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

• Iridium Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 128.177.26.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someone is apparently copypasting info from promotional material into the article.

Tagged COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rossy Evelin Lima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grldpadilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article appears to have been created and constantly updated by the subject's spouse, Gerald A. Padilla.

Tagged as likely COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• National Informatics Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 14.139.11.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP is evidently a contractor the NIC has hired to puff up their Wikipedia page, per their contributions and this edit summary. The article as a whole has always had an issue with promotional text, but one of the major contributors on that front is blocked for a username violation and I'm not so sure about a third. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 06:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been traced to the National Informatics Centre using WHOIS. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jim Bates (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 99Truthbetold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly removing sourced material. Not engaging in discussion. The article probably needs more eyes on it. [1][2][3][4]OrionTribute (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still ongoing. [5] OrionTribute (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.86.138.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This article is about a county-level politician. My first impression of it was that it seemed quite promotional. But rather than being primarily written by a SPA as these bios usually are, this one has substantial contributions by long-term editors as well as a many edits by one or more IPs who seems to agree the article is one-sided - but their edits clearly show a bias against the subject. There has been edit-warring and protection applied. I think the article could use some more eyes to look at the content from a neutral perspective, if anyone wants to work on this. MB 01:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this belongs At COIN, as you have not named specific COI issues. However it does belong somewhere, as the article on this local politician ran to 48KB! I trimmed 10KB that was all about the local government and how well it was doing. The article does indeed seem slanted, given the large and detailed specific coverage it gives to such a run of the mill politician.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "bias" to know what Cunningham has actually done and the conditions he has created in the Lehigh Valley? The vast traffic jams he has helped create, with thousands of big rigs spilling out of warehouses built on his watch, are so unpopular locally that Cunningham takes to the local papers regularly to belittle his many critics. Why is it biased to wish to include that information or cite Cunningham's own words on the subject? No, the real bias is coming from that obvious flack Hunter Kahn, who has been fluffing Cunningham for years. That's why his page has grown like a cancer; it's all Hunter Kahn's doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.251 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was mentioned by name, I felt compelled to weigh in. LOL I've worked on this article in the past, and since I watchlist most articles I've worked on, I saw and made efforts to stop what I saw as clearly biased edits by the aforementioned IP editor in recent weeks/months. I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 12 years; my contributions can be found here and here. I'm also from Pennsylvania and I occasionally edit about local or state topics (I can cite a multitude of examples if need be), and even more often I sometimes like to just take a topic at random and write about it. Often when I edit, I like to focus on a single article, gather as many details as I can, make it as comprehensive as possible, then move on. (My edit history from the last few months alone show that.) I did so in the case of this Cunningham article, and as a result, it's possible I may have gone a bit overboard. If so, I welcome good faith edits from other editors, like the ones ThatMontrealIP made above, even if I don't agree with all of the changes. — Hunter Kahn 12:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a content dispute rather than COI. I see Hunter Kahn doing good faith editing but perhaps adding way too much detail, leading to the article being promotional. I also see the IP being pointy and less than helpful in the dialogue. Perhaps you two could just leave the article alone and go your separate ways? there are five million articles available to edit; all you have to do is unwach this one and move along. The COI claims are not relevant here, unless someone can point to specific evidence of COI editing. The real issue here is the neutrality of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in light of Hunter Kahn's willingness to accept the good faith edits of other editors, per WP:OWN, this article could use more eyes and edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm more than happy to accept the suggestion of ThatMontrealIP. I honestly haven't substantially edited the article in a while anyway; my primary concern was preventing what I perceived to be vandalism. Thanks for your efforts here ThatMontrealIP! — Hunter Kahn 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest as you demonstrated was in eliminating every single bit of information and every citation that cast Cunningham in anything but a positive light. You didn't discuss edits that were critical of him, you didn't try to improve that content; you just routinely deleted all of it. Your willingness to accept others' edits is merely an acknowledgement of reality, that the involvement now of editors who have an account makes it virtually impossible to continue your fluffing of Cunningham and your arbitrary deletions of factual information you don't happen to fancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.126 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Zuber K. Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Filmybhadaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is only here to promote Zuber K. Khan, adding unsourced promotional contents, copyvio images and not responding to paid warnings. GSS ^💬 11:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked for a week. If they continue to contribute un-constructive content without listening to warnings, they will most likely be banned for a further period or indefinitely. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as potential COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Polynomial greatest common divisor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Budan's theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Geometrical properties of polynomial roots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Real-root isolation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anna Johnson Pell Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Akritas2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a WP:SPA whose all edits are aimed to push opinions, own work and publications of Alkiviadis Akritas, who is clearly the owner of the account Akritas2. Recently, he has edited only the five articles that are listed above. In each of them he has added references to his own PhD thesis, publications and other articles (not reliably published): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

The content added by this editor does not respect WP:NPOV, by including opinions and assertions that are not supported by most specialists of this subject. For a typical example, a paper by Anna Johnson Pell Wheeler, which has been forgotten during more than 100 years is qualified of "seminal". However, these are technical issues that are not the subject of this page.

As Akritas2 had the same conduct in his older edits, and he has often an agressive attitude when his edits are reverted, I suggest to ban him from editing WP articles on subjects about which his has some contribution, in order that each edit that he suggests must pass through an edit request. D.Lazard (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you warned him seven years ago (!) and he replied that, more or less, he is the only authority on the subject and deserves to add his own sources. It does seem like the user has ignored COI warnings, for seven years.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For being specific, the subjects of interest of Akritas2 for which an edit ban is needed are all subjects that are more or less related to polynomial greatest common divisor, real-root isolation, pseudo-remainder sequences, and (possibly) cylindrical algebraic decomposition. D.Lazard (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is last Akritas2's edit summary at Polynomial greatest common divisor: Lazard, here is the material from the Anna Johnson site, with improved references etc. I think it is very appropriate for this entry. Please feel free to modify it so that it fits with the rest of your article. Also, remove any references that seem unnecessary. Regarding COI and Talk sites I am sorry that I do not participate but I have lost (if I ever had it) the ability to use wikipedia freely. Do not feel offended.. I have reverted this edit withe the edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by Akritas2: If you are able to edit articles, you must be able to read and edit yout talk page and the section that concern you in WP:COIN (follow the link). This is original research (WP:OR), and, as such, strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. I do not know how handling this further. The tone of Akritas's edit summaries may partially been explained by the fact that we met several times at scientific conferences (I remember only one case where we have talked together). D.Lazard (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Saint David's School (New York City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saintdavidsnyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question has been altering the "Controversy" section of the article claiming that some of the statements were "misrepresentations" and "inaccurate and inflammatory". Might be worth keeping an eye on this. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at their changes, I do see some whitewashing, but it also looks like there's some synthesis going on here - some of the statements made were saying things in Wikipedia-voice that weren't in the sources. Article is definitely giving too much coverage to non-notable things (example: from a quick glance, nothing in "Athletics" is sourced outside of the school's website), and could use a trimming. Tagged as needing third-party sources and ref cleanup, and flagged the user as having an inappropriate username (organization names aren't permitted since they imply shared use). Will keep an eye on the article. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keith Ablow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Webnova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peshick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 73.61.112.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:56A:71AD:E000:8863:58:A6DD:6195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 136.159.213.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of newly created accounts and IP numbers keep re-inserting text that seems very PR-ish (flattering, lots of primary source content), as well as remove RS content on the controversial aspects of the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for temporary protection at WP:RFPP and reverted the latest IP edit. RFPP is probably the first stop for IP troubles like this, but COIN is also appropriate. Next time please notify all editors mentioned above with the template, as described at the top of this page. I'll do that for you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP starting with 73... is registered to Comcast Cable in NJ. The IP starting with 2001... is registered to Telus communications in Calgary. The IP starting with 136... is registered to The University of Calgary. It seems two of the IPs are working together. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sarbat Da Bhala Charitable Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Avalok langer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mubashshir8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPA first made some random edits to get himself autoconfirmed and then posted Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi. After draftifying the article, I asked him to disclose their relationship with the subject and received these two replies (diff-diff). A week after the submission was rejected for Draft:Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi he posted Sarbat Da Bhala Charitable Trust an organisation founded by SPS Oberoi. No major edits outside these two topics except creating Avalok langer (yet another promo piece). Sound like an undisclosed paid editor who is only here to promote his clients. GSS ^💬 06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: I had recently submitted Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again. It was rejected with a comment "I'm concerned about the tone showing how great the person is. Also there isn't much to explain how he became wealthy enough to be a notable philanthropist. If the accomplishments are per the Trust / organization, perhaps the article should be about the Trust?".

I could change the tone of the article, but I don't know he became wealthy enough to become a notable philanthropist. And since the comment also raised a question that if the accomplishments are as per the Trust, perhaps the article should be about the trust, so I wrote this article about the trust.

Mubashshir8 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mubashshir8: Apart from promoting SPS Oberoi and his organisation, what made you create Avalok langer? GSS ^💬 18:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: I was impressed by his book "In Pursuit of Conflict", and when that article was nominated for deletion I didn't even contest it. I just wanted to create a few articles on Wikipedia. I am writing on pregnancy pillows too, as I could find regular and orthopaedic pillows, but no article on pregnancy pillows. Maybe I am trying to create articles in a hurry, but in no way I am paid editor. Just check the article on S P Singh Oberoi, I've even mentioned a probe initiated against him for money laundering.

And if you still feel it's a promotional article, kindly guide me on the tone. Mubashshir8 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephen Dando-Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sirdandypants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dandocollins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dandywik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sir Ian Richmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their names suggest that the first three editors are in fact the author Stephen Dando-Collins. I suspect Sir Ian Richmond, named after a archeologist of the Roman Empire, is as well. He shares the subject's interests and has a pedantic knowledge of his career. Sirdandypants has supplied both photographs in the article and claims them as his own work. He has also added a quote about the subject being "the legions' foremost living historian". However, the source of this quote also states that Dando-Collins propounds a "fallacy", that his conclusions are "skimpily supported", and that "no doubt some of those interpretations will be rightly refuted (interpretations offered as conclusions - and conclusions offered without substantiation - are of course to be extra-suspected, in this work and in all works)". The selection of the quote is clearly cherry-picking. Sirdandypants also added a blurb from Amazon. And cited a laudatory blog. There is puffery throughout the article:

• "Dando-Collins confesses to still having steam in the blood."
• "his groundbreaking 2010 work Legions of Rome"
• "His work has been translated into a dozen languages, and a number of his books are required reading for university history courses around the world."

These editors seem to be using the article to promote Dando-Collins, without any regard to neutrality.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the blatant puffery from the article. There are still questions about notability, as the sourcing is particularly poor. Melcous (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Todd Starnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Toddstarnes3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor appears to be a COI. The editor also engages in legal threats and doxxing threats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Older accounts (not active in the past year, but have edited since Toddstarnes3 started editing) that appear to be connected:

• TPDNYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toddstarnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A COI notice was posted to User talk:Toddstarnes in September, 2018, after which that user stopped editing. A COI notice was posted to User talk:TPDNYC in October, 2018, after which that user stopped editing. I have blocked the two accounts as sock puppets. - Donald Albury 19:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Euglena (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Euglena Co., Ltd (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Euglena Co., Ltd|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Simon.mangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul Quinney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jean-Baptiste.Ret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I found this one under Euglena Co., Ltd in the new page feed, having been created by User:Simon.mangel. After having found that his Linkedin profile listed him as an intern at the company, I moved it to draft (as paid editors are required to run their articles through AfC). Subsequently, he changed his profile and pretended that I was lying, and then later admitted to it and requested deletion of the draft.

Then, a draft of the same name was created by User:Paul Quinney (in his first edit), then it was moved to main space User:Jean-Baptiste.Ret (a new user with a series of edits that appear to be directly related to the company). I subsequently moved the article to Euglena (company), but it seems cler to me that we are dealing with a series of paid editors working at the company who are determined to create an article in main space without going through the required channels. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon.mangel and Jean-Baptiste.Ret are certainly engaged in promotional editing here. Paul Quinney and Jean-Baptiste.Ret got together here to create Draft:Euglena Co., Ltd. Your suspicions sound correct to me. A checkuser or SPI might be appropriate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an investigation. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheAwesomeHwyh, the diff is wrong on the SPI. I would correct it but I am not sure which one you intended.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, the diff seems fine to me. I don't know what you mean. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheAwesomeHwyh it was pointing to Open engineering below. I fixed it. Thanks for filing the SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, Thanks for sending out the coin notices, I threw this up here right before heading off to work, so I just pinged them, but I appreciate you sending out the notices for me. TheAwesomeHwyh Thanks for filing the SPI, although my feeling is that it is equally likely that they are just different editors, all at the same company. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the problem users on the Euglena articles were blocked at SPI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Open Engineering Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Devinberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears that the article is predominantly written by the founder of, or an individual otherwise affiliated with, Open Engineering Inc.

This is evident from donation sites linked on the "About" page of Open Engineering Inc's website, where the name of the individual receiving donations on behalf of Open Engineering Inc directly coincides with the username of the article's creator.

Avigl (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bradleypallister88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bradders2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps adding citations written by themself, or material promoting the organisation they are attached to. Repeated warnings on the user's talkpage about Conflict of Interest have gone unheeded. OsFish (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have added new username after name move. OsFish (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OsFish thanks for this. I had not noticed the alerts at the top of the page, apologies. I will seek to rectify any articles now Bradleypallister88 12:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradleypallister88, I am curious about the blatant advertising you included in this article? we have rules against using Wikipedia for promotion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Bradley. Please note that editing to promote products and people of any kind isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Please look at rules on notability (WP:N) which describe which topics are suitable for their own article and reliable sources (WP:RS), which describe the sort of sourcing needed to support claims. Even with notability and reliable sourcing, you should avoid editing with a conflict of interest (ie adding your own work or editing material directly about yourself). OsFish (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cascade Lacrosse (Business) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sam Slater (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• NikkiTAA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user came to my attention when I noticed a super spammy recreation of Cascade Lacrosse/Cascade (company), which was previously created by an obvious COI editor (likely it's owner.) I then came across Sam Slater (entrepreneur) and thought it was familiar only to find it was previously created by two infamous spam farms. There are also deleted contribs of this user that are recreations of other deleted content created by COI editors, indicating to me that this is likely UPE. (see Andrew S Lanoie previously created as Andrew Lanoie for example.) Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I patrolled the My/Mo Mochi article, of course this happens the one time I try to assume good faith and tag issues instead of just tagging for speedy deletion... creffett (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Surinder Amarnath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dvasports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is holding himself out as the son of the article subject. He has requested that the article be edited, particularly by including quotations by cricket commentators about the subject's style of play; multiple editors, including myself, rejected the changes as being too flowery and not following the MOS. User is continuing to complain that there is bias in the treatment of that particular article.[11] I would like additional eyes involved in the situation and some kind voices to help explain what Wikipedia is and what it is not. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderland Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I want to improve the article about a Mexican Drug War blog known as Borderland Beat. However, I want to make it known to everyone that there might be a potential COI on my part. I'm a member of that community and have written a few articles for the blog (I'm a blogger there, I don't hold any admin powers). I specialize in Mexican drug cartels here on Wikipedia. It is a topic I've studied for over a decade, hence my involvement in this other online community too. I've never used articles I've written in Borderland Beat as sources on Wikipedia (most of the articles I write there are actually excerpts from the Wikipedia articles I create, like this one and this one, which are from these Wikipedia articles: Zeferino Peña Cuéllar and Raúl Alberto Trejo Benavides). And as far as I can recall, I've only used Borderland Beat as a source once (for Héctor David Delgado Santiago).

I'd like the improve the Borderland Beat article. I realize that my situation could be similar to a Wikipedian writing about their hometown, favorite sport, etc. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MX, thanks for letting us know. Since you have a conflict of interest, I'd recommend having a look at the plain and simple conflict of interest guideline. In short: declare it on your userpage and (out of an abundance of caution) use the {{edit request}} template rather than making changes to the article yourself. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MX, I second creffpublic's advice. Also, your disclosure was classy and appreciated. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP and creffpublic: Thanks for the replies! The article needs a major overhaul and I don't know how practical edit requests could be. Instead of doing multiple edit requests, is it OK to work in a draft page and then have other editors take a look at it and copy the info to the article if they deem it fit? I think that may work best but I'll leave it up to you. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Classy and appreciated – well said, ThatMontrealIP. I agree with MX that the edit-request process can be cumbersome: are there enough interested editors at that page to implement the requests? I'd like to suggest an alternate process that just occurred to me. MX could create a talk section called "edits for review" or "request review" or similar, explaining the situation, with a bullet list of diffs. Independent editors could then indicate assent or dissent to each point (a certain level of assent would be a "green light" equivalent to implementing a requested edit). Sequential small edits could be combined into a single diff where appropriate to avoid the list becoming too long. Rather than the abundance of caution that creffpublic recommends, this would entail a … modicum(?) of caution. We would be re-ordering BRD to BDR. What do people think of this idea? It's not a procedure that I would want to see used by a paid newbie PR hack, but only where we have an experienced Wikipedian in good standing (I assume) with the community. MX, is your relationship with Borderland Beat unpaid? Cheers! Pelagic (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. What MX has described appears to me as "potential perceived COI" as distinct from an "actual COI". That's why I'm not convinced that everything needs to be kept at arm's length (or even formally reviewed). A simple disclosure might suffice. But if the majority opinion is to act indirectly, then WP:COIATTRIBUTE explicitly mentions using a draft, so I wouldn't expect any problems with that. Pelagic (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pelagic, I completely agree that it's "potential perceived COI," that's why I had the caveat "out of an abundance of caution." It's enough of a gray area to me that I feel it would be best to play it safe and just treat it as a COI. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pelagic Thanks for your reply. My relationship with Borderland Beat is unpaid. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Border Patrol Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 72.211.159.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP number is scrubbing RS content and adding flattering unsourced text. Obvious COI account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watching now, and tagged COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pasquale Verdicchio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Renato Trujillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Sobol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chuang726 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account history and editing behaviors such as creating multiple biography pages in the field of poetry with zero apparent editing experience suggest this is a single purpose account. On 14 November, the account created 11 articles in under 6 hours. On 21 November, the account created 10 articles in just over 3 1/2 hours. The account has no significant contribution outside of working on the articles created. Account was created , 3 April 2019, then it sat unused for over four months before it started creating articles here and there, then abruptly started creating a mass of articles starting in mid November. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Graywalls: I checked and reviewed all of them. I sent a couple to Afd, but most of them need additional refs. For the most part they are small decent articles. All poets in in one form or another, some English professors. scope_creep^Talk 19:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Possibly, but what impressions do you get from this editor's pattern? You certainly don't start off with a bunch of preform template like bio-pages. This is more about potential conflict of interest. Graywalls (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are related to a poetry contest in Montreal. scope_creep^Talk 21:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it's possible that the user has a COI with Dial-A-Poem Montreal given their strong interest in it, but I'm not sure their intents are promotional. The program shut down in 1987, so it would be rather useless to promote it on Wikipedia in 2019. And some of the poets they've written about are deceased, so they are presumably not paying anyone to write articles about them. The editing pattern is odd, but not that suspicious to me given that these are mostly very short stubs - the editor is probably working on them in a word processor and posting them in batches when done. The mass creation of non-notable articles is problematic but, whether there is a COI or not, this seems like an enthusiastic new editor who needs some guidance on notability and referencing, rather than a bad faith spammer. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note with some info about notability, RS and COI on their talk page. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update, user says I am helping with writing wikipedia entries on Canadian poets in 80s Montreal for a Library and Archives grant [24] and has declared this on their user page. I directed them to WP:GLAM. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the edits themselves, the explanation of doing work for Library and Archives Canada sounds sincere. It must be some kind of satellite grant as L&AC is in Ottawa.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dubravka Šuica ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EPBRUaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User whose only contributions consist in deleting public-interest information on MEP Dubravka Šuica. The account name suggests it is someone from her team of parliamentary assistants (EP = European Parliament, BRU = Brussels). -- Dans (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the username and I have blocked the account as a promotional username. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Kwanjeong Educational Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CoolKEF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The name's a little suspicious. Just like the text. Article was already in the article room, moved it back to draftspace. ZaaraTE (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its promotion disguised as an educational endowment or prize. It non-notable as its only recently came into existence. scope_creep^Talk 12:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the username to UAA for discussion.scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Columbus Hydraulics Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hart & Cooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tomkins plc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mike8267 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Created this page shortly after the draft was deleted by Jimfbleak and COI notice placed on talk page. Editor has added "Mike Winn" to the second two article's infoboxes also. MB 15:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel Mattes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WikiContributor1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rowint3et500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article needs some eyes on it from more experienced admin. Contribuine34 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Donston Stephenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• HRBrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HBRo2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HowieNina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HowardNinaRipper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• How Brown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JTRForums (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HowieNina
• jtrforums.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

HRBrown duly ignored my posting to his talk page concerning COI yesterday and returned today to make this edit describing how he has refuted a theory. He is the owner of Jack The Ripper Forums (an article that he wrote that was subsequently deleted) and his primary purpose here has been to promote himself or his website. I would indef him as both COI and NOTHERE but I have edited articles related to Jack the Ripper in the past so I prefer someone else handle this. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• He was told about COI at the Teahouse in 2016 as this thread in the archives show.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a sockpuppet, although they have not edited on that account for an age. I notice it the same article subject. Certainly seems to be breach of policy as a misuse of clean-start. There is large gap, more than 10 years, between the two accounts. Perhaps a forgotten password?scope_creep^Talk 02:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added other accounts and found the sock case.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It looks to be definitive now.scope_creep^Talk 12:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarence Jey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2600:1700:CB90:A800:8145:8C46:E322:E7F8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nerdopolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article is full of absurdly slanted fluff written almost entirely by various IPs who all write in the same style, who seem to be connected to the subject. It was actually deleted following an AFD discussion, but it was recreated against policy by the user who nominated it for deletion because he was "under duress, and threatened and coerced into recreating the article" by someone connected to the subject (see talk page). Since then his only edits have been to this article. MDDevice ^talk 21:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List of pages created by Virenderthind2019
• Virenderthind2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Very likely an undisclosed paid editor, creating promotional articles, uploading promotional images as his own work using sock accounts and sending fake emails to OTRS for permission and when he was asked about the ownership of those images, he claimed I took their email address from their social accounts and at that email address I asked for their photos.., I looked at almost everyone's social media profiles and none of them has mentioned their email ids so, there is definitely something fishy and needs to be investigated. Begoon do you want to add something? GSS ^💬 04:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty much in line with my thinking. The image behaviour set off red lights, but when you look at the articles created they are all consistent with creation of promotional articles for "up and coming" artists. On a couple of occasions the user has asked, impatiently, when Google will start indexing their pages. There seems, also, to be a possible link with Rising Artists. As is often the case, the articles are low quality, "ref-bombed" and stuffed with non-notable content with anything found anywhere to try to make them look substantial. -- Begoon 05:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rising Artists is definitely connected and I raised the same concern at commons-wiki too, please see administrators' noticeboard/User problems#sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 05:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have sent three or four articles to Afd + a one prod for this editor. Many of the references are disguised as YouTube videos. They will state they are Times of India reference but it's actually a YouTube vid it points to. Many of them are native advertising, using refs which are press releases and syndicated feeds. Almost all of them were like that. There was another four articles that were bordered in the same kind of state, but were tenuous. Very low quality. scope_creep^Talk 14:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Emek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jambonec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Jambonec has been adding promotional content including direct inline links to an online store, since 2014. I found and removed them today, but s/he has restored them.

• Online store added in 2014. The line "New release gig posters, prints and merchandise are available for purchase through his online store at: https://www.emekstudios.com" actually survived at the end of the lede for five years!
• Online store links restored today

Jambonec says links to an online store are a public service, after I removed the online store link and numerous inline links to the Emek site. This seems pretty cut and dried to me. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• George_Gascón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lunastarfish87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This page contains promotional language that suggests someone from George Gascon's campaign for LA District Attorney may have been involved in the edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbucchere (talk • contribs)

In October 2019 when these edits were made, on User talk:Lunastarfish87, I asked this user about these edits and they chose not to reply to the part of the question deailing with COI. Some of the claims this user added misrepresented references to show Gascon in a positive light, such as the statement "Upon taking office, Gascón immediately implemented...DA Stat." The ref used shows that the DA-Stat system was launched in 2019, years after Gascon took office in 2011.Dialectric (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some trimming to remove some of the blatantly promotional wording as well as some unsourced content. Melcous (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Suomonev/David Alexander (Author)
• Suomonev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Frecch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AustynconradtCJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Info advocates 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Suomonev's only edits have been to create an article in his user sub-page for David Alexander, upload an image of David Alexander, and a single edit to his user page. User Frecch's only edits have been to add references to the David Alexander draft on Suomonev's sub-page, give a barnstar to Suomonev, and add David Alexander books to some articles. User AustynconradtCJ's only edits have been to add references to the David Alexander draft on Suomonev's sub-page, give a barnstar to Suomonev, and add references to David Alexander to some articles. Info advocates 1 performed several edits to David Alexander and one edit to David Bowie, almost all disruptive, in 2011, and then one edit to Suomonev's sub-page this month. I have placed COI warnings on Suomonev's and Freech's talk page. I will place COIN notices on all four talk pages. Donald Albury 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI opened.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All four accounts listed above were blocked as sockpuppets, and the draft was deleted. I believe this can be closed now if there are no objections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eurovision Song Contest 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eurovision Song Contest 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eurovision Song Contest 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eurovision Song Contest 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eurovision Song Contest 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ESCDenmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is prob a COI worker for the EBU from denmark.. Idan (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The username could be reported to WP:UFAA as it implies shared use.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​I have done so. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Augur (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MicahZoltu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MicahZoltu has had an account since 2009, but it barely had any edits until September 2019, with someone finally adding a welcome message to their talk page two weeks ago. They started their new editing career on Augur (software) - an ICO crypto-token for prediction markets - with an extensive, barely-sourced explanation of Augur (and those sources literally didn't mention Augur). This ill sourced addition was reverted back in repeatedly. RS-cited claims that were negative to Augur were removed. Admitted unsourced OR was added.

MicahZoltu has since continued to add long contributions with bad sourcing to multiple articles, mostly articles that are under WP:GS/Crypto.

MicahZoltu has posted long and querulous additions to talk pages - e.g., Talk:Augur (software), Talk:Ethereum, my talk page, and in a non-crypto example Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence - repeatedly asking the same questions of multiple editors about why their bad sources are good - and why the standard "mainstream third-party RSes" is not enough for them.

As one of the editors MicahZoltu questions in this manner (others include Jtbobwaysf and Roxy the dog), I would say there is a bad case of WP:IDHT and attempting to personalise basic explanations of sourcing in multiple contentious areas - see User talk:MicahZoltu for a remarkable list of DS and GS caution notices.

It now turns out that MicahZoltu is or was a consultant for the Foresight Institute - the promoters of the Augur software, its token, and the ICO for the token.[25] MicahZoltu didn't make it clear whether or not they still had a holding of the cryptocurrency token (such a holding also being a specifically listed WP:COI).

This is really seriously dicing with GS/Crypto, but MicahZoltu considers their problems to be due to "wikilawyers", and not e.g. themselves - c.f. this, a standard WP:1AM.

MicahZoltu has repeatedly removed [26][27][28]the COI notice placed there by me and by Calton. They said that "I think it would be best if someone who is wholly uninvolved with blockchains and crypto-currencies add one or both of us if they believe that is reasonable", Calton added it back, and MicahZoltu then claimed Calton was clearly "involved", for no apparent reason.

MicahZoltu insists that they will continue to remove the COI notice until WP:COIN rules they have a COI. I ask editors for their opinions on this matter.

I have not asked for sanctions under WP:GS/Crypto - and this isn't the venue - in the hope that MicahZoltu will come to a better understanding of Wikipedia sourcing rules. Though others may think such are appropriate. I do think the COI notice needs to go on the talk page, and MicahZoltu needs to be enjoined from touching Augur (software) - David Gerard (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest a TBAN, due to wilful imperviousness to Clue. Guy (help!) 01:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]