Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XeVierTech (talk | contribs) at 17:39, 10 July 2024 (→User:Poppodoms: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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.
    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-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:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Kevin Hartz
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Pedestrian69

    Pedestrian69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Almost all of this user's contributions through their entire history here have involved promoting Arie and Elise Trouw, including by adding Elise to multiple lists of "Notable" people.

    Most recently, the user created the Arie Trouw article for a second time after it was deleted previously, and the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arie_Trouw&oldid=1229987095) was an embarrassing fluff piece that primarily cited Arie's personal website, claimed that him having a musician for a daughter "adds a unique aspect to his public persona", and included meaningless marketing fluff about his work "aiming to integrate physical and digital worlds through blockchain technology". Re-deletion is currently proposed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arie_Trouw_(2nd_nomination).

    I do not know precisely who this user is, but in my opinion it is obvious from their behaviour alone that they have some personal connection to the Trouw family and are editing for the purpose of promoting Arie and Elise, not for the purpose of improving Wikipedia.

    Users have, on multiple occasions, raised COI concerns on the user's talk page. The user has never engaged with those discussions.

    I'm not sure what appropriate next steps are, but given that engaging via Talk page has failed repeatedly over multiple years, I figured I should bring this to this Noticeboard for others to discuss. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just blocked Pedestrian69 for continuing to edit on his apparently conflicted topic past the UPE warning without giving a notice either way. Hopefully this will at least get their attention - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Miguel A. Martínez

    User Autodesplanifica contributions is a single purpose account which created a promotional account for a borderline notable academic. Back in April, I deleted the puff and queried whether there was a COI, which seems blatant to me. The user replied that there was not and accused me of vandalism (also by email). Over the weekend they returned to add more uncited promotional material and added a photo. I'd be grateful if somebody could take a look, thanks. Mujinga (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm thanks to @Melcous for querying a few things. I'm not convinced by Autodesplanifica's answer "I just like his work, which I find notable" since Miguel A. Martínez's website links to his twitter which is ... Autodesplan. What a coincidence! Mujinga (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Debra Fischer

    Continued editing of an article that shares their username after being warned about a potential COI violation yesterday. Jdcomix (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Rhode Island College of Pharmacy

    Username walks the line of WP:UAA. Editor appears to be slowly turning the article into an advert for the college. Warned about COI, continued editing with no communication. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:7DCA:43EC:BDAF:A739 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've soft blocked the username - it's not specific to an individual, student worker is a role. Secretlondon (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dssep

    Could someone please look into the activities of this newbie Dssep? They're bypassing the formal AFC review process by moving drafts into the main NS. Specifically, they have moved drafts such as Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning (Diff ~1231533766) and Draft:Jaan Say Pyara Juni (Diff ~1231434817). Additionally, they seem to be associated with another new account Hypothetically007 with fewer than 1000 edits, likely acting as a meat puppet to assist in these moves such as Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum (Diff ~1231301770). This page was created by @Dssep. Furthermore, they are removing WP:UPE tags from these pages, which is concerning. I've advised them against this behavior, but they continue to do so. Some of these drafts were created or heavily edited by WP:UPE sock farms, suggesting a strong possibility that @Dssep, may be a paid editor, too. If moving drafts to the main NS without proper review becomes commonplace, it undermines the purpose of WP:AFC. This is not the first instance of such behavior from new accounts, but I felt it is now necessary to report it here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What You Wish For

    User has continued disruptive editing on an article that they have a conflict of interest on, despite being warned multiple times. Jdcomix (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the talk page on the page, everything is laid out there. BlairThimper73 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (AFC reviewer and involved editor) @BlairThimper73 despite being warned for your interest, you kept asking proof of COI, while I placed the COI tag with proof. All the time you never tried to understand what is Conflict of Interest. Editor Jdcomix brought the issue here after seeing the page history and the talk page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I don't see any COI. What is COI on the page as it stands currently? There is none. The page has almost zero contribution from me now, and what I did initially contribute was just inforamtion. But like I have said, the COI will stand because you want it to. This is not my problem, it is a public resource, not a private forum for your opinion. BlairThimper73 (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlairThimper73 this is Wikipedia, not your film. Your above statement is inability to understand what is being said and against good behaviour. You seem to be a single purpose account to create or edit your films only. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Emmanuel Samba Zumakpeh

    Editor adding unsourced material to this BLP. Editor commented on my Talk page ... I am currently in touch with him ... Editor has continued to edit the article despite CoI warning. Tacyarg (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vitaliy Khomutynnik

    Vitaliy Khomutynnik's article has attracted COI/UPEs in the past to white wash his biography and they were blocked for violations. Now, a user with just 298 edits (User:Jenes) has whitewashed the article again from this to this. One of the sock even disclosed the payment status. Can we investigate/revert this obvious sock? More eyes the better. 86.97.145.183 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the edit on Vitaliy Khomutynnik's page in a wider field than the discussion page. The first thing I want to pay attention to is that the main language section for me is Ukrainian. I have less experience in editing English section because of my not quite perfect English.
    Therefore, I don’t edit separate sections, but update (create) pages that I wrote (or substantially revised) in the Ukrainian section. This is exactly the situation with the Khomutynnik’s page. Before my edition this page looked like a list of separate facts and I built a structured text from these facts and wrote an article.
    How does the user’s Bexaendos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit look like? Rearrangement of text blocks (of course this is a matter of taste, but why it was necessary to do it in a newly rewritten article?) and addition of facts that do not stand the test of time, and which, according to this logic, were removed from the updated version. It is about the Inauguration of Donald Trump, which took place in 2017.
    If Bexaendos user considers this fact significant for the biography, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to start a separate section with a list of all the protocol events in which Khomutynnik participated. Or, at least, he should also edit the corresponding Inauguration of Donald Trump article and start with the formation of a complete list of the participants of the ceremony (if the editors consider the addition of such names appropriate). Jenes (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Centre for Voters Initiative & Action (CVIA)

    This is a blatent COI article, and this user has already been banned from editing an article created on him. OnlyNanotalk 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marco Camisani Calzolari

    One of the creators of this new BLP (which I tagged while patrolling) has helpfully declared that they are a paid editor. Am I right in assuming that such an article should be moved to WP:AFC? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Hidden World of Wikipedia Page Creation Services

    "This is where Maximatic Media's expertise comes into play, crafting pages that not only go live but remain intact against the scrutiny of Wikipedia's dedicated community of editors and administrators."

    For the interested. Sadly, the writer never asked about if they follow WP:PAID. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd go even further and say it's downright malpractice to write a whole article about undisclosed paid editing and not mention that it is banned. Maximatic Media doesn't disclose their username where they advertise their services and therefore are violating Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Disclosures to clients. But WP:RSP#Entrepreneur tells me that this is a self-published content mill, so it's probably no use trying to get it corrected. – Joe (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you know, there's that delicate balance between doing stuff they can get paid for and other stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if this outfit 'Maximatic Media' is already on our radar. It's not on WP:PAIDLIST and I couldn't find any previous discussion of it, but they might just have changed their name. A Newbie-Friendly Guide to Creating and Self-Publishing Your Own Wikipedia Page claims they are "a somewhat renown [sic] Wikipedia editor" and implies they have access to an account that's "been around for 7+ years and has made 3,000+ edits across various existing pages alongside the 300+ pages they've created and published themselves". Of course, they all say that, but the actually-quite-good knowledge of our policies and how to circumvent them on display in that article suggests it might not be total bullshit this time. – Joe (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article includes a disclaimer at the top that Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own and also that You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. That this would be a sort of paid news piece doesn't seem to be all that surprising, and editorial standards regarding paid news tend to be quite low; this piece is somewhat indistinguishable from an ad. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsurprisingly, Maximatic Media list this as one of the sites that clients can pay to be published in. I would be unsurpised if they felt that something good for their clients may well be good for them. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see UPEs making high quality BLPs (+30 refs, photo, full MOS-editing), but where the refs are primary/speaker bios/obscure publications etc., and ultimately the main source of their notability is their Wikipedia blp (e.g. like Ian Khan (theoretical futurist)). We should have a WP:ACRONYM for such cases (e.g. WP:WIKINOTABILITY or WP:CARTBEFORETHEHORSE). Aszx5000 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See this super-gross Rolling Stone UK piece with a tiny disclaimer at the bottom "Stream Publishing not involved in this content" i.e. it's churnalism under their name. Of course, reputation management is Maximatic's business; their Wikipedia page creation service is listed under the wonderful sub-heading "Mastering Online Reputation Management". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So band spam? Secretlondon (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Band spam, but since it comes from a Rolling Stone url and the thing that lets us tell that it is sponsored content appears at the bottom, it might be a bit more likely to slip through the cracks at AfC or NPP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had no luck trying to tie this company to any on-wiki activity. I think it speaks to the evolving tactics of UPE operations. They know that it's very difficult to slip non-notable subjects by NPP, so they focus on manufacturing (pseudo-)SIGCOV through paid placements first. They know that running your own sockfarm isn't sustainable, so they focus on—unfortunately there is no escaping this now—getting accounts with the NPP flag so that they can mark reviewed articles created by one-off freelancers. It's a challenge. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's the way that the game has changed, perhaps an audit of NPP review actions by trusted users might be worthwhile? Could even be done on a sample basis, but it should help to catch/mitigate some of that. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah we already do that. There are 800 NPPers doing several thousand reviews a day though. It's a crapshoot. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was unaware that there was a systematic audit in this area. Is there some page that describes this, or is it mostly ad-hoc? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a tool that can cross-reference specific citation sources with editors who frequently insert them? Cross-referencing some of the sources mentioned in this article[1] would give a hint. There's even a spreadsheet that list the dollar amounts and impact of the sources the PR company can publish in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is COIBot, but it's a bit hard to use, and its use is somewhat restricted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yousuf Bhailok

    To quote edit summaries I am his assistant. I have updated more about him and This is the real version for yousuf Bhailok. I am his election campaign manager, both left while turning the article into a hagiography. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The slur by association in that article is terrible and certainly was correctly removed. Secretlondon (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IE the controversy section which is all about someone else. Secretlondon (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I hesitated to remove it entirely due to it being sourced (people get weird when an IP removes sourced information, even when it's as terrible as that para was) and am happy that it now has been. The hagiography that replaced the entire article a few edits earlier is now something to watch for in case it returns, in my opinion. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Secretlondon (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I'm just adding to this - this person who claims to be his summary seems to be removing alot of things; while I agree it was wrong of me to add the slur by association (i own up to this) He seems to be removing valid information which adds to the page. Please advise? Prestoncitizen123 (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marathon Asset Management

    This user has been adding advertising (or at least very spammy Title Case Industry Jargon) to this article. No communication; reversal is met with instant reversion. Coming here to avoid 3RR issues. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will note that the user has not edited since they were warned about our undisclosed paid editing policy. None of the user's contributions remain in the article. Please ping me if the user edits again, or if there is any additional sort of promotional fluff coming from new accounts to that article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: 69.112.136.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared yesterday making the same edits, but got squashed by Cluebot. Just FYI at this point. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to semi-protect the page for a month to see if that calms things down. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Zang Toi

    User has edited an article that is apparently about themself despite a prior warning about a potential conflict of interest. Jdcomix (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    UPE - Message from Simple English Wiki

    I received a message on my talk page on Simple English Wikipedia which led to this discussion also on Simple English Wikipedia about user Nuel Jr. Copying information here for those interested and notified the person who pinged me to email evidence to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I received a similar ping. I usually don't respond to off-wiki material like that, but the link is 100% compelling and I've disabled the Nuel Jr account. I don't really want to fall afoul of our limitations on outing, so I'll avoid linking to anything. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had that thought too which is why I told the user to email the appropriate people. Thanks for checking into it. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking care of this. I have requested a revision deletion per WP:OUTING (though I am not familiar with their local policies) and reverted the obvious paid edits by the user in question. However, further review is needed to identify any additional spam. GSS 💬 06:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Without having seen any external evidence, I was considering blocking the account as a spam account. It has an extensive history of blatantly promotional editing, so much so that It's remarkable that he's got away with it for so long. JBW (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nine pages created by this editor have been deleted as promotional, by various administrators. Others probably should be deleted. JBW (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now checked the editor's page creations, and deleted two more of them as promotional. There is one more draft, which in my opinion is promotional-ish, but not enough to justify speedy deletion. JBW (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @JBW: Thank you, that was much needed. From their off-wiki profile, it looks like they were also hired to create draft:Vijay Kumbhar, which they got undeleted through WP:RFU. The draft is a complete mess and should be deleted too, imo. Also, their edits to Alec Torelli need a review since they’ve flooded it with citations from YouTube videos and other poor sources. GSS 💬 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GSS: Yes. Thank you for pointing Draft:Vijay Kumbhar out; I've deleted that too. Nuel Jr was effectively responsible for the existence of that article, but since his name didn't show as the creator of the page I missed it first time. I don't have time now to check Alec Torelli, but you may like to see if there's any reverting you would like to do. JBW (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Borodich

    The latest undeclared paid editor on this article appears to have a single goal – removal of the UPE template at the top. It was removed without comment by them as their first ever edit, and removed again without comment as their second. They then made a series of very minor edits culminating with the removal of the template again. Once more (wrongly, I should've come here at this point, I put my hands up to it) it was removed this time saying that their small changes of capitalisation and word order meant that the UPE tag no longer applied, and again with the same reasoning.

    I'm done here, as I should've been about 4 edits on the article ago, but would like others to take a look if possible. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as a sock. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Back as 95.64.167.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just reverted again. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4087:A0C5:26D7:210A (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Uma' Anũpa'

    I am member of the Houma Language Project. We are a volunteer-led group of community members and linguists passionately focused on the reclamation and reconstruction of the Indigenous Houma language which was spoken in south Louisiana. In addition, we focus on cultural activities and archival documentation of the history of the Houma people and language.

    As a result of our work and our expertise, we have noticed a myriad of pages on Wikipedia relating to Indigenous peoples of Louisiana, especially the Houma, that do not reflect existing published resources and lack substantive and in some cases accurate information. To remedy this, I volunteered to create a Wikipedia account on behalf of the project in early June. I made an error in that I created the account for use by the Houma Language Project team as a group, which I now understand to be in violation of Wikipedia's account policy. This has been rectified in that now I will be using the account as an individual, and the username has been changed to reflect this. However, I have received confusing and unsubstantiated mandates from several editors to not edit pages directly but instead to post edit requests (please see the User talk page). It has not explained why this would constitute a COI under Wikipedia guidelines but has instead placed the onus on me to seek an explanation for an arbitrarily dictated ruleset not clearly outlined (to the best of my knowledge) under Wikipedia's own terms.

    Houma Language Project is neither a for-profit business, an incorporated non-profit, nor a tribe-affiliated entity at the time of writing. We are a group of individuals who have decided to dedicate our time to work together on the language. No one is an employee of the Houma Language Project, and as such, there is no possibility of payment in exchange for editing on Wikipedia. In addition, the COI guidelines were clearly written to avoid self-promotion and the entangelement of financial and business relationships with editing on Wikipedia. It has not been demonstrated to me how the editing of pages about the language and the Houma people, rather than, for example, a page about the Houma Language Project itself, while operating under Wikipedia's terms (such as using neutral language and acceptable references) coincides with any of these conflicts and constitutes promotion or advocacy of a particular point-of-view.

    - User:Uma' Anũpa' (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    John B. Goddard School of Business & Economics

    I came across an interesting situation and wanted to make sure this doesn't represent an unusual variation on a paid COI. See the talk page for Nthurs for details. In short, they are a student at the school and are unpaid but acting under the direction of the dean's office. I asked them to follow the unpaid COI rules but may be mistaken. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding, based on the Paid-contribution disclosure page, is that if they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose. But this doesn't look like an internship in the traditional sense; these sorts of volunteer groups can almost function as pseudo-student clubs. There might be perks (such as bowling or escape room trips), but I'm a bit hesitant to label it as compensation for purposes of our policy—I'd struggle to see how it is different than a professor who is running a WikiEd class that happens to have dinner at his/her home one night or hosts a catered classroom edit-a-thon.
    That being said, it's obviously a conflict-of-interest if the individual is acting on behalf of the school itself (or on behalf of a student group whose raison d'être is to promote the school), and you are correct to insist that the user follow the ordinary WP:COI rules and avoid claiming ownership of the page. If the editing pattern becomes overtly promotional, we would treat them no differently than any other sort of editor who is acting in an overtly promotional way. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harlette

    On the article Harlette, LuxuryUK72 has added content about the subject in a promotional tone, as well as on King's College London. Since the article subject operates a UK-based company called Harlette Luxury Lingerie & Swimwear, this username may be a reference to the company. With these two factors in mind, I gave LuxuryUK72 a COI warning on their talk page. Said user, however, has ignored this warning and continued to re-add the promotional content to these two articles, while adding snide comments on my talk page such as "clearly you have no understanding." Therefore, I'm opening up this case for investigation from more experienced users.--Panian513 02:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The COI is obvious and presumably a continuation of Pinkdiamondsgirl who was warned about COI back in 2019. I couldn't find any decent sources so have nominated it for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sujandahal76

    The user account was registered nearly two years ago, and the very first edit was to create a draft on Classic Tech, a business in Nepal. Since then, the user's almost entire edit history Special:Contributions/Sujandahal76 has to do with this draft, or discussions about it. (They have more recently diversified into a couple of other topics, so can't call them quite SPA.) Paid editing has been queried on the user's talk page, previously by another editor and most recently by me, but the user denies it. However, off-Wiki evidence (and I'll say no more, so as not to out anyone) shows that an individual, whose name matches the user name of this editor, works at Classic Tech. My contention is that either the edit history or the user name could just about be coincidences, but put together the more likely explanation is UPE. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, purely for the purposes of my own understanding (and not wishing to suggest anything untoward) how is it not 'outing' to state, when suggesting a COI, that the SPA username matches the name of an employee of the company that the article is about?
    I ask the question simply because I was once in a position where I was aware of a similar possible COI situation. On that occasion I didn't mention the information because I felt that to do so would probably breach WP:OUTING.
    My reading of the policy was simply that making an observation such as the one above is effectively posting another editor's personal information when that editor has not posted that information themselves.
    I'd be grateful for some guidance on this point. Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd be equally grateful, @Axad12. I don't know, TBH, and if I've crossed a line, I'm happy to have my knuckles rapped (or worse, as may be seen fit), and this thread to be redacted.
    My rationale, FWIW, was that the username is what it is, and is visible to everyone. If my real name were Double Grazing, and someone said "hey, aren't you Double Grazing?", I'd say "sure, as it says right there". But if my real name is John Smith, my username is DoubleGrazing, and someone said "DoubleGrazing is actually John Smith", I'd probably be unhappy to have my cover blown. That's not the case here, though.
    As for the off-wiki evidence I mentioned, that's again publicly available. I haven't doxxed anyone, I'm just saying that it's there.
    If I got that wrong, I trust someone will tell me soon enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are using their own name to edit Wikipedia which is the same name as somebody who works for the company, that is not outing? Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of WP:OUTING is that if the user has not previously stated on Wikipedia that their username is their real name and that they work for a given company, then for another user to observe that such info can easily be located elsewhere is outing.
    If the username was in the format '[realname][employer]' then they have effectively outed themselves. But if the username is just '[realname]' then for someone else to state that the user works for a given company is outing. Correct? Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out the irony here, the user is saying they are not the person working in that company, and I'm barking up a wrong tree. If that's true, then I haven't outed anyone. The only way I might have outed them is if they are indeed that person, in which case we have a UPE situation. (Okay, you might say that two wrongs don't make a right, an UPE doesn't justify outing, but I did give them the opportunity to disclose paid-editing without having to come to COIN, which they declined to do.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't doubt that you were right to raise COI concerns in this case. I just think that speculating on the user's identity is unnecessary when they are an obvious SPA who has had the article repeatedly declined to be included in mainspace.
    Also, saying that you haven't tried to out anyone, because they previously denied being that person, is illogical. You tried to out them alright, and whatever they had to say about it (and whether they were telling the truth or not) is irrelevant. Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether I've actually outed someone or not, remains to be seen; so far this is your opinion, so let's not treat it as a foregone conclusion just yet. And how you could know what I did or didn't try to do, I'm not sure.
    Anyway, if you have a problem with my actions, maybe you should take me to ANI, because this discussion is becoming more about me than about COI/UPE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems pretty clear that what happened here was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant policy which has now been resolved - so no need for ANI. Axad12 (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Poppodoms

    Poppodoms seems to be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account dedicated to creating articls related to Huawei such as BiSheng compiler, Cangjie (programming language), ArkTS, Ark Compiler, ArkUI, HarmonyOS NEXT, HarmonyOS kernel and more. I added a {{COI}} template on the Cangjie page which seems to have upset him as he wrote on my user page that I have 24 hours to remove it or else he will get other wiki mods to challenge it, one minute later an IP address removed the COI template and 3 minutes later the IP address wrote that my page that it has been "it has been resolved", 1 minute later Poppodoms responded thanking said IP address and wrote an unfounded statement about "discrimination and racism needs to stop". Frap (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not clear to me how you got from SPA to COI. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, it does not makes sense. Poppodoms (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, it's not unfounded, you targeted my account, throwing unfounded accusations around "single purpose account". Yeah, I gave you a notice and shortly it was resolved because your behaviour is disgusting on this account in not being objective, abusing the policies of Wikipedia objectiveness with blatant racial biases in your decision making and you are doing it again right here. FMOD, Apk (file format), Vulkan are not Huawei properties, last I checked when contributing those pages before. BTW, it is spelt "articles", not "articls" Poppodoms (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it is not explained from your side how did you get from SPA to COI. You throw tags without any purpose of your decision making. Poppodoms (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    others contributes these pages you mentioned Poppodoms (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think given my experience at Template talk:Programming languages and looking at their edits, XeVierTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is likely connected as well. Skynxnex (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello
    Could you please tell me why and how I'm connected to this user?
    Best regard, XeVierTech XeVierTech (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1233746322"