Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:2020 United States Postal Service crisis
    Talk:Academy of Achievement
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:Aspen Dental
    Talk:Atlantic Union Bank
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Edward J. Balleisen
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:Neil Barofsky
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Bobbie (company)
    Talk:Edouard Bugnion
    Talk:Gráinne de Búrca
    Talk:Cannabis in Germany
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Charles Martin Castleman
    Talk:Pamela Chesters
    Talk:Cloudinary
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cognita
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Covivio
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:Richard France (writer)
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Genuine Parts Company
    Talk:Dan Gilbert
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Hilary Harkness
    Talk:Hearst Communications
    Talk:Jo Ann Jenkins
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher)
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:Andrew Lack (executive)
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:List of PEN literary awards
    Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health
    Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen
    Talk:Laurence D. Marks
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Modern Meadow
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:Parexel
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Talk:Philly Shipyard
    Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform)
    Talk:QuinStreet
    Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan
    Talk:Michael Savage (politician)
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Tamba-Sasayama
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Tencent Cloud
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:TKTS
    Talk:Trendyol
    Talk:Trócaire
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:Loretta Ucelli
    Talk:Ughelli Power Plant
    Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Alex Wright (author)
    Talk:Xero (company)
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    John Ortberg

    [edit]

    Pages:

    Users:

    Timothydw82 is a Single Purpose Account which is used solely to promote, defend and censor valid information about John Ortberg. Timothydw82 admits to consulting with Ortberg about the article on User talk:Timothydw82 and has also used that page to make disparaging comments about Ortberg's son, Daniel Lavery. This is both a serious COI and POV problem. He has been warned before by other editors. My most recent warning (for POV editing) was met with what seems to be feigned incomprehension and "Do you work for Wikipedia?". I think it is time to put an end to this farce. DanielRigal (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for sharing your concerns. I’d like to address the points you’ve raised to clarify any misunderstandings about my contributions and intentions.
    First, while my account may appear to have a narrow focus, my goal has always been to ensure that articles on Wikipedia adhere to its principles of neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. My edits related to John Ortberg and related topics are aimed at upholding these standards, not promoting or censoring information. If there are specific examples where you believe I’ve violated these principles, I welcome a constructive discussion to address them.
    Second, regarding my consultation with John Ortberg: I acknowledge that I have communicated with him, as I’ve disclosed on my user talk page. However, my involvement has been strictly limited to ensuring that edits align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and reflect accurate information.
    Third, concerning the comments about Daniel Lavery, I understand how sensitive these matters are. My intent was not to disparage anyone, and if any of my remarks were perceived as inappropriate, please bring them to my attention.
    I'd also like to express my disappointment in your accusing me via direct message of treating you like "idiots". That felt like a curt, uncalled for accusation with little to no dialogue or support. You have not engaged in a discussion with me but clearly expressed your desire to see me blocked for little to no good reason I can discern.
    Finally, regarding warnings from other editors: I value feedback and strive to learn from it. I am more than willing to engage in dialogue to resolve disputes and improve the quality of articles. If there are ongoing concerns about my edits, I encourage the use of formal dispute resolution processes so we can work collaboratively toward a solution. Timothydw82 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that AI generated text? I ran it through a few different detectors and most thought that it was at least partially AI generated. DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable. Indeffed. Thank you, Daniel. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation

    [edit]

    Pages:

    Users:

    Suspected undisclosed COI editors. Single-purpose accounts used exclusively to edit on this person and his foundation. All of the edits are complimentary, and almost entirely unsourced.

    I warned Channy Jung ([1]) and 203.239.154.130 ([2]) but both have continued editing Mirae Asset Park Hyeon Joo Foundation and have ignored the warning (Channy Jung edit, Channy Jung second edit IP edit). Chisu1020 has been inactive for a while though, but same pattern of behavior.

    I recently rewrote Park Hyeon-joo entirely to get rid of the unsourced promotional-like writing [3]. State of article before the rewrite: [4].

    Also worth noting the kowiki version of Park's article is similarly fluffy. I suspect Park/his foundation are watching these articles.

    seefooddiet (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Those accounts, as well as 203.239.154.131, all seem to be SPA/COI accounts which are not responding to multiple discussion attempts, and should be blocked for some period of time to get their attention. The "foundation" article seems like it would also fail GNG, and should probably be either deleted or merged into the Hyeon-joo article. TiggerJay (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Writers Marks a Milestone with 1,000 Successful Wikipedia Page Publications

    [edit]

    Well, that's what they say on openpr.com. For the interested. I was going to link it, but my edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. Despite that, it seems to have some WP-presence: [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That's just a press release site. The company that published it is already listed on WP:PAIDLIST at Wikipedia:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Hire_Wikipedia_Writers. SmartSE (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Devlin (footballer)

    [edit]

    The editor claims to be the subject of the article and is repeatedly adding altered statistics, replacing ones which appear to be referenced. I and Struway2 have made suggestions at the editor's talk page. I am reluctant to continue reverting in the circumstances (for all I know the edits are correct, if unsourced), but on the other hand it could be a hoax or subtle vandalism. What's the best way forwards? John (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Their stats look correct for what they are, per the sources in the career stats table lower down the article where they appear in the totals columns, but they include data for matches that don't belong in the infobox. The editor has removed all but big-league clubs from the infobox, lumped together separate spells with the same club, and included statistics for cup competitions; I've explained to them that conventionally we don't do that. The editor also suggests there are errors and omissions, which could well be true, but they haven't yet elaborated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are now blocked from making changes to that article. They are more than welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SHEJO VARGHESE

    [edit]

    User:SHEJO VARGHESE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Undisclosed COI editor writing an autobiography at Draft:Shejo Varghese. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    With the page in draft space and placed for CSD, and the copious user page warnings, with a grand total of 3 edits by this apparent COI editor, I would caution WP:BITE. I think no further action is likely necessary as their draft page will either be deleted under CSD but failing that would most certainly fail a formal AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiggerjay, my bad :( I had no intention to come off as overly harsh. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just remember to have good faith -- when they have only made three edits and stopped editing at 16:52, and then subsequently 4 consecutive posts to their talk page is a bit overbearing. It would be one thing if they were editing between your posts (so it appears they are ignoring you), but in this case, zero edits since the first notice, there's not a huge need to escalate unless they continue to persist in unconstructive behavior after the notifications. TiggerJay (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gilles Epié

    [edit]

    Epie2020 has acknowledged a personal connection to Gilles Epié on their talk page but does not seem to consider this a conflict of interest. They were most recently warned about this behavior on 20 December 2023 but continue to make edits to the Gilles Epié article. Vegantics (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been nearly a year since this user's last contribution, unless there are edits to deleted pages. I don't think there's any action to be taken here given that a COI notice has been on the page since 2023. Maybe some work could be done on the article itself? --Richard Yin (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I don't think the article has a version in page history that doesn't suffer from WP:PROMO issues. I've gone ahead and trimmed it down a bit. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a reasonable approach to me. They've been off and on editing the same article for years now, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back at some point. Hopefully this notice will dissuade them from directly editing the article. Thank you for your work on this. Vegantics (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Burning River Buckets

    [edit]

    User:C.A. Buttons has identified himself as the owner of the Burning River Buckets basketball team on his talk page, on my talk page, and on the article's talk page. I've tried over a period of months (and on each of those talk pages) to share information on the COI policy and the need for reliable sources, to no apparent avail. Perhaps others could give it try. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've posted a personalized explanation on their talk page. For now I think it's worth letting their changes to the page more or less stand; their actual contributions in the latest round of edits consisted of deleting some unreferenced information and accidentally removing one reference. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Went back and restored the external links section as well. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to a WP:COIN thread from 2024 regarding an IP editor claiming to be the team's owner: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Burning River Buckets/ABA --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thebosullivan

    [edit]

    User appears to be/is part of a (self-published) substack publication called Shatter the Standards (their about page makes this fact very obvious) and all of his edits since joining on January 13 2025 have been adding the publication's reviews to album articles (WP:PROMO). For example/recently, on Mac Miller's Balloonerism (today). // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Chchcheckit The top of this noticeboard clearly says This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Why wasn't this done first? I have now left a COI notice on the user's talk page. Melcous (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    my bad. i rushed / wasn't thinking Facepalm Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No wirres Chchcheckit, thanks for responding. Hopefully they will respond either here or there. Melcous (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    shatterthestandards.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 SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander H. Joffe

    [edit]

    There are other IPs which have only one edit to Joffe's article that could well be him as well but I don't think that's enough evidence to go by, nor would it be worthwile given how much Joffe's IP seems to change. Gazingo (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really actionable directly as all of these account edits are from several years ago. IP addresses span multiple networks and we wouldn’t block them broadly without good reason. Only thing at the moment is to keep an eye out on this article. If new IP edits become persistently disruptive you could request page protection, but one or two anonymous edits once a year wouldn’t even qualify for that unless there were serious BLP concerns. Use revert instead. TiggerJay (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Earth System Governance Project

    [edit]
    Resolved
     – Discussion should remain at WP:ANI BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Pinging @EMsmile:. See the extensive discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-neutral_paid_editor. Would like a subject matter expert/COI expert to figure this out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello User:Bluethricecreamman, that ANI thread has become crazy long, should we (or someone) perhaps summarise what the COI question about me is exactly, for the benefit of the people watching this noticeboard? You might be in a better position to do that than me. - My question would be: is the COI management explanation that I give on my profile page at the top under "disclosure" sufficient/correct? The ANI got started by someone who claimed my edits at solar radiation modification were adding "PR" because I am a paid editor and have a COI. I have rejected this claim and believe I have followed procedures correctly. I have however said in the ANI thread that I would be happy to ban myself from editing the Earth System Governance Project article in future due to the various connections between that alliance of academics and my client, the "Earth System Governance Foundation". EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note here that EMsmile also wrote 98% of Frank Biermann, the founder of the ESG Project. I'm not sure what question this COIN thread is supposed to be answering. What are we supposed to be figuring out here? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    no clue. never posted anything to COI/N. Just trying to get folks who know how to handle it or similar situations' take. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, since you don't have a specific question for COIN, I suggest that people who are interested comment at AN/I instead of here. Having a discussion take place in two different pages is very stressful, especially for the person whose conduct is being discussed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mockbul Ali

    [edit]
    Resolved
     – Page has been deleted and salted BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Article had been deleted after prior WP:COIN discussion, has now been created again. I've tagged for deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The page in question complies with all of Wikipedia’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:7507:2D93:8FC:5D8F (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Long history of puffery and sock puppetry. Probably does not meet our notability guidelines and we strongly suspect it's an autobiography. Secretlondon (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Jay8g: and @Axad12:. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The page in question complies with all of Wikipedia’s criteria and is factual with no commentary. There are references also included. The page is also identical in form to dozens of other pages for British diplomats. The UK diplomatic service has only a handful of diplomats from ethnic minority backgrounds, therefore it is worthwhile having a page on one of the very few ethnic minority British Ambassadors (of which there have been less than a dozen in the last 100 years). The aim surely has to be to improve the page and not delete it. 2A02:C7C:F349:3A00:7507:2D93:8FC:5D8F (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    EnterpriseDB

    [edit]

    Repetitive edits with promotional and unsourced content. Article has a history of seemingly paid editors and/or closely affiliated editors. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User hasn't responded to any talk page messages or made any other attempt to communicate besides two very short edit summaries. A block might be needed to get their attention (and also per username policy). See also User talk:Bilal Ibrar at EDB. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been blocked for spam. Secretlondon (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I listed all the potential COI/undisclosed paid editors in the article's history on the article talk page. Not a single one ever disclosed a connection to the company, but a bit of searching found that the majority were rather obvious. As the blocked editor is the only one recently active, there's no point in notifying any of the others. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1271346625"