This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.
  • 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 What is a conflict of interest? list. 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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Another round of ACPERM evaders

I've cast the net somewhat wider this round as the previous heuristic was getting less effective, so expect a few more false positives. Still, there's plenty of spam to go around and quite a bit has been nominated for deletion. MER-C 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErnestCarrot

And sure enough, there was another large bunch of socks.

Sigh. MER-C 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

MER-C holy smokes, thanks for doing this research. I'm a little distracted by other projects now but if a nomination like that for PCO Imaging comes up again, would you ping me? I would have def voted "delete" on that but didn't see it in time. Obviously cutting the legs (paychecks) out from under the paid editing advocacy editors is important. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
And today we have a new user TheRainMandem whose first meaningful edit is to deprod Fiona Scott Lazareff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lyndaship (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Make that two, with another spam page under construction. I prefer not to follow up spam SPIs quickly for BEANS reasons, so I'll keep this in mind next time I run the detection program. I suggest taking the article to AFD. MER-C 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I've listed it at AfD. I also PRODed Boulevard (lifestyle magazine) yesterday as it has same creator and one of the socks linked to it from this one as his first edit, today I see a new IP editor has done some work on it but not as yet dePRODed Lyndaship (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Some historical stuff. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

From the latest SPI. MER-C 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A week's worth of articles just clearing the ACPERM bar

I think there are a few socks in this dump. Note that there is another new heuristic for catching accounts that clearly aren't the first ones operated by the relevant editors. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again

Might as well post these while I'm here. MER-C 14:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Bump to keep out of the archive for another couple of weeks. MER-C 20:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Amb sib

Amb sib is linkspamming cellosaurus ( and has been doing so for years. This is the editor's own database as stated here "(such as mine, the Cellosaurus)".

Some of the many, May 2018 [1], April 2018 [2], March 2018 [3], Oct 2017 [4], March 2017 [5], Oct 2016 [6], Aug 2016 [7], July 2016 [8], Nov 2015 [9] [10] (a massive linkspam in nov 2015), Nov 2015 [11] where it may have started.

Editor is the primary editor of Cellosaurus, and baring minor edits the only editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it link spamming, more a case of referencing but I do see your concerns. I don't think it is such problem though, Amb sib is indeed the PI for the database, it is part of a collection of databases maintained by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, which gives it merit to source Wikipedia articles, don't you think? --Andrawaag (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The Cellosaurus is not a "personal" resource. As stated in its home page it is part of the neXtProt resource developed by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. It is one of the service offered by the SIB to the ELIXIR European life infrastructure:


It is one of the resource key to the fight against cell line misidentification:


While, as a group leader at the SIB and a founder and developer of [[UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot|Uniprot], ENZYME, PROSITE, neXtProt and other resources I personally spend time on the Cellosaurus this is not "my" resource.

I am not sure if you are aware of the work being done in the life sciences in the last 30 years to establish core resources to help scientist carry out research. This is a key element of modern research and the contribution of databases such as Swiss-Prot or the Cellosaurus are recognized by the community as exemplified by the lastest ABRF award:


So linking Wikipedia pages representing biological objects to biomolecular resource is essential. This is also true of the integration of these resources in Wikidata. Recently all the Cellosaurus cell lines were entered in Wikidata as part of an effort to have life science resources contribute to a FAIR infrastructure.

Its true I added these links myself instead of asking another of my group member or other Wikipedia contributors to do it. If you prefer that it be done by someone else I will ask the community to do so. It seems to me a waste of time to delegate this task and took upon myself to contribute to the Wikimedia movement.

The Cellosaurus has now been described in a perr reviewed publication:


But I guess you will say that as I am the sole author it is conflict of interest :-)

As an example of the use of the Cellosaurus to authenticate cell lines and thus clean up experimental errors, see a very recent example published a few days ago:


On a personal note I resent your accusation of "linkspaming": cross-referencing to scientific resources is not only the reverse of spamming but one of the strength of modern biological sciences.Amb sib (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

These links are scientifically valuable and I support their inclusion in these pages. I could see the development of a specific InfoBox for Cell line articles and a link to Cellosaurus would be something to include in that. I think that Amb sib is working with the best of intentions and improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. I can see the reasons why this was raised as an issue but I think that no action is warranted. Alexbateman (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
There is sadly a COI as Amb sib declared on his user page here [12] that he is Amos Bairoch who is in charge of Cellosaurus. He has also edited his own page on Wikipedia occasionally and also that of his employer Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. There is also evidence of throw away accounts with connected names editing these pages. To me as a lay person all these Cellosaurus links look like spam but I can accept professionals in that field might not agree however I'm not sure if Wikipedia is the place for such detailed links? I regard the COI edits elsewhere as fair NPOV edits and am ambivalent about any action. Lyndaship (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Just two things to correct some incorrect statements above: 1) I am not employed by the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, but by the University of Geneva. 2) I did not create my page on wikidata and found out about it about a year after it was created. I did make some edits to correct errors and update data which was no longer applicable. I am not sure what you mean by "connected" names, but if this means other members of the SIB, then some of these edits are probably from members of that organisation. But then you must realize that almost all (currently 800) bioniformaticians in Switzerland are part of the SIB as it is a federation of research groups with totally different academic affiliations. So if anyone belonging the the SIB can no longer edit anything about bioinformatics in Switzerland there is a big problem. It would mean that belonging to a category of professionals preclude one from making edit on that particular subject of expertise. I also admit having edited two pages concerning towns in Switzerland and therefore in the same light this is is a COI as I am Swiss! Amb sib (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
What a major cop-out. I'm an earthling so any topic related to this planet is a COI too? You are supposedly an intelligent individual. Instead of skirting the issues with your strawmen you could instead stop insulting our intelligence. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
There certainly is a *possible* COI, but I really do not see the actual COI or how this is not NPOV: linking to a research database (it's about natural facts) is not the same as linking to a commercial product website. If the goal of Wikipedia is to back facts with literature, how is this not doing exactly that? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


This user is doing nothing but adding many links to the same couple of websites.

The editor is putting in a link in to [creativeawards] a company that makes and sell awards. About 24-26 articles have been affected. scope_creep (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
And this [13]
And this: [14] The editor seems to think that WP is advertising platform. Left a disclosure message and reverted the edits. scope_creep (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It is all shops their are linking to. scope_creep (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked as a spam-only account. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks DGG scope_creep (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparent edit war between SoulPancake, Aviv Hadar, myself, and perhaps at least one other unknown party

I realize the potential for BOOMERANG here. I should not have never gotten involved in this edit war between these two parties, one of whom is my client Aviv Hadar. I was contacted by a former client who asked for assistance after his page was repeatedly and for months was being vandalized (see history of Aviv Hadar). I cleaned it up, upload a photo he sent me, and requested page protection which was granted by Amorymeltzerto expire on 6 July 2018. The exact moment protection expired yesterday, KillroyMichael came into the picture with the recent POV edits to Aviv Hadar. What I did not realize is that my former client was also doing POV editing of his own to SoulPancake with whom he has had a lengthy legal battle which you can read about here.

The most recent changes to Aviv Hadar are IMO precipitated following this edit most like by my client. Notice how KillroyMichael removes all wikilinks from Aviv Hadar to SoulPancake. All in all a very messy situation that will likely lead to me being deservedly blocked, topic banned, or permanently banned. I bring it to your attention because of the potential BLP ramifications. I truly apologize for my part in creating this dumpster fire. Consider me at the very least topic banned. I don't do paid editting on Wikipedia anymore and will likely never edit at all from this point forward.—አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@DGG:--That you did not note anything over here, are you certain about the G11 deletions? WBGconverse 05:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I shall double-check. It may take me a day or two to think this through carefully. Thanks for asking me to have another look. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
btw I had nominated the pages for speedy per PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Above user admits a COI for the above pages, where they are apparently an employee. I am posting here as the kind of work that is being done at Ottawa-Gatineau Art is so blatantly promotional of the area and the gallery. Said article cites a catalogue published by the gallery over 100 times! Yikes. (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ottawa-Gatineau Art might be notable (no idea) but in light of the blatant ref-spamming, dispatched to draft-space.
The first subject is very-evidently notable but might need some cleanup. WBGconverse 05:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Well done, thanks. (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


Above user admits he works for the Pro Vice Chancellor (Administration)'s office of Dhaka University and hence there arises a COI when the user only edits the page of the Vice Chancellor of the aforementioned University. I am posting here as this page may need additional review. Kaisernahid (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The subject passes NPROF but the article will surely benefit from some culling and copy-edits.On it:) WBGconverse 05:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Naked Group

I came across a page creation by the user Leeallenmack that smacked of COI and a very brief search on the web confirms without any doubt that there is a WP:PAID editing problem. I assumed good faith and templated them with a COI notice here as they made no reply I asked them several times about this COI here here here so as to give them the possibilty to declare their COI with Naked group and its owner which they have either ignored or skirted around here and here where they replied to my request for clarification with the following ...Whether you believe there is COI is immaterial.. In the beginning I thought they were acting in good faith but I am having trouble with that idea now. This user is now adding other pages that also smack of promotional content Le Bouchon and Element Fresh. When you do a search by combining the names of the owners of Le Bouchon and Naked group you come across this. [15]. The other user is an inactive account that created Naked Group. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow that is terrible. I gave a ramped up paid editing notice. If they continue to be nonresponsive they should be indeffed. The WP:APPARENTCOI is glaring. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I've draftified his latest creation. And, all the other stuff, he's touched with his spam-brush are already at Afd. And with Jyt giving the final warning about a disclosure, the next step will be an indef:) WBGconverse 05:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree, that guy is the worst. Must be a paid editor! Block him from wikipedia immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeallenmack (talkcontribs) 09:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Leeallenmack: paid editing and conflict of interest editing is not forbidden but what is against policy is not making the required disclosure. You have refused to make this disclosure despite that fact that I have let you know that I know without a shadow of a doubt that you have a COI. It took me all of 20 seconds using your user name and the name of the company to find this COI. It seems very odd not to reply to the different requirements as per WP:PAID. Mainly because the articles that you created could have been worked on in collaboration with other editors and may have found their place in Wikipedia. You are effectively shooting yourself in the foot by not replying and making frivolous remarks on a noticeboard that could be used to take a decision to block you. Very strange behaviour and not what one would expect from someone whose role maybe to improve the visibility of a company. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

Good morning! I thought now would be a good moment to respond to the rather serious accusations being leveled against me. And I'll apologize in advance for not using the wonderful Wikipedia markdown in penning this - I'm sorry but I just can't be bothered to look up all the references right now. If that disqualifies everything I am about to say, then that says more about WP than about me. I proceed.

First, there is no conflict of interest. None. No real conflict of interest, that is. Clearly there is appearance of conflict of interest. There must be otherwise your good selves would never have raised the possibility. But let me assure you right here right now and in no uncertain terms - I have never been offered financial reward or ANY KIND OF REWARD for publishing the content I have published on WP. Nor have I ever been threatened with punishment as a way of coercing me to publish what I have published on WP. My role is not to "raise the visibility" of ANY company on WP. That's the fact. No matter how many WP administrators you get to echo and amplify your suspicions, it won't EVER change the actual fact. 2+2 are never going to equal 5.

The real fact is that I am a person in Shanghai, China, who noticed a lamentable lack of quality entries on things in China and tried to rectify that. I can imagine you might say - "Go post in Chinese wikipedia". Well, Chinese wikipedia is blocked here and mainland Chinese people don't give a toss about Chinese wikipedia because Chinese wikipedia is edited almost entirely by non-Mainland-living Chinese people. It has it's own biases and predilections. In any event, these days more Chinese than Americans people speak and read English. That's another fact and a very interesting one at that.

So, I choose to put up some listings in English relating to notable things here in China. naked Retreats - very famous resorts in China. Element Fresh - the restaurant chain that kicked off the healthy food trend in China, it's served more people over the years than PF Chang, that shameful excuse of a Chinese restaurant chain in America which seems to have passed the notability criteria on WP with flying colors. Le Bouchon - the first French restaurant in Shanghai. It's been operating out of the same location for 20 years. Maybe you don't get how utterly unbelievable / improbable that is.

And there's more to come - YY Bar, the nightlife equivalent of Le Bouchon, operating in the same location for what 22 years now. The brand new AMAZING river walk park which has just opened in Pudong which now stretches some 11km - unbroken - which has given new life to derelict riverfront space. There are iconic Chinese films which are not on WP. There are Chinese writers who are not on WP. There are glaring problems with the existing pages for various Chinese artists. My friends, there are a lot of truly notable things happening in China right now which WP will be poorer without.

And if you say to yourself that you just don't want these listings put up by me, well that's fine. That's your right. Your loss, really, not mine.

I know you guys believe in what you are doing. I know you believe what you are doing is right. I won't presume to articulate the benefits which you receive from policing WP. Regardless, there must be benefits or else you wouldn't devote so much time doing it. Good for you. Good for you. You no doubt help shore up the edges of knowledge which are always threatening to unravel under the assault of the masses. In many cases you are right. But not this one. Not this one. In this one you are wrong.

Determining the worth of an WP entry based on the sources - fine. Having a reasonable discussion about reliability, objectivity, blah blah blah - all good. Hurling untrue accusations against me - not cool. Deleting pages because of suspected conflict of interest - not cool. Even your own WP administrators admit there is no consensus about what do to with a page that is suspected of being put up by some with a conflict of interest suspected or otherwise.

Anyway, enough of my time spent on this thread of discussion. Have a pleasant day! It is sunny here in Shanghai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeallenmack (talkcontribs) 01:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

A conflict of interest (COI)is not limited to being paid to edit Wikipedia, or being threatened with punishment for not editing Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia's COI policy is concerned, you have a COI if you have a close personal connection to the subject of an article, and this includes being an employee of a company that is the subject of an article. You have made here what some might consider an overly specific denial - you denied being paid to do this. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Leeallenmack: simple question you or do you not work for Naked group? Maybe in a marketing role or something similar? Please remember before answering that it is very very very easy to use Google to find blogs professional social media profiles articles in magazines events that are taking place in September in Shanghai etc etc. For crying out loud man I can't be any clearer than that without "outing" you. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Charlie Engle (marathoner)

Editor removes unflattering content from Charlie Engle (marathoner), and has stated that they "represent Charlie Engle":

  • [16] - Removed sourced content about Engle's prison sentence.
  • [17] - Removed "advert" template. Stated in edit summary "I removed the advert. I represent Charlie Engle. This page is factual and not promotional. All information can be referenced, thoroughly."
  • [18] - Removed sourced content about Engle's prison sentence. Stated in edit summary "A user keeps changing things and commenting. Please stop editing a page that is not of your expertise. All of my edits and info are %100 factual. I represent Charlie Engle, and this is his wikipedia page." Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@magnolia677 Thanks for the feedback. I apologize if I have not understood protocol for Wikipedia. Please allow me to address some of these things.

I did not remove any unflattering content. Other people, however, have removed lots of referenced materials from this page. Yes, I wrote that I represent Charlie Engle. Perhaps that is a poor choice of words. I was simply trying to assert that I know that my information is factual. I did not think there was a conflict of interest.

The prison section that I deleted today was much shorter than the one that was already on his page. **The original one referenced two articles in the New York Times, an article in Outside Magazine, and a PBS special about Charlie's prison sentence. All of those sourced materials were removed by another editor. Therefore, I deleted their trimmed-down (and insufficient with respect to references) version to restore the previous, very well referenced section.

I felt like there was an onslaught of activity on this page as I was simply trying to add referenced information. Editors, such as yourself, started undoing not only my changes but content that was created several years ago by other parties. I did not know how else to respond to the onslaught of changes other than to "undo" them. In the end, none of that worked.

this is not a board for discussing content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For example, why would a world-record setting run across the Sahara desert that was referenced in a myriad of ways be removed? Along with the people involved such as the other runners, the narrator of the documentary film, the name of the person who wrote the score to the film....? []

    • These are all facts. Not opinions.

Examples of referenced materials that were removed today. This is a limited list: []

Running the Sahara: [] [] []

Race results and running: [] [] [] [] [] []

Prison: []



-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsMatter (talkcontribs) 02:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:FactsMatter thanks for replying here. I have hatted the discussion of content, as this is not a board for discussing content. This is a board for discussing conflicts of interest.
Your claim above about what you meant by "I represent Charlie Engle" isn't credible.
It is OK to be present in Wikipedia if you have a relationship with a subject that you want to be involved with. There is a process to manage this. It has two steps -- disclosure, and prior review of edits.
The first step is disclosure.
Would you please explain your relationship with Charlie Engle? Thanks. (And please don't discuss content further here). Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Noting that this person resorted to socking; the sock was indeffed and the master was blocked for 1 week, which expires 18 July. So I guess this matter will be quiet until then. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Two SPA accounts, the first of which is certainly UPE, as is made patently clear here. The article was moved to mainspace by a user who didn't know about the approval process for AfC reviewers, and was not one. I've moved it back and blanked it for the copyvios. Any further action needed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing more unless the accounts choose to start editing without satisfactorily answering the COI notice and/or new activity at the draft is located.WBGconverse 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Webhost for corp spam

Requested speedy delete on User:Rca institute as corp spam. Basically a corp article that would not have passed AFC. Just wondering if there's a way to detect more of this kind of thing. Maybe userpages containing certain heuristics such as an external links section. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps if one just searched for the word "solutions" in the User: realm; all modern businesses seem to think they're in the solutions business. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas W. Valente

Ljugador admits to being Valente's assistant, and seems to be totally clueless about COI editing and why Valente should not be allowed to write his own article. Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

COI Edit Request - University of Canada West

Hi everyone. I have just made an Edit Request on the University of Canada West (UCW) wiki-page. I have requested for the inclusion of a sentence mentioning the 2018 launch of an Associate of arts degree - a notable fact of UCW. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns UCW.

With thanks, MrAttempt (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Server lift

Will someone take a look at this please. I'm in the middle of nowhere with one bar. Thanks in advance. GMGtalk 02:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Arya Samaj

A new editor with a suspicious username is making suspicious and incompetent edits here. I do not speak any Indian languages, and this subject is so very controversial that I am uncomfortable dealing with it. Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

JS Bank‎ and Ali Jehangir Siddiqui

It appears that COI editing has been happening with both of these related articles, and they are starting to resemble adverts. I'm a bit too busy with other tasks at the moment to sort out the content, but would appreciate some extra eyes on them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I've got JS Bank on my watchlist, as it's a perennial copyvio target. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Diannaa. It seems that Ali Jehangir Siddiqui has some copyvio content as well, but on an initial look it's going to be more difficult to fix because it's mixed in with material that seems OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
That said, the majority of the text could reasonably be deleted as promotional. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Sure. Will keep my eyes peeled on them. Am surprised that he didn't bothered to edit JS Group article.--Biografer (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Author pak has edited JS Bank, Biografer. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Understood, @Cordless Larry:, but I was surprised that Author pak didn't bothered to do the same edits to JS Group, since they are related. Usually, when COI occurs, COI editors tend to edit all related articles (that includes in this case JS Group), since Ali Jehangir Siddiqui is the founder of not only JS Bank but also of JS Group.--Biografer (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, Biografer - I misread JS Group as JS Bank! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding potential copyvio on Ali Jehangir Siddiqui, he was only appointed as ambassador on May 29, 2018, so it's unlikely the page [] existed much earlier than that date. No further overlap between the pages has occurred since that date. It's likely that the same person or PR team has written both. Is this another sock of Islooguy? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It did cross my mind, Diannaa. I've since realised that there are significant matches with other sources, not just the embassy site (though good point about that). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
My suspicions raised, I have filed an SPI report. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Unrelated, apparently. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hastings Center

The above two editors, and seemingly a few IPs, are single-purpose accounts, not disclosing an obvious COI (based on edits and the username), and are abusing multiple accounts and IPs under WP:SOCK. I cleaned up most of the article just now, will appreciate more help. Thanks, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, the articles on the two center's two founders are evidently also linked to COI editing. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Peter Lemongello

This is my first post to WP:COIN and I'm not really sure what to do in this situation:

An IP editor made several edits to this article that have since been reverted (not by me at first). In comments of one of the reverts [19] they said "This is my page! I am Peter Lemongello. Stop trying to change it!." I was most concerned with the blanking of 2 sections that contained content that appears to be reliably sourced. I went ahead and reverted the edits and blanking [20] and explained in the edit summary "Please see WP:COI and WP:BLPEDIT. Please obtain consensus on the talk page before removing sourced content." I then posted on this user's talk page a similar heads up.[21]

Despite this, the user has gone ahead and reverted my (and other editors) reverts and continued to edit the article and another (The Crests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) they may have COIs with.

I was hoping to seek help from WP:COIN on the appropriate course of action. Thanks Schistocyte (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The anonymous editor should be notified of the procedures for remedying BLP issues. It's too bad they didn't register, because the odds of them seeing the notice aren't great. WP:AUTOBIOG says what they can do. {{Uw-autobiography}} is an appropriate talkpage notice. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

St Patrick's College - London - Course Changes

Hello everyone,

I've just made an Edit Request on the St Patrick's College - London - page, asking for a correction of courses from those now extinct. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the college.

With thanks MrAttempt (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sagi Hartov - Update of titles

Hello everyone,

I've just made an Edit Request on Sagi Harvost page - asking for an update of his academic and professional titles. My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the institutions Sagi works for and are of relevance to his updated titles.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Flags of the Australian Defence Force

When I created the article on Flags of the Australian Defence Force I disclosed a potential conflict of interest in that I had an affiliation with the Flag Society of Australia which has now been severed. However on closer inspection it appears this would not have given rise to any conflict of interest in the first place. Not only does the FSA have no wikipedia page. It is a non political organisation dedicated to the study of flags in an entirely academic sort of way. Which as I read it means I'd only have some special expertise to bring to the subject as opposed to being too close to the Australian Defence Force itself. On the basis that I have been made aware of the need to use sources independent of this organisation would it now be possible and proper for me to remove the COI tag on my talk page given that there will still be a thread there which draws attention to the fact I was once an FSA member and where the issue has been discussed at length? Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Aussieflagfan, removal is not prohibited but archiving is preferred. See WP:REMOVEDBri (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Abigail Spanberger

Hello everyone,

I've just made an Edit Request on the Abigail Spanberger page, asking for a link from this page to the GISMA busines school wiki-page (which is mentioned in the article). My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns the GISMA Business School.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:R. Raghunatha Reddy

This looks like an undisclosed paid editor as per a number of images he uploaded in commons and he's only here to promote Draft:R. Raghunatha Reddy and Rathan Linga which he also recreated under Rathan linga. I left a COI notice on his talk page and then also left a reminder but there is no reply. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 08:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

LCCM Partnership with brands - Edit Request

Hello everyone,

I've just made an Edit Request on the London College of Creative Media page - asking for the inclusion of a sentence regarding the sealing of a partnership with between LCCM and two brands of musical instruments (including sources). My COI is that I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns LCCM.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Video with advice and instructions on dealing with your own COI?

An editor with a COI recently asked me if there is a video that he or she could watch that has advice and instructions for dealing with a COI. Does such a thing exist? ElKevbo (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Cap2201's paid contributions

Cap2201 (talk) recently disclosed that they have editing for pay on behalf of various unnamed clients via Upwork. They made their disclosure [22] after Jake Brockman (talk) notified [23] them that their edits seemed to be a possible conflict of interest. Since this first disclosure (noting that by this point Cap2201 had been editing for over a year), Cap2201 disclosed they were paid to create Draft:Anthony Esposito (musician). However, they did not reply to Jake Brockman's ask for them to disclose any other articles they created for pay; I seconded this question, and then later started a new thread [24] asking the same thing. None of these questions have received a response, and Cap2201 has ceased editing.

In light of this, some sort of action should be taken. The best evidence for another article created by Cap2201 for pay is Joanne Wilson, which contains promotional language and an image that (per its WM commons page [25]) was given to Cap2201 by Joanne Wilson's husband, Fred Wilson, indicating a clear COI. Other articles created by Cap2201 could also be forms of effectivly placed native advertising.

My solution would be to tag all of Cap2201's work with UDP tags and quarantine them in the draftspace until they respond. Would anyone be opposed to this (some article subjects seem notable), or offer an alternative?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. I'd say, go ahead. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. In the disclosure on their userpage they effectively admit having made other paid edits in the past without giving details. Tagging and draftifying is a good solution. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done all articles now moved to the draftspace, categories removed, and UDP tags added. I will leave an additional note on Cap2201's talk page.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Marc Randazza

Notability of an attorney's claim of retention requested to be made in their WP article

Just placing this notice to attract other editors to weigh in on a COI edit request. The full discussion is at the talk page here. Thank you !  spintendo  12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Languages used on the Internet

I am an expert on the referenced subject since many years (producing indicators and discussing biases) and I am logically involved in some of the references existing in the article prior to my contribution. Few months ago, I made a contribution, without hiding my identity (my Id is my name), trying to clarify a subject poorly treated in Wikipedia for years (two commercial linked sources are shown without any advice on biases and the historical controversy about the place of English in the Web is not covered, all that making this article misleading).

I edit my contribution with an extremely prudent attention in terms of neutrality and avoiding auto-promotion As a matter of fact I just added a pedagogic introduction removing the confusion between the 2 main indicators, presenting/comparing in a flat manner the main results of the existing 3 indicators (the third and new one being from my own researches, which was one year old and has not been mentioned so far) to warn about discrepancies and let the rest (the data from the other sources) as it was, avoiding to present my figures as a mark of respect for the existing sources. The important aspect of biases was mentioned with a clear reference to the source. Note that for the past years there were only 2 sources on the subject and this new third one covers both indicators and discuss extensively all the biases (including its own).

Recently I discovered the contribution was entirely scratched away. I am not an experimented wikipedian and i am trying to found my way in the rule, procedures an usages around. I entered in the corresponding talk page I read I was accused of having a "blatant conflict of interest" (which is the subject which deserve discussion here) and that I "should not assert in the article that my organisation's methodology is superior" which is absolutely false and really defaming. The referenced talk includes many value judgments which professionally are weak to say the least, but this is it out of scope here. I followed the opened thread and after explaining that the rules does not prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject and asking this editor to document the unethical claims, i concentrated on content which is what really matters to me.

In the following discussions (Talk:Languages used on the Internet#Lead is awful) I never managed to have this editor focusing back on content neither documenting the claim of conflict of interest beyond the fact that i am one of the researcher on that field. I tried very hard to keep my patience and avoid a revert war, but it was useless, this editor never accepted to discuss the content and kept accusing me of conflict of interest with no solid ground as a way to escape any discussion on content.

I requested a mediation and it was rejected due to the disrespectful manner to (not) agree from this editor.

I am now convinced that the only way out of this situation is to have a neutral party investigate if I there is really a conflict of interest on my contribution to this article (or if I had made controversial edits) or, in the opposite, if I am correct to see this a perfect example of an editor using COI allegations as a "trump card" to avoid discussing the article content. If I am correct, I expect this will permit to have this editor to comply to the following rules :

- refrain from further accusing me of having a conflict of interest

- focus on content

- stop playing gatekeeper of this article and stop blocking badly needed improvements (note that this article is classified high importance within the scope of WikiProject Internet.

Danielpimienta (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not currently have time to be involved in lengthy Wikipedia disputes. At the Talk page, the editor cited the COI page, "Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits", but the editor's changes to the article were neither discussed before they were made nor are they uncontroversial. The edits were nearly a year ago and I don't want to confuse the issue with vague memories of specific content that would only overshadow the inherent conflict of interest here. The claim of 'defamation' is quite odd, since it would ordinarily be expected that a professional who views other sources as "biased" would inherently view their own methodology as superior; it therefore seems that accusation has been inserted to elicit sympathy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Keeping the pressure up

Again, the net is cast somewhat wider to haul in more spam. I don't think there are as many false positives as last time. MER-C 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Eyes on this

Patrick J. O'Rahilly, edited by a former co worker of his. See his AFD JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor in question has promised to remain neutral and follow policy. Speedy close please. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)