Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. | ||||
{{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. | ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Soramitsu[edit]
- Draft:Soramitsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hyperledger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WRRichter1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Metaxolotl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Junji1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There appears to be coordinated editing between these two editors, although the first one has declared that they are paid and the second one has disclaimed any conflict of interest. The first account has created the draft, and has properly declared that they are being paid. The second account now appears to be trying to improve the draft, but is not really neutralizing it. The second is a new account. The first is a new (paid) account except for one edit five months ago. This may be a case where an editor randomly is interested in the company another editor is being paid to edit, or it may be something else .... Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, as far as I am concerned, I don't have any connection to the company or the other editor. If the style I am using within the article does not convey neutrality, I invite another editor to contribute. There are other instances where all mentions of the company and their works have been removed due to this conflict, which, as far as I can tell, were already within wikipedia from before this COI began. I am open to improving the draft and adding the information with the sole purpose of improving the information on wikipedia regarding cryptocurrencies and their infrastructure. Metaxolotl (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- There was also User:Junji1337, who says that 'A friend who does work at soramitsu sent me a link and I am happy to help out, so I edited it.' I'm not sure if this is sockpuppetry or just improper coordination, but coordination is obviously happening. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Recorded two of them at Talk:Hyperledger, one at Draft talk:Soramitsu and gave all three the standard {{Gs/alert}} for blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- The draft is a crock. I examined the first seven reference and they are all annoucements and press-releases/whitepapers. It is a brochure article I think they're all coi. One main editor and other follow up editors to fix grammer, spelling, copyedit and so on. It seems to be a common pattern. Often we seems to focus on the main editor but the worker bees, i.e. rest of the company, tend to get missed. scope_creepTalk 12:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Editor Metaxolotl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been working on it, almost since he arrived and submitted it for review as well. They're working together. scope_creepTalk 12:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Editor Junji1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes in and added the distributed legdger into the wikipedia listing page at Hyperledger and then editwars to keep it. They all have coi. Its offline coordinated activity and for this type of article and work it is coi. scope_creepTalk 12:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no offline coordinated activity. Whether Soramistu gets published or not does not make a difference to me. I am adding content to the crypto articles because it is factual and relevant. It is unfortunate timing that the initial draft of Soramitsu was effectively done by an employee, who disclosed the relationship. I have no relationship with the company or any other editors working on DLT, CBDC, crypto, etc. If there is any editwar going on, this is because admins have decided that they don't want to implement changes and consider themselves gatekeepers of obsolete information. Hyperledger, DLT, CBDC, etc advancements are happening. If the alleged COI is going to keep wikipedia from being updated, what is the point? Metaxolotl (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Metaxolotl: You started working on the draft article sn the same day you arrived, the day after it was created, which looks suspicuous. Of all the articles on Wikipedia you selected a draft? Also comments likes this: Reworked the draft to remove product value judgment and advertisement-sounding text. Upon further investigation, company notoriety has been determined by the importance of contributions in Asia and Oceania (ie developments in Cambodia, JICA assignments, PALM9 assignments) as well as the contributions to open-source distributed ledger technology. This looks like you work for the company. scope_creepTalk 10:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I'm confused; how would an edit summary that says in part
remove(d) ... advertisement-sounding text
mean they work for the company? Miracusaurs (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I'm confused; how would an edit summary that says in part
- @Metaxolotl: You started working on the draft article sn the same day you arrived, the day after it was created, which looks suspicuous. Of all the articles on Wikipedia you selected a draft? Also comments likes this: Reworked the draft to remove product value judgment and advertisement-sounding text. Upon further investigation, company notoriety has been determined by the importance of contributions in Asia and Oceania (ie developments in Cambodia, JICA assignments, PALM9 assignments) as well as the contributions to open-source distributed ledger technology. This looks like you work for the company. scope_creepTalk 10:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Mikheil Lomtadze[edit]
- Mikheil Lomtadze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bash7oven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've already tagged for CSD, as this is a blatant attempt to circumvent the salting of Mikhail Lomtadze, repeatedly re-created by Bodiadub. It stands to reason Bash is another un-declared paid editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am not following the "it stands to reason" argument. Bash7oven seems to have an interest in Uzbek and Kazakh politicians and business people. What is the alleged COI? Overall, the Mikheil Lomtadze article is in a terrible state. As of this writing, it looks like it is suffering from POV edits who wish to denigrate him rather than the product of editors paid to promote him. As a side note, there ought to be more meat in the sources than just constant updates to business appointments and Forbes rich lists to establish notability, although his stature may self-establish that. But I digress. --SVTCobra 17:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: The title is salted after the prior article was deleted. Another editor brought the draft through AfC, where I would have accepted it so I asked for un-protection. The MER-C and ToBeFree did not think the draft should be accepted. Bash7oven has moved that same rejected draft into mainspace, so I find it more likely that off-wiki coordination, rather than coincidental interest in the topic, explains this activity. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I personally find this reasoning convincing for off-wiki coordination but am not aware of the (probable) sock farm having a COI with Lomtadze. Nonetheless, I think it would be prudent to wait for Bash7oven to comment on this thread. This particular kind of COI case tends to be quite obtuse to figure out without the other party responding. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've sent this to Afd. It is huge puff piece, exceptionally promo at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikheil Lomtadze. Such an extreme level of promo would indicate COI. It so far off the scale. scope_creepTalk 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- hey, sorry for not answering immediately. I dont expect or plan to monetize my account or expect any money from anyone. I looked through dozens and dozends of articles at Draft and found this one about Mikheil and Narzullo Oblomurodov this one as possible ready for main space. That's why I rewrote them and published. I deleted the promo as I see it, but left some basic information about that guys. --Bash7oven (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: The title is salted after the prior article was deleted. Another editor brought the draft through AfC, where I would have accepted it so I asked for un-protection. The MER-C and ToBeFree did not think the draft should be accepted. Bash7oven has moved that same rejected draft into mainspace, so I find it more likely that off-wiki coordination, rather than coincidental interest in the topic, explains this activity. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Gregory J. Feist[edit]
- Gregory J. Feist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- GregoryJFeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Just noticed he wrote his own article. Needs a look over. scope_creepTalk 12:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Similarly named account Gjfeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started Psychology of science in 2006. Vycl1994 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure if this person meets notability criteria for academics either, but that's for elsewhere. KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- He does. scope_creepTalk 20:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- After review, I agree. The page is now better after a bunch of us chipped in some edits. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Father for son[edit]
- Sheehan Kapahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mohitkapahi20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mohit Kapahi is the father of Indian actor Sheehan Kapahi, and it seems he's only here to write Sheehan's prospective Wikipedia article, writing a draft and even tried decreasing protection on the page even though it's not protected. All of his contributions relate to this quest to make the page, which is clearly only for promotional purposes. Big stage dad vibes--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the first revision of Mohit's userpage says
we are jointy trying to create this page
so there are some WP:ROLE concerns as well. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)- Yup. His ideal situation would be providing the competency that his son being 11 years old lacks, but even if he/they weren’t only interested in crafting Sheehan’s page, he doesn’t seem to quite have the fluency in English or the understanding of Wikipedia or its requirements to actually reach the competency he believes he brings.--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Update - User has not edited from their account nor the IP account they used to answer their talk page messages in over 24 hours--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Jim Harrington by Jim Harrington[edit]
- Jim Harrington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Producer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This biography / advertisement page appears to have been written by Mr. Harrington himself in July 2011; I came across it randomly (I enjoy clicking on "Random article," what can I say?) Ten years later, I want to seriously strip it down and take everything out that's not cited online by reliable sources, but wanted to get input from experience editors here first. KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @KeeYou Flib: Go for it. I doubt there will be much left once you're done, unless you can find better sources. Might be ripe for WP:AFD or WP:A7 speedy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Drm310: As you predicted, not much left. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Jamie Merisotis[edit]
- Jamie Merisotis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- John Strauss MFA MA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I found substantial deletion of content at Jamie Merisotis by a new editor. The editor is potentially an employee editing on behalf of an employer. Blue Riband► 16:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Blue Riband: Please be aware that posting any user's personal information is considered WP:OUTING unless they have already volunteered it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Chatri Sityodtong[edit]
- Chatri Sityodtong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jacksonbulldog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Roycegracie100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ammalove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- PinnacleLight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thaistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There seems to be a clear coordinated effort going on for this BLP article, namely from WP:SPA accounts dating back as far back as 2013. Accounts such as Roycegracie100, the most recent active one, has exhibited WP:OWN behavior on the article for almost a decade now and would usually revert other users/IPs if it's something that may not be to the BLP's 'liking'. This behavior could also be seen with PinnacleLight as well as the other accounts. It seems likely that these users are either multiple people hired by the BLP, a single person with multiple accounts, or is the BLP themselves.
The other article which these accounts are all active in as well, Evolve MMA (first created by Jacksonbulldog, subsequently deleted and then re-recreated by Sadoka74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is also directly connected to the BLP itself, being the creator of the company. Notice how both articles are also rife with puffery. Sadoka74 seems suspect too, pretty much all of their other contributions are also connected to this BLP, with the creation of articles of individuals competing in ONE Championship. Speaking of which, there's definitely something fishy going on with the ONE Championship (founded by the BLP) article as well, with the article exhibiting a similar peacocky tone. Razali Osman (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Evolve MMA needs a WP:BEFORE but after removing the unsourced, mis-sourced and unrelated sources... there are only Primary sources remaining. Other two might survive an AfD, though ONE Championship has sourcing issues especially roster, which also has its own list that's not supported by sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Rolex[edit]
- Rolex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Omega SA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Lioneagle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Asnelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm fairly uninvolved here; just saw Asnelt was reported at AIV by Lioneagle13 (which was rejected with a message telling Lioneagle to go to COIN or ANI). Apparently there has been problems with puffery in the Rolex article? I figured that this squabble should be talked about somewhere here and perhaps fixed.
On January 13th this year, Bishonen removed a lot of puffery from the article and got it semi-protected. More recently, there has been a user, User:Asnelt, who apparently wishes to make the patent section neutral (and was a semi-sleeper before they decided to do this on the Rolex article, nothing wrong with that, but just stating this).
User:Lioneagle13 says that Asnelt's added information is an advert. (interestingly a lot of their edits seem to be in the "removing puffery and vandalism on pages of watch companies" topic, ex. they've reverted edits on Omega SA while claiming that they were vandalism committed by "a Rolex fanboy from Santa Monica"). The user Spencer left a COI notice on their talk page, another reason why I went to COIN. wizzito | say hello! 08:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not affiliated with Rolex or any other watch company and have no conflict of interest whatsoever. It is true that I haven't edited a lot on Wikipedia and could be called a semi-sleeper. Reading the patent section of the Rolex article, I felt that it wasn't neutral at all and started reading more into the topic. It's the first time I'm editing on watch topics. Before my edits, five out of the seven list entries in the innovations and patents section described a broad class of invention such as 'self-winding wristwatch' and then went on to say that actually, Rolex did not invent this. It is beyond me how anybody could think this is impartial. This is the "Notable innovations and patents" section. If it's not a Rolex invention after all, it shouldn't be in this section in the first place. My edits go into more detail and describe the actual invention / novelty and still contrast these to earlier inventions. All of these are supported by independent references. Before editing the Rolex page, I explained my concerns on the Rolex Talk page and, as nobody else engaged in the discussion, waited a week before changing the article. Asnelt (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The way your account is responding doesn't look like you're new, just stating, nothing wrong. Was a semi-sleeper and all of a sudden you're editing a watch article, glamorizing like how the "respective" brands do to their own website. Wikipedia is the one place where facts and truth are untouched by relevant parties and hopefullly it will always be like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lioneagle13 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Sukhabodhananda[edit]
- Sukhabodhananda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Shakila100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Promotional/ likely COI editing on Sukhabodhananda. -KH-1 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to be continually trying to update the same type of promo information indicating he is a UPE. He has been edit warring from from 22 Feb to 6 March and there was an earlier edit on August 2021 that added the same kind of promotional edit. It all promo edit, trying to sell his books. scope_creepTalk 08:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Frank Eric Lloyd[edit]
- Frank Eric Lloyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Slightly unusual one this as I'm initiating discussion about an article that I primarily authored seven years ago about a relative of mine. Undoubtedly a COI although I didn't see it as such at the time. The intention was to write a neutral article about a subject I felt was notable, but it is arguable that I am not the best judge of that. I will not edit this article or stand in any way against consensus to remove. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Catfish Jim and the soapdish, I'm not sure it was necessary for you to start a thread in this noticeboard, but appreciate you doing so. I think you should disclose that COI in the talk page of the article using the standard template ({{Connected contributor}}), but aside from that I don't think there's much else to do :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- OFF WITH THEIR HEAD! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish, it seems Catfish Jim has angered the COIN cabal :O! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- In actual seriousness, the subject doesn't appear notable based on the sources in the article. It's also not promotional, as there's not much in the way to promote at this point, and I don't relish doing the WP:BEFORE work on an article subject who is most notable for something 60 years past so I have no plans to AfD it. The connected contributor template on the talk page seems decent enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish, it seems Catfish Jim has angered the COIN cabal :O! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- OFF WITH THEIR HEAD! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've placed the declared connected contributor template in the talk page. I have no plans to add material to the article at present, or to take part in any AfD discussion, should anyone choose to list it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Andela[edit]
- Andela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Eblaisem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2607:FA49:113E:2700:6912:231C:C4B8:E949 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2607:FA49:113E:2700:7CE9:F8BE:68DF:26C1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Persistent copyright violations and overtly promotional edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally, there is off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Editor has been warned. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but I didn't want to risk outing. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- He is a paid editor. He should be blocked. scope_creepTalk 20:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits.
- I have known it's hard to explain that. I only reverted followed the cluebot and I have to say that I'm a bit sleepy at that time since I have worked for hours and made a wrong revert while the cluebot gave a false positive. I have known that I made a great mistake, hoping giving me another chance to make contributions again.
- Much thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Eblaisem (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) however, this user seemed a really paid editor ... Hoping this time I didn't make the wrong judgement. Pavlov2 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- He is a paid editor. He should be blocked. scope_creepTalk 20:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but I didn't want to risk outing. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Pavlov2, this discussion is about Eblaisem, not you. But your initial involvement at Andela, your warnings to me, your report at the 3rr noticeboard and now your comments here suggest that WP:CIR may be an issue, and that perhaps you need to reconsider editing at English Wikipedia. Your misunderstandings about basic issues around Andela have made this more time consuming and difficult for other editors. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- What a terrific and unnecessarily convoluted pain in the backside a simple matter of COI became, thanks to the intervention of too many editors making incorrect assumptions. I attempted to remove my previous comment here--that was restored, though it was well within my purview to delete it--because it was gratuitous. Pavlov2 was warned for COI at their talk page, though that, too, was unnecessary, as they pretty obviously had no conflict, and were merely editing badly. If one follows the cross-current of edits that started at Andela, bled to multiple user talk pages including my own (at least four improper warnings there), and a two or three notice boards, we'll find a textbook example of why it's preferable to leave copyright and promotional issues be, rather than step into this pool. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Department of Training and Workforce Development[edit]
- Department of Training and Workforce Development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dtwdwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I created the article Department of Training and Workforce Development, along with a number of other Western Australian Government department articles, two days ago. A new user, by their own admission, has now taken it upon themselves to determined what information should be in the article and what not, to the point that they demand we contact the department's marketing department prior to making changes to the article. I have warned the user about their potential conflict of interest but they continue to take ownership of the article. Apart from COI, this could also violate paid editing rules on WP. Additionally, I think this user originally started out as an IP, which added a larger amount of copyrighted text to the article only 2 minutes before the account was created, but the later is obviously an assumption. For reasons unknown, the user also wishes to suppress information on the previous director general of the department. I don't see what further I could do to make this user aware of the obvious conflict of interest they have without getting into an edit war, which I don't want to do. Could an uninvolved editor please have a look for me? Calistemon (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)