else. Melcous (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@melcous I believe you're correct in your speculation about John's misunderstanding. I don't think anyone has emphasized to him that a primary pillar of wiki is neutrality. It's an encyclopedia, but's it's also immediate publicity at the top of every search result. For entertainers, that's an odd concept to have an online presence that can't be groomed.

It's a nice gesture to say you'll step away from the editing and I think that would be beneficial. The frequency, and the amount, of objective content that you've redacted from the article is significant. The intention behind that is suspect, considering how many other articles on this site include the entertainer's costars/writers/directors/producers. He also doesn't understand that edit summaries such as puffery and meatpuppets are normative here. To non-users, they appear as capricious insults. So that's also escalating tensions Matchbox23 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

assume good faith rather than suggesting my intentions are "suspect". I also reject the characterisation that the subject has made on twitter and that you are now repeating here that I have "redacted" "significant" content. I have reverted conflict of interest and promotional editing - that is not the same thing. Melcous (talk
) 09:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Melcous you have edited/removed/redacted a significant amount of content. And a lot of the content was objective data, not all promotional puffery. I do hope someone John knows will persuade him that your editing isn't an effort to undermine his work. But it comes across that way when so much was deleted from that page, by you, so vigilantly. While other entertainers' pages have lots of fluff. Matchbox23 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Matchbox23, your assertion that "other entertainers' pages have lots of fluff" carries no merit. While it likely is true for some, that does not make it right. That fluff should also be removed and not be used as a reason for fluff on Mr. Schaech's article. So, please, if you notice fluff, remove it or notify somebody. --SVTCobra 00:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
SVTCobra Consider this wiki article created by Melcous [1]. There are an abundance of entities that Melcous includes in the article that published the author's work. Please explain how that is different than Schaech's page listing an abundance of entities that he's worked with? Working with a director or actor lends credibility just as published under a magazine lends credibility. But his credibility citations are edited out for "name dropping". The fact that other articles contain costars/directors/producers/writers, and phrases of "award-winning", creates a double-standard when those same elements are removed from his page. And the fact that Melcous has edited Schaech's page so many times, it comes across now as very targeted and fixated, so no wonder he feels bullied. Matchbox23 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Matchbox23 to link to an article you do this: [[Amy Butcher]]. Melcous wrote 12.7% of the current version. An IP from near Butcher's employment wrote a large amount in 2018-2020.[19] Do you agree that seems odd? In 201y this IP, geolocating in the same city, wrote a large chunk.[20] My guess is that the IPs were either the subject of the article or someone she knows. This is a big problem for us. I'm thinking that the text you are talking about might not be hers - if you can quote some, I have a Chrome extension called "Who wrote that" that will tell me who wrote it. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Butcher

Trying to find a way forward

In the interests of taking some of the heat out of this and trying to find a way forward, I'm not sure if Mr Schaech or his team are watching this discussion, or if editors like John Schaech or Matchbox23 are in touch with them. But from his comments on twitter, he may be under the impression that he/his publicist/people he knows etc are prevented from editing here. That is not quite the case. What they would need to do is:

  1. Properly
    disclose
    who they are
  2. Agree not to directly edit
    talk pages
  3. Use the
    neutral
    .

Others who have followed this guidelines have actually found editors here quite willing to help them. Melcous (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Admission of paid editing

See [21] where he says "I’m learning challenged so I have tried to hire people. But it still gets taken down." Doug Weller talk 09:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

And there is something about attempts to remove
That Thing You Do from the article which I don't see at all, but it seems to be infuriating people on Twitter. --SVTCobra
02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:COI accounts have repeatedly added details (including but not limited to "name dropping" famous co-stars) that read promotionally (e.g. Wandaful, BiancaPage, Petercardlinjr, CherShapiro, John Schaech, Justinbrewer1) and these have been reverted by a number of different editors over the years not just me (e.g. Zaokski,Pondrumm, Bbb23, Jmg38, Melcous). Thanks. Melcous (talk
) 02:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
melcous This issue on Twitter has come down to John feeling bullied. You became the subject because of your persistence and a huge redaction that you did on Johnathon Schaech. And I agreed with him initially because of my limited understanding of wiki's very strong emphasis on Neutral Point of View (NPOV). So it appeared very targeted and malicious. Instead of talking about his tweeting in a forum that he doesn't know how to use, you might consider meeting him where he's at (go on Twitter) and explain it's mot malicious and the NPOV concept of Wiki. From what I've observed of his Twitter presence, he's incredibly good-hearted and is just feeling helpless about this and he doesn't understand. The terminology on wiki such as "puffery" and "meatpuppets" is so derogatory that - when someone isn't familiar with the editors vernacular - imagine how offensive it sounds. For a community that wants editors to approach interaction on "good faith" it's odd that such derogatory terms are widely utilized to summarize edits (I did like that little peacock illustration on the puffery wiki page though). You questioned by intentions yesterday. My intentions are to understand and perhaps broker some peace. Above all, it would be ideal for John to not feel like the target of harassment, which means understanding about NPOV. If he tweets about it again, I'll reply to him and try to explain. BTW DougWeller was on Twitter defending you. I suspect he was also trying to bridge the gap of misunderstanding. It's nice to have guys like that on your squad. Matchbox23 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:MEATPUPPET. They've been involved in editing the article in question here and, if it wasn't Butcher herself, Amy Butcher's article. That's not good for an encyclopedia, and the essential thing to grasp here is that this is an encyclopedia and at times better than paper ones. And as you may have noticed, most meatpuppets are anonymous. It's fine for friends and family to use talk pages to try to influence an article, but not to change it anonymously. As for "puffery", it's a real thing and a problem also.Doug Weller talk
12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
promotional content. And as the diffs I linked to above show, at least 5 separate editors have attempted to pare back that kind of content from the article at different times. So I'd really appreciate if you both you and he would stop making this personal about me. Finally, once again, I did not make a "huge redaction" - I assume you are referring to this edit - I reverted blatant COI and promotional editing, again a distinction which Mr Schaech might not understand, but one that matters here. Thank you, Melcous (talk
) 05:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Melcous I'm not repeating a narrative, I'm describing how your actions appear and the affect those actions are having. I see that you would prefer to talk about him in a forum he doesn't understand (Wiki) than in a forum you apparently know how to use (Twitter). You had the opportunity to diffuse it yourself by providing essential insight into the NPOV. I am therefore done trying to build a bridge. Regarding the tools page you linked, I know how to read statistics. And your attempt to minimize your impacts to the edits on that page do not leave me convinced. You've removed thousands more characters from the page than anyone else in the last several years. Because this situation has become such a mess, and you feel this is personal about you, I would anticipate that any further editing of that page by you would be considered a COI. Matchbox23 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:COI by our definition. Doug Weller talk
12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@
NPOV by throwing random Wikipedia guidelines at her. What is a COI, then? Does John Schaech have a COI? They edited the article (the lead of the article, no less) to describe Schaech as "one of Hollywood’s most handsome leading men" and having "shown incredible versatility as an actor", so I think they probably do, yes. Here's the link to that edit, which Melcous cruelly reverted. Are you going to put that link on Twitter? Bishonen | tålk
12:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC).
Matchbox23 it's a bit rich to imply that I am at fault for being unwilling to go on Twitter and engage with him there. It has been unpleasant enough to have him and his followers writing about me there these last few days without knowing who I am - I can only imagine how bad it would have been if I had made myself personally known to them. More to the point, this whole thing started because Mr Schaech, people he knows, and people he has paid have been editing the article about him here for over ten years without taking time to understand what is wrong with that, despite multiple editors leaving talk page messages and notes in edit summaries. I'm sorry it has taken all this for him to get it, I really am, but I also think you need to stop presenting him as some kind of "innocent victim" in all this. Melcous (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Personal attacks of this nature, constitute harrassement under the Wikipedia:Harassment policy. It makes it difficult for Wikipedia editors, particularly women editors to operate on Wikipedia in safety and to enjoy the benefits of supposed collegiate atmosphere. It just dulls the whole experience of editing for everybody and puts the fear into editors who are not directly involved, the idea it can be taken off Wikipedia into social media and swollen up be something really nasty, that can itself have unintended consequences. Every editor who is involved on this article, who has edited this article, should be indefinitely blocked. This guy doesn't have Wikipedia as a core interest. scope_creepTalk 16:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Matchbox's allegations are frankly laughable and absurd, and the total opposite of what is actually true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

International Institute for Conservation

The

MrOllie (talk
) 22:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the issue, MrOllie. I'm helping the IIC run the editathon by providing some training for participants. It will involve people from around the world based at several universities. I understand that the undisclosed editing on the IIC article set off some alarm bells, and so there is caution around other related edits. I think the missteps on the IIC article were due to inexperience with Wikipedia and not being aware of policies around COI. Where things may be controversial or run into issues around COI I will advise people to use talk pages to propose changes so that the editing community has a chance to give input, and to avoid editing the article on the IIC itself. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Jazmin Bean and Riki Lindhome

This might be unorthodox, but I am actually bringing a dispute here based on COI accusations made against myself. I recently created an article for the English musician Jazmin Bean, to which a COI tag was swiftly added by Daily Spider Glee. They later added a POV tag, stating that Example text. They went on to add another COI tag to the article for Riki Lindhome, a page which I have been frequently editing for the past week, writing, Example text. They then left a COI notice on my talk page with the header "COI with Jazmin Bean/Universal Records/Interscope", which I assume was implying that I have a relationship with Bean's record company.

I responded to this, writing that I was confused as to how this user gathered that I had any connection with Bean or Lindhome, as the edits I made to both articles were all properly sourced and they never explained how they came to their conclusion. Their first response did little in the way of actually justifying their claims, stating that they got [me] banged to rights, but that they were not going to land [themselves] in the proverbial doggie doo by saying "what they have on me" or "how they did it". They stated that I needed to come clean in order for the situation to work out in my favor so that I would only get a slap on the wrist. They went on to write that they can't be bothered with COIN or ANI without explaining why. Their follow-up messages stated that the COI is very clear to them due to similarities between the article I created, which they called a hagiography, and a draft for an article about Bean that was declined, which they deemed promotional, but failed to identify what these similarities were or how they confirmed their suspicions that I was connected to Bean.

Like I stated in my talk page response to Daily Spider Glee, this is a complete non-sequitur. The idea that the article I created being similar to a declined draft means that I must be connected to Bean makes no logical sense. Just from looking at the draft, any similarities most likely stem from the fact that published articles about Bean are limited in number, so the information is naturally going to be the same. Worse yet, the accusation that I must have connections to all of the articles I have recently contributed to on Wikipedia is simply an

assumption of bad faith and is also entirely baseless. I don't know how to make it any clearer that I do not have a conflict of interest. I would rather not disclose my personal information but, if necessary, I can. benǝʇᴉɯ
19:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite. check your first paragraph, it says "example text" twice. I don't think that's what you wanted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: It seems the user has backed off of the claims of COI. --SVTCobra 01:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sidney Thompson

Srthompson721 created Sidney Thompson which is likely an autobiography (the subject's birthday is July 21) and their only edits are to promote Thompson both in the subject article and by adding blatantly promotional material to other articles (examples [23] and [24]) I gave them a COI warning but they just continued editing Thompson. They have been self-promoting for four months and were even asked to clarify their relationship when the article was in draft status. I can find no evidence they ever did so. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

And he's doing it. That's just one. Bkatcher (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted that. I think it needs an admin to have a chat with the editor. scope_creepTalk 21:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Although I think the books should be mentioned at Bass Reeves[25][26][27] and have added the mention to the article myself to take responsibility for that edit, Srthompson721 also appears to be adding them to articles that are not the primary subject of the books[28][29][30], which seems excessively promotional. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeffed. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUCK UPE

Snooganssnoogans reverted their Ben Kallos edit and warned them about COI on their talk page, and I've reverted the other edits and added a UPE warning as well. BubbaJoe123456 (talk
) 16:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A 2nd editor, Tomben2 has attempted to restore the same puffery to Manhattan House. Slywriter (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The editor responded to the notice I placed on their talk page, denying that they're a paid advocate. I replied on their talk page. I'm trying really hard to AGF, but this contribution history definitely makes it difficult. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
These editors are blatant COI editors.
talk
) 17:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that Tomben2 has declared in an edit summary, Special:Diff/1051288331, that they are a paid editor. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User_talk:Possibly#Paid_Edits_Concern, please review the statement by Tomben2 here that states they are "five friends learning wikipedia" and that only his latest draft is paid, which just doesn't sit right with me. Possibly may have the right idea that an SPI is needed or some other administrative action. Slywriter (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Another attempt by Annaspencer13 to add a huge amount of non-NPOV content to V. Raghavan. I reverted. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I've just G11'd The Gibbons Group - Real Estate Team as essentially an awards list, and I came here from a notice on their talk as I was about to template uw-paid... this is almost certainly UPE. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
And ANOTHER attempt to re-add the promo junk to V. Raghavan. Reverted again. Plus, created a highly promotional page for The Gibbons Group - Real Estate Team, which was CSD's by Giraffer. At this point, there's no way I can continue to AGF; the odds that this editing pattern are anything other than UPE are making Powerball look like a sure thing. The user has claimed that they aren't a paid editor, but the claim just isn't credible. An indef is in order. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. Thanks GeneralNotability! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. FWIW, CU has them  Confirmed to Tomben2 and  Likely or better to Audreyhamilton36 and one or two other accounts associated with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatima.Innovative. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Also likely to Fivesenses7879. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Great work!! scope_creepTalk 22:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
See further findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fatima.Innovative, I've upped my opinion to  Confirmed to them and Drmies found a bunch too. G5 at will. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Standard Life

Eugenia26 seems to be an account set up purely for promotional purposes. Eugenia26 has ignored multiple talk page messages. Statements repeatedly added by Eugenia26, in bold, include The Standard Life brand has a history of helping people to plan for their future that dates back to 1825. (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Has to be UPE, who writes edit summaries like "Standard Life current brand status"? --- Possibly ☎ 06:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dormskirk, If i add in the COI {{connected contributor (paid)}} to the Standard Life profile as well as sufficient references will i be able to update the profile accordingly?

Thank you for adding the connected contributor tag. You should post any proposed changes (with citations) to the Standard Life article talk page so the changes can be considered by other editors. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Dormskirk, i have tried to updated the wikipedia page prior to seeing this message i apologise. I will update the talk page with citation just now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenia26 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Just an update - again Eugenia26 has directly edited the Standard Life article with promotional text. They already received a reply on their talk page about their requested edit, so I'm not sure if they just don't like the reply they got and are ignoring it, or (assuming good faith) they are having a hard time understanding how to use the {{request edit}} feature and/or didn't see the reply. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WTTCO

The creator of the article appears to be run be involved in a WTTCO account for an advertising agency.

talk
) 02:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be true and the article seems to be of borderline relevance anyway. What else should be done about this article, if anything? Go4thProsper (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Nicaraguan general election

I am attempting to make good faith edits to improve this article. The article is about the 2021 general election that took place in Nicaragua. There is currently an attempt by the US State Department to push propaganda painting the elections as a "sham." There is currently no verifiable evidence for these accusations. The single source that is relied upon by every media outlet is "Urnas Abiertas," a European Twitter account and website that didn't exist prior to May 2021. Their sole source of legitimacy is a DC Thinktank called Wilson Center, which has staffers who also worke(d) at IDEA (https://idea.int). Mentioning the accusations of "sham election" is totally fine, but acting as if they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt when there is verifiable evidence to the contrary is an act of applying one point of view and violates the NPOV rule. We cannot cherry pick information that pushes one narrative. Additionally, the article itself consists mostly of speculation and misinformation. For example, prior to the election, many individuals were barred from ever registering as candidates (referred to in media as "pre candidates"). All of them were either formally charged with crimes and investigated and placed under arrest by authorities, or fled the country fearing arrest (according to articles added by other users, not me). To mention that these individuals were arrested but imply that the charges were bogus again violates the NPOV rule. Removing edits by me and others which mention the alleged crimes is vandalism. Users who continue to make false accusations of vandalism and bad-faith edits are themselves admitting that they have a bias. For example, in the talk page on the article, multiple users have admitted that they find "communist points of view" to be un-factual when the government of Nicaragua (and the majority of people there) are communist/socialist. Users making these criticisms seem to have a personal disagreement with communist ideology and seem to think that it isn't a "side" that can be as factual as "their" side (whatever that may be). Ironically, I have actually been using their own citations for the information I've added to the article. As I said above, to make a citation but refuse to mention half of the story is to cherry pick information and violates NPOV. In summary, this article is becoming a tabloid / propaganda piece, and is in need of a major overhaul by a senior editor and/or supervision or lock by an admin. I am growing tired of spending hours trying to add useful information and having discussions with other good-faith editors to come to a consensus... just to have one or two individuals come in and blank out the useful good-faith additions and leave comments that the evil communist government of Nicaragua is locking people up for no reason. If they were willing to add ALL OF THE INFORMATION from their own citations, they would see there were credible accusations and credible criminal charges filed against every single one of the "pre-candidates." It isn't our job to decide which charges are or aren't "legitimate!" It isn't our job to decide which countries get self-determination and which ones don't! This is an educational resource, not an opinion column! Asaturn (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Do I need to call out the specific editors by name on here? I am new to editing wikipedia and do not understand this process. I simply need help from someone who is more neutral in their understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks. Asaturn (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Update: the most problematic user, Bill_Williams, is actually banned from editing political pages, but is somehow editing the page in question and reverting the good faith edits of myself and other users. This user has continuously made false accusations against me of being a "far left" / "communist" agent adding "propaganda" to the article. I have done none of these things. I'm not sure how this user is editing this page - is it miscategorized, or does their ban need to be expanded to events as well? Asaturn (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You should read the boilerplate at the top of this noticeboard. Links to the article and any facts you assert are immensely helpful (like Diffs). Notification of the users you mention here is required. --SVTCobra 03:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I opened a WP:AN so anyone reading this should also check that out. Just for clarification, my topic ban on American politics was lifted eight months ago, and I was never banned from editing Nicaraguan politics, while Asaturn clearly should be considering his edits have been reverted by myself and multiple other editors (as you can see in my comment on WP:AN). Bill Williams 03:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Asaturn: Please provide a link to this ban Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I can provide you with that[31] and Asaturn has already admitted[32] that he realizes I am not topic banned and haven't been for over eight months, and that the topic ban was irrelevant to this topic. Bill Williams 08:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
As this is the noticeboard related to conflicts of interests, it does not appear to be the adquate venue for the issue. Link to the related ANI discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Repeated Vandalism on 2021 Nicaraguan General Election Page --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I see zero evidence that anyone involved has a conflict of interest so whatever problems may or may not exist with the page, this seems completely the wrong place to try and resolve them. As an aside, there has been widespread criticism of the arrests. Given the arrests, there has also been widespread criticism of the election, since you cannot have a free and fair election when opponents are subject to arbitrary arrest. So to suggest it comes from a single think thank is spurious. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Nil Einne, it seems people are confusing POV with COI. --SVTCobra 00:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Building Technology & Ideas Ltd.

Aradna007, an SPA, refuses to refrain from transparent, egregious, and persistent undisclosed paid editing on Building Technology & Ideas Ltd. They have not answered to me or Dl2000 regarding their obvious affiliation with BTI, and they continue to redo their reverted edits and and even add more paid material. I'm so directly accusatory because they can't even maintain a facade of not being an undisclosed paid editor. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

NB: I added the pagelinks and userlinks above. --SVTCobra 00:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Tariq Nasheed

Long-term COI problems, being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Wennradio --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The admin that warned Wennradio of the coi problems suggests the discussion should be here. [33] --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Here they say they are the representative of Tariq Nasheed. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
So there's no need to read what's at ANI:
Wennradio has a declared coi[34][35], is a spammer ([36] [37][38][39][40][41]...), and a SPA with less than 150 edits over 13 years. --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Given these facts, what further action can or should be taken regarding this article? Go4thProsper (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Find better refs that can give a broader perspective on Tariq Nasheed, and expand the article based upon them. --Hipal (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have tried in the past, when the article came to AfD, there's generally not a lot out there, many passing mentions but little substantial. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wennradio is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

And claiming they aren't paid. Dubious. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Axe Brand and Sunshine Bakeries

This is more of a potential crosswiki abuse. Axe Brand article was created on 11 Nov by Johnshakur, and images (logo and other copyrighted images) were uploaded by Aong Leran on the same day in commons. Images added on the article by Johnshakur on the same day. For Sunshine Bakeries, the article was created on 24 Oct by Johnshakur, and images (logo and product images) were uploaded by Noor Tan Zak on the same day in commons. Images added on the article by Johnshakur on the same day. Language and content on both articles seems to be promotional, and indicative of that Johnshakur account may be a UPE. Noor Tan Zak and Aong Leran aren't registered on this wiki, however notification will be sent to the users on their Talk pages here on enwiki, and crossposted in commons. – robertsky (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually that user left this message on my talk page. Maybe he chose randomly someone amongst the administrators' list. -- Blackcat 14:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
On Commons, it was determined that Noor Tan Zak is a sock of Ineedtostopforgetting--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Which means Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting is a better place for this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Ymblanter, noted. I actually have requested to check on JohnShakur at SPI casepage. Will add the above to there. – robertsky (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_179&oldid=1141926931"