Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. 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:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template: Wikipedia requested edits Answered requested edits Declined requested edits Talk:365 Media Group Talk:Amnon Aharony Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network Talk:Alfa Laval Talk:Anaplan Talk:Paul Andrew Talk:John Antioco Talk:Lucius Artorius Castus Talk:Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology Talk:Sathya Sai Baba Talk:Stewart W. Bainum Jr. Talk:Richard A. Baker (businessman) Talk:Ella Ballentine Talk:Barrett, The Honors College Talk:Berlin School of Business and Innovation Talk:James Bevan (diplomat) Talk:Beyond Meat Talk:Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson Talk:Len Blavatnik Talk:Nick Brandt Talk:Brian Chambers (Curator) Talk:Brookfield Asset Management Talk:Mark Burnett Talk:California Health Sciences University Talk:Campaign Legal Center Talk:Carlsberg Group Talk:Anne E. Carpenter Talk:Cenovus Energy Talk:Center for Documentary Studies Talk:Chainlink (blockchain) Talk:Chanel Talk:Change.org Talk:Kang-Yell Choi Talk:Christian Science Reading Room Talk:CKDU-FM Talk:Colantonio Incorporated Talk:Colombo City Centre Talk:Conservation and restoration of cultural property Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) Talk:Cracker Barrel Talk:Tom Crosshill Talk:Walter De Brouwer Talk:Adrian Di Marco Talk:Digital agriculture Talk:Joe Dolce Talk:DoorDash Talk:Paul W Draper Talk:Terrence A. Duffy Talk:Jenny Durkan Talk:Dutch Bros. Coffee Talk:EConsult Talk:Electronic fluency device Talk:Michele Mario Elia Talk:EMV Talk:Energetic neutral atom Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:EOS Group Talk:EPAM Systems Talk:Evernote Talk:F1000 (publisher) Talk:Jay Faison Talk:Families USA Talk:Fardad Fateri Talk:Federal University of Minas Gerais Talk:Thomas Fellows (author) Talk:François Fénelon Talk:Fortinet Talk:Free File Talk:Freeport-McMoRan Talk:Frontiers Media Talk:Gregory Garde Talk:Vishal Garg (businessman) Talk:Georgia College & State University Talk:Geriatrics Talk:GoodLeap Talk:Gopuff Talk:Jonathan D. Gray Talk:Phillip Brian Harper Talk:Hearst Media Production Group Talk:Alexander D. Henderson Jr. Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Hikvision Talk:Home-Start Worldwide Talk:Hong Kong Jockey Club Talk:Bob Iger Talk:Illinois Eye Bank Talk:Interactive Brokers Talk:International Institute for Conservation Talk:Invitation Homes Talk:Philippe Jabre Talk:Bawa Jain Talk:James J. Peters VA Medical Center Talk:Jenoptik Talk:Tim Jones (writer) Talk:Judo Bank Talk:Olaf Koch Talk:Karel Komárek Talk:Konecranes Talk:Kwik Fit Talk:L'Ermitage Beverly Hills Talk:L3Harris Technologies Talk:Marc J. Lane Talk:Laureate Education Talk:Leaders for Global Operations Talk:Steven Leath Talk:LegalShield Talk:Legatum Institute Talk:Marcus Lemonis Talk:Steve Linick Talk:Little Big (band) Talk:Jim Lobe Talk:LoopUp Talk:Lufthansa Cargo Talk:Pat Lundvall Talk:Lush (company) Talk:M9 half-track Talk:Maitreya Talk:Don Martin (journalist) Talk:Kelsey Martin Talk:Lisa Matisoo-Smith Talk:Patrick McGuire (solicitor) Talk:Medifast Talk:Chris Meek Talk:Merit Group Talk:Metro AG Talk:Minimum description length Talk:Mobileye Talk:Mauro Moretti Talk:Marc Morial Talk:MPOWER Financing Talk:Multicloud Talk:Murex (financial software) Talk:MyRepublic Talk:Nanjing Cao Xueqin Memorial Museum Talk:NetDynamics Application Server Talk:Newmark Group Talk:Mark Normand Talk:Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Talk:Ofer Strichman Talk:ONEArmenia Talk:Noah Oppenheim Talk:Neri Oxman Talk:Earl A. Pace Jr. Talk:Park Lane Stables Teddington Talk:Anthony Pateras Talk:Pitney Bowes Talk:The Players' Tribune Talk:Gabe Polsky Talk:Presidential transition of Joe Biden Talk:Primerica Talk:Pristyn Care Talk:Private sector development Talk:Qnet Talk:Mubashir Husain Rehmani Talk:Republic Services Talk:Resolute Forest Products Talk:Joyce Rey Talk:André Rieu Talk:RINA (company) Talk:Riverbed Technology Talk:Riverkeeper Talk:Rolling-element bearing Talk:Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Talk:Robert Rubin Talk:Ruder Finn Talk:Austin Russell (entrepreneur) Talk:Russian Space Research Institute Talk:Sandy Munro Talk:Johnathon Schaech Talk:Sculpture Park Engelbrecht Talk:Sequoia Capital Talk:ShareRoot Talk:Ruchir Sharma Talk:Sigma Pi Sigma Talk:Terje G. Simonsen Talk:Singapore Institute of Management Talk:Abdulah Skaka Talk:Carol Smallwood Talk:Soil Association Talk:SoldierStrong Talk:Taiwan+ Talk:TechnologyOne Talk:Tenova Takraf Talk:TGT Oil and Gas Services Talk:The Real News Network Talk:Thompson Coburn Talk:TIPA Corp Talk:Top Glove Talk:U.S. International Development Finance Corporation Talk:Hamdi Ulukaya Talk:Universum College Talk:Uproxx Talk:Wilmer Valderrama Talk:Hans Vestberg Talk:Viatris Talk:Vivo (technology company) Talk:Wise Music Group Talk:Yahoo!

Mikheil Lomtadze

• 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_creep^Talk 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)

Gregory J. Feist

• 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_creep^Talk 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_creep^Talk 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)

Jim Harrington by Jim Harrington

• 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)

Sukhabodhananda

• 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_creep^Talk 08:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Frank Eric Lloyd

• 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)

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

• 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_creep^Talk 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)

:::::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

• 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)

If I had a nickel for every time a COI editor wanted people to contact their marketing office for Wikipedia edits, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird it happened twice.

Memes aside, that is one of the most egregious ways to violate WP:OWN in my book. Also note the WP:CORPNAME. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Farkhad Akhmedov

• Farkhad Akhmedov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EastThermopolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Farkhad Akhmedov page was in atrocious shape before I cleaned it up earlier today. Looking at the history of the article, I noticed that one editor (EastThermopolis) played a key role in making the article look like a glorified CV and personal website for the subject. I've been going through lots of pages for Russian oligarchs and this page screamed COI-editing more than most of them. It's beyond my understanding why a non-COI would make edits such as:

1. [1], which removes content sourced to high-quality RS such as the WSJ and replaces it with unsourced content or puffery sourced to the subject himself. Some of the sourcing is to Azerbaijani language sources.
2. [2], which adds original research about how the subject's inclusion on the US sanctions list means nothing
3. [3], which removes an enormous amount of reliably sourced content and adds brazen NPOV-violating text (such as how his ex-wife was "using legal loopholes and discrepancies" to sue him for divorce) and how he lost on technicalities. The add also adds lots of poorly sourced puffery about the subject.

The editor "emphatically and categorically" denies that they are a COI account.[4] Most of the editor's other edits on the encyclopedia are primarily about updating different company websites with logos and news of acquisitions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You must notify the editor of this discussion. --SVTCobra 18:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I did[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I was expecting the standard template. Sorry. --SVTCobra 19:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

uCarenet Technologies

• UCarenet Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• UCarenet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RELIEF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Relief (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CareMap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CareLingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nectari Charitakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (CEO)

A company description in an Upwork ad looks like it's probably uCarenet Technologies. They want a Wikipedia page for the corp and a mobile app. The article links are redlinks because I don't think any have been created yet. The poster says they are in Richmond Hill, Canada, and created their account in 2020. uCareNet's registered place of business is Richmond Hill and the copyright on their web pages is 2020. uCarenet says they offer apps called RELIEF, CareMap and CareLingo. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Added CEO since these often are done in a package. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Stuart Machin and Marks & Spencer

• Stuart Machin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marks & Spencer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LondonerM&S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 48LKEH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KittyKat22222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LondonerM&S added content to Stuart Machin (CEO-designate of Marks & Spencer) and I reverted this with an edit summary "Promotional, COI/paid editing, possible copyvio", leaving them a templated "Managing a conflict of interest" message. They state that they have "no connections to Marks and Spencers nor Mr Machin", but have ignored my further questions. 48LKEH and KittyKat22222 have performed the same reverts, and have been left "Managing a conflict of interest" messages. I cannot revert again due to WP:3RR. We also have a username issue with LondonerM&S, and obvious sockpuppetry. Incidentally, looking at the recent edit history of Marks & Spencer, there appear to be a number of SPAs. Edwardx (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the same editing again, as well as opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LondonerM&S Melcous (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: the SPI confirmed and blocked the three editors. --SVTCobra 03:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melcous: Good work. scope_creep^Talk 09:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Melcous. I must confess that my third revert was on a "give someone enough rope" basis, as it would be very hard to justify a further sock. Edwardx (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

vivo (technology company)

Hello - I have a question about the process of requesting an edit for users that have a conflict of interest. I work at vivo and there is a lot of information on our page that is outdated or incorrect. Following the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia process, I have made requests to update the information with uncontroversial, accurate information on the vivo Talk Page with a disclosure of my conflict. I have received a response from an editor and they made one of the requested edits, but the editor has not engaged on the others without citing an issue with the content. While I understand that editors are volunteers and there are a high volume of edit requests, are there any issues with the requested edits or can anyone share guidance on how best to update our page? I am committed to following Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules and I want to ensure that our company issue accurately depicted on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any assistance with this process and let me know if there are any questions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by COFFEELOVERS2022 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting and following the COI guidelines. As you have already noted, the backlog is substantial and for this I can only suggest patience. Glancing at your edit requests on the talk page, I might suggest that you read about WP:Reliable sources as some of your suggested references seem to fall a bit short of the mark. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Vaush

• Vaush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Inkublu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have now declared a CoI on my userpage and the article.

This is an unusual addition, since it's actually asking about myself, and whether I should declare a CoI or not. My potential conflict of interest is: I moderate Vaush's livestream chat, however this may be a case of WP:NOTCOI, given that I have no financial relation with him, no personal relation that'd be any different to a community member (I have no contact with him that is anything different to a normal community member, which would definitely be an interest, not a conflict of interest), and he is not my employer nor do I have any obligation to care for his public image. I'd assume this depends on how conservatively CoI's are applied on Wikipedia. If any of these conditions were to change (eg. I was paid for my work, instead of being a volunteer), I would immediately declare a CoI. Inkublu (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have no contact with him that is anything different to a normal community member I find this very difficult to believe. Most streamers are much closer with their chat mods than with random viewers. I don't watch Vaush's streams and don't really know anything about him, but I doubt he would mod random community members without getting to know them. Mlb96 (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously I cannot prove this, all I can do is say that the moderation team acts pretty independent of him, but that can't be proven so it isn't much of a useful point. I'm just presenting the situation as it is, if I am in fact decided to have a conflict of interest, then that's fine. Just so long as it isn't done under false pretenses, and it doesn't mistake simply either bias or an interest for a conflict of interest. Inkublu (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inkublu:, I'd compare it to an unpaid internship at a firm where you don't have much direct contact with the CEO. I presume you are also a member of his Discord channel. I further presume you are a fan, if you are volunteering your time. My recommendation for best practices would be to declare the relationship; feel free to include it being unpaid with little to no direct interaction. And I would limit editing the Vaush article to vandalism reversions. Any content changes should probably be handled through the talk page. Just my two cents. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It has to be noted that just being a fan or having a bias is not a conflict of interest, and so being a member of his Discord server shouldn't matter. But otherwise I think I agree with you, and will keep my edits purely functional and within CoI guidelines and disclose the relationship, I'm just debating whether to add the CoI template or not. Inkublu (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Place the ({{Connected contributor}}) template on the talk page... that way it's all above board. Nothing wrong with editing a subject that you are a fan of as long as you remain neutral. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks c: Inkublu (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian banks whitewashing

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam § Russian banks whitewashing

 – — Newslinger talk 05:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sovcombank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kasfe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Russian PR specialist Sergey Kalenik told on his Fb page that he turned a Russian bank into a Luxembourgish company to help the bank avoid the sanctions([6]). Here is the real correction where some Russian bank called Luxembourgish(Special:Diff/1075118299/1075558220). This edition may have signs of an undisclosed paid edit. Maybe there will be other attempts of derussification of other banks. --BogdanShevchenko (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Herman Cain Award

• Herman Cain Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hubrisandscandals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Looks like a duck to me, And seemingly he disclose COI in the wrong place with wrong method and spamming links of his site.Pavlov2 (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I did not spam links to my site. One correction was made, disclosed my COI, and the original source with the error has also issued a correction on their news article, which you can verify independently. Hubrisandscandals (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI, many thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Joanna Quinn

• Joanna Quinn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JoannaQuinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JoannaQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure what can/should be done regarding this article, as the user's edits go as far back as 2012, but recently came back in July 2020, this past November/December, and just last month as well. If it's of any use, this appears to be the latest version of the article, prior to any of the user's edits.

However, after I wrote the above, I went through the article's history some more and came upon the 'JoannaQ' account, which was editing the article a little more than a year after the article was first created. Latest version of the article prior to that user's edits appears to be this.

Possibly of use as well, I've just removed a whole bunch of externals links from the article, per WP:ELNO. Magitroopa (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

ForTheScience again

• Barnacle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ForTheScience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As previously discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_187#ForTheScience in January, this is a largely a single purpose account whose additions to Wikipedia almost entirely been to add references to research papers authored by a group of Turkish naval engineers at the University of Strathclyde. ForTheScience has described themselves as "an expert in the field" [7], so I presume that they are one of these authors. ForTheScience has recently continued their edit war from January to add their research paper to the lead of the Barnacle article, which I object to. They have repeatedly demonstrated in their communications to me on my talkpage and in edit summaries that they don't care about my views because they view me as a "non-expert" (as if naval engineers are experts on all aspects of barnacles?) and will continue to revert me to add the content back. Can I have some outside input? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is shocking to see someone writing discriminative comments on my nationality. I don't know what is the point of being a Turkish in this context. This is called racism without a doubt. Additionally, missing point is that rather than being a group of turkish than making a recent and very popular contribution to a wiki page which I would not expect such personality to be aware of and so can make a comment about it. I also disagree with the "as if naval engineers are experts on all aspects of barnacles?" part that Hemiauchenia offensively bullied. I am not an naval architect if that is something that you are seeking for an answer. Rather than unreasonably undoing the comments that I contribute, I would expect a better explaination than an unprofessional and racist discrimination on wikipedia. ForTheScience (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing racist or discriminatory in the above. Rather than playing the victim, please directly answer this question: Are you one of the authors of that paper, or are you associated with the authors in some way? MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I am not playing the victim. I am trying to understand why I can not contribute to a topic that I am specialised at on wikipedia and being criticised by an editor. And what I get is pointed out as " a group of Turkish...". Why are you stating my nationality? What is the point? What is wrong or correct with being Turkish in this context? What is the point when we are talking about a mistake that I might make with my nationality? You can understand it from the tone of the language that Hemiauchenia uses that he is simply arrogant due to his/her well experience on wikipedia editorring. He/She clearly uses a tonne that is teasing rather than being explaining. Or let me make it easier for you to understand. Let's pretend that I am claiming the moon surface is flat and you want to show to your fellow editors that I am wrong. How would you express it? Would you say oh an turkish, hispanic, african, english, amreican or whatever guy claiming that the moon is flat? We are not talking about nationalaities here. We are talking about the moon! That might seem very Why would I say oh look at that turkish guy, he is talking nonsense? What is being turkish or african or american in this context. I see absolutely racism and discrimination. Go for a walk and comment in the same way and get the reactions. If we are talking about a specific topic, Let's stick to the topic or the mistakes that I made rather unreasonably pointing a group of turkish engineers. This is riddiculous guys. Really. At least try to hide your disgusting racist discriminative feelings when explaining someone you think he/she is wrong and use a better language. ForTheScience (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not even talking about the heading "ForTheScience again!" as if I am sick. ForTheScience (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again: Are you one of the authors of that paper, or are you associated with the authors in some way? MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not. ForTheScience (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have left my thoughts on ForTheScience's talk page. To be short: ForTheScience will need to Talk about these changes, not edit war and WP:SECONDARY would be better. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 March 2022 (UTC)