Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Dan Abrams Talk:Joanne Scott Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:Bill Ackman Talk:AGCO Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Avient Corporation Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Brain–computer interface Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Burnet Institute Talk:Camurus Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Celebrity branding Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:CivicPlus Talk:Claremont McKenna College Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Consolidated Contractors Company Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Deirdre Curtin Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Vladislav Doronin Talk:John E. Dowling Talk:Glenn Dubin Talk:Emily Carr University of Art and Design Talk:Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Francisco Partners Talk:Jeff Franklin Talk:Freudenberg Group Talk:Joan Gabel Talk:Gartner Talk:Gebr. Heinemann Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Getronics Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDaddy Talk:Matthias Goldmann Talk:John Goldwyn Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Hg (equity firm) Talk:HSBC Insurance (Asia Pacific) Talk:Illinois Tool Works Talk:Informal learning Talk:International Institute for Strategic Studies Talk:Italian American Museum of Los Angeles Talk:Han Jin (businessman) Talk:Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance Talk:Mark Kendall (filmmaker) Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Koho (fintech) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:LastPass Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lee H. Letts Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Jon Levy (behaviorist) Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Robert A. Mandell Talk:Mayfield (company) Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Medvivo Talk:Michael Meldman Talk:Metro AG Talk:Mitre Corporation Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Farah Mohamed Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Shayden Morris Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:NextEra Energy Partners Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Randy Olson Talk:Optum Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Parexel Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Nicolas Petit (academic) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:John Phelan (businessman) Talk:Plagiarism Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:RA Capital Management Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Erik Ramanathan Talk:Robert C. Robbins Talk:Rocket Mortgage Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Secureworks Talk:Sidley Austin Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Sonesta International Hotels Talk:Sophia Genetics Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:The Times Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Talk:Trendyol Talk:Trócaire Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:UC San Diego School of Medicine Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Hans Vestberg Talk:Vista Equity Partners Talk:Mariano Vivanco Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Kathy Warden Talk:Tetsuro Watsuji Talk:Stanley Weiser Talk:WikiHow Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zerodur Talk:Carl Zimmer Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Grace Choy

• Grace Choy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ChoyChoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikieditorken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gpdwinmini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's COI editing and likely socking happening around this article. See here and here for prior discussion between myself and User:Cunard on the talk page of Grace Choy. Wikieditorken knows Grace Choy enough to have this photo and learn that a editor was paid in March 2024 to create this article (see page history and user talk discussion with User:HouseBlaster. He previously tried to continually create the article for Grace Choy's restaurant ChoyChoy, but had the draft rejected here.

Another likely linked account, Gpdwinmini, is created January 23, edits in unrelated areas/starts drafts, and January 30 begins editing the Grace Choy article, adding information Wikieditorken had previously tried to add, and pushes ChoyChoy into mainspace. I believe this account is linked to Wikieditorken due to similar language used and topics covered.

Please let me know if I did this correctly, not experienced with filing COI notices. Thanks Sarsenet (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Edited to strike mistake, ChoyChoy was moved to mainspace by Wikieditorken. My other points still stand. Sarsenet (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.

I am new here and I am trying to build article about Mini PC.

I don't I cannot edit on unrelated articles.

Thanks a lot for your advice. Gpdwinmini (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Your contributions clearly show you created the article ChoyChoy, and have been readding previously removed information on Grace Choy. Sarsenet (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Please advice I cannot edit other area other than Mini PC or I can only edit in one area (Technology only). If I cannot, I will not edit other than technology area. Thanks a lot. Gpdwinmini (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You can edit anywhere you want to, I am just trying to determine if you have a relationship with either Grace Choy herself, or Wikieditorken, who has a likely conflict of interest. Please see WP:COI and Wikipedia:PLAINSIMPLECOI to understand. Sarsenet (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

As advised by my mentor, I need to declare all the things I create or edit here. Please advise if I do it correctly:

GPD: I have been using GPDs. But I am not related to the company.

Onemix: I have been using Onemix. But I am not related to the company.

Grace Choy: I do not know Grace Choy personally. I know her because I watched a doucumentary about her and her restaurant. I also saw Grace Choy on different media. I know she got ADHD. I got ADHD myeselt.

ChoyChoy: Some of my friends are followers of the Facebook Page which has over 1,000,000 followers. One of my friends has been customer in the restaurant. I am not follower of the facebook myself.

I don't remember I had another Wiki account as I wanted to try to be editor on Wikipedia some years ago. However, "Wikieditorken" is not the account I created. Gpdwinmini (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you know Wikieditorken? Do you know why he (not you as I had originally mistakenly stated) found the draft for ChoyChoy so quickly and moved it to mainspace? Sarsenet (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"Wikieditorken" is my co-worker and some of my co-workers started study and to edit on Wiki recently based on our own interest recently. I did know that one of my co-workers was customer of ChoyChoy.

If it is conflict of interest, I will focus on my technology field.

Thanks a lot for your advice.

Peter Gpdwinmini (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Being a customer is not necessarily a conflict of interest. I believe there is a COI because you claim to be a coworker of Wikieditorken, who has a suspected/likely COI with Grace Choy due to his constant promotional editing of that article. Did he tell you to re-add previously removed information on her article? Sarsenet (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sarsenet: thank you for creating this report. I hope editors experienced with dealing with COI editors who engage in WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY to repeatedly insert promotional content into the article (evidence here) can either help or advise on what can be done. I've commented on the talk page that if this Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard thread does not get enough outside attention, then either Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the next step if the disruption continues. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Requesting further comment on this, I don't feel this has been fully resolved and I fear a return of disruptive editing on the mentioned articles after a few weeks, as has been a pattern in the past several months. Sarsenet (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Would like to know what promotional content has I added or did I do something wrong.

Please advise and therefore I could improve.

Actually, I focus on editing on technology article and I don't have much time to do the editing.

However, I would like to know what did I do wrong. As I am new here and any advice is appreciated. Gpdwinmini (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and employees of Elon Musk

I really hate to open this discussion but I think it has to be done. I've discovered what I think is off-wiki evidence that a rather involved editor in US politics and Tesla articles is a Tesla employee. Is editing in one or both of these topics a prima facie conflict, and if not disclosed, also a violation of the WMF Terms of Service and the enwiki paid editing policy?

Obviously, I am not going to report their wiki identity here. But I am on the verge of sending a note to the functionaries listed at the top of this page, depending on feedback to this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Without being able to know what further details you've found, I imagine that notifying functionaries would be appropriate. I would expect at a minimum that editing Tesla-topics is a COI issue, and can't really guess as to whether AmPol more generally would be based on what you've shared here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a case for the COI volunteer response team. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The interesting question is going to be, how conflicted is one under AmPol when your employer is also an influential private citizen who just happens to have a bed in the OMB OPM office building. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Just as a philosophical note, I'm cautiously inclined to agree with the vector of your thought that the U.S. Government is a de facto subsidiary or affiliate of Tesla (at least on a transient basis) and that this might be a COI, though who knows. Chetsford (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

At minimum, the latter definitely is a COI and the former would depend on what specific area of US politics is being edited. Anything related to Elon Musk and his political actions, I would say, is also a COI. Silverseren^C 00:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is too broad. One can work for the state/public sector without having a COI on anything connected to it. The issue here, I suspect, is Elon fan boys. They don't need to work for Tesla to have a strong POV. Secretlondon (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Sunuraju

• Sunuraju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is a sock in my opinion and involved in UPE, despite a CU not finding a connection through SPI. I noted early on in the SPI filings that there would unlikely be a technical connection and needed to be based on behavior evidence. Suggestion from others was to bring this to COIN. I have provided the SPI filings below along with additional evidence. The evidence below is just a brief summary, but I can provide more evidence that user is likely a sock, or at least meat, of blocked user StayCalmOnTress. I do understand there are fans who edit similar pages, but these are more than a coincidence. In addition to the edits provided below, here is some interaction analysis showing their connection to now blocked sock Opinioncarter (from StayCalmOnTress) and suspected sock Munch03 (who seems to be editing more since Sunuraju has started editing less. CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

SPI and ANI filings

• First SPI with Sunuraju was filed on November 2, 2024. User filing noted that it may be related to StayCalmOnTress (formerly known as Nauman335). While there was not technical evidence found, an admin noted "Something fishy is obviously going on though, with new accounts recreating identical versions of the same article. Some more digging required than I have time for immediately, but some investigation needs to happen here."
• Next SPI was filed by me on November 6, 2024, noting that digging found that Sunuraju was not likely using the same IP in order to avoid a CU. I believed at that time they were associated with another SOCK farm and had extensive experience getting caught in CUs so likely avoiding (maybe a proxy, maybe remote connection, etc.).
• Third was filed on November 18, 2024. All three of these SPIs show behavioral evidence (although no CU evidence found) of SOCK and at least MEAT.
• An SPI was filed for Sunuraju under StayCalmOnTress on November 1, 2024 and since that time there were several more under that SPI. I don't recall if there was evidence with other socks filed under the Sunuraju reports which may have caused admins to merge there, but after looking closer at the edit history of Sunuraju, it is likely they are a sock or likely meat of StayCalmOnTress.
• Now blocked StayCalmOnTrees SOCK filed an and ANI report against me where an admin stated " Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection" regarding the SPI cases against Sunuraju.

Edits

• Draft:Khaie1, created February 2nd by Sunuraju. Deleted five times under Khaie, G5, for being created by socks of StayCalmOnTress sock farm, most recent on January 15th (two weeks before the most recent draft creation). Note the draft under a name variation due to the many deletions of Khaie, but also the many deleted redirects such as Khaie (TV series) and Khaie (2024).
• Duniyapur (TV series), originally created by now blocked Sock Faymas who was filed in an SPI investigation with Sunuraju. Sunuraju editing the page up to January 1, 2024, the same day it was edited by user Opnicarter who is a now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress.
• Noor Jahan (2024 TV series), created November 2024 by Sunuraju. Two days later was edited by IP 182.182.52.21 which coincidentally made a comment in the SPI investigation here which sounds awfully similar to the ANI accusation made by Opnicarter.
• Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum, created November 1, 2024 by Sunuraju. When creating the draft, a user commented that it was already deleted per G5 at Draft:Kabhi Mein Kabhi Tum (Pakistani Drama) (believe it or not, by a sock of StayCalmOnTress). Here is the move log showing that FOUR other socks of StayCalmOnTress (known as Nauman335 at the time) attempted to create or move the page in 2024.
• Draft:Gentleman (Pakistani TV series), created November 2024 by Sunuraju. Note that the original Gentleman (Pakistani TV series) was deleted in April 2024, G5d based on creation by StayCalmOnTress sock (known as Nauman335 at the time).
• Draft:Meem Se Mohabbat 1, created on January 21, 2025 by Sunuraju. Meem Se Mohabbat is currently a redirect but protected based on editing of two other socks from the StayCalmOnTress sock farm.
• Faraar (TV series), originally created as Draft:Faraar (TV series) by Sunuraju on November 18, 2024. There was a lot of what is likely logged out editing prior to the mainspace in December by Swimear (now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress), then editing the next day by user:NiaziBOP (now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress). I moved this back to draftspace in December.
• Tumharey Husn Kay Naam, created by none other than StayCalmOnTress in June 2024, but moved to Draft:Tumhare Husn Ke Naam by an editor a few days later. Draft later edited in January 2025 by now blocked StayCalmOnTress sock Opnicarter, but they have since been blocked so Sunuraju submitted the draft to AfC on January 25th.
• Dananeer Mobeen is now protected from creation for previous sock creations going back to 2021. Sock of StayCalmOnTress asked for a refund on this in 2023 which is documented in the SPI here. As it is protected, user Munch03 (also suspect is a SOCK) creates disambiguation Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress) on January 15, 2025. It was moved to draft space by another editor but edited and submitted to AfC by Sunuraju five days later.
• Draft:Faraar (TV series) created by Sunuraju on November 18, 2024, heavy logged out editing the next few days, then edited by two StayCalmOnTress socks (Swimear and NiaziBOP) in December. Note that Swimear moved to mainspace prior to me moving back to draft. Also note that NiaziBOP only had 24 edits prior to their block, 33% of them were to pages shared with Sunuraju.
• Chikkar (film), originally deleted G5 for being created by StayCalmOnTress sock farm, it was recreated by an IP last year and then edited by Sunuraju in January this year.
• Voting in this deletion discussion to save page Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri which was created by user:Asad Siddiqui23, who was found to be a sock in the SPI file against Sunuraju. THIS is also evidence that user may be sharing account. Note their vote which is coherent and a clear !keep, yet they voted "stay by" in this and this discussion.
• Draft:Let's Try Mohabbat draft is protected for constant block evasion from what looks like logged out socking. Protected on September 23, 2024 and the next edit was in January from Sunuraju.
• Khalid Butt (actor), Sunuraju italicized the name of the films Khaie and Jeevan Nagar. Note that Jeevan Nagar was deleted multiple times but there is Draft:Jeevan Nagar that was edited by the StayCalmOnTress sock farm. Also, note Khaie and the drafts noted at the beginning of this filing.
• Mein Hari Piya, User Sunuraju updates name of Hamza Sohail on November 16, 2024, on the same day, StayCalmOnTress blocked sock WikiiUsee is updating the page of Hamza Sohail. On December 29, 2024, now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress user:Shiza Sultan removes the link to Mein Hari Piyal from the Sumbul Iqbal page. Strange they wanted to unlink it but also note that Sunuraju failed to link the Hamza Sohail page from Mein Hari Piya so seems like they had some reasoning as to not draw attention to those interlinks.
• SPI for StayCalmOnTress filed on February 8, 2025 which includes IP 39.34.175.100 who was just blocked. The IP performed about 50 edits total to the same pages recently (or just) edited by Sunuraju (also a lot of crossover with Munch03) including Khalid Butt (actor), Osman Khalid Butt, User:PB987 (also blocked as a SCOT sock), and Raqs-e-Bismil.

• Comment: The WP:DUCK is quacking here. There is an obvious farm of puppets, sock or meat, at work here to promote a particular kind of articles. I would lean towards blocking on sight. BD2412 T 05:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they are using Munch03 more and more (pinging that user so they are aware), and now being disruptive by removing lots of information from pages without explanation. Also adding unsourced DOB to BLP on Anmol Baloch which also has several of the SOCKS listed in the report above. Would suggest a block for both at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Both users still editing without any type of response here, despite being notified. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Cllr Donagh Killilea

• Mark Killilea Jnr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cllr Donagh Killilea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly cut and dried case. The user, whose userpage (currently nominated for speedy under U5) identifies him as a son of the subject (as does his sandbox), has repeatedly removed sourced information about his father on the page. Other editors have informed him through summaries of COI but this has continued. Given the history of both the page above and Mark Killilea Snr, the removal of this sourced content is an ongoing issue. Whatever the COIN equivalent of a WP:DUCK this is, between using userspace to write about themselves and removing sourced information about relatives, it's that. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've left a {{welcome-COI}}. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Francis Acea

• Francis Acea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Francisacea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fdkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above article violates WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:BLPCOI in that fully 65% of its edits appear to have been made by its subject. I suspect Fdkid is also Francis Acea in large part because he has uploaded files which are works by Francis Acea but lists himself as the author (see here and here) and his only contributions have been to the Francis Acea article (except for one time when edited his own talk page to remove a copyright warning). I'd nominate the whole article for deletion but I'm not sure that it meets the criteria. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Francisacea answered this notice on his talk page instead of on this noticeboard. I've pasted his response below: --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dennis C. Abrams and Wikipedia editors,

I want to clarify that my full name is Abel Santiago Francis Acea, and yes, I am also the user Fdkid. I originally created the “Francis Acea” Wikipedia page in 2008 using my first email, fdkidatyahoodotcom, which I had been using since my time living in Havana.

This page has served as a factual record of my career and artistic contributions. I assure you that all the information presented is accurate and verifiable, and at no point has it been flagged for containing false or misleading content. My intent has never been to misrepresent or violate Wikipedia’s policies on self-promotion or conflict of interest. Rather, this article is a chronological inventory of my professional achievements, not a promotional tool.

The reason I have taken responsibility for maintaining this page myself is simple: I believe in protecting my legacy and ensuring that my life’s work is represented accurately. In today’s world, misinformation spreads easily, and I do not wish for my story to be shaped by bad actors or individuals who may distort the facts. My reputation and artistic contributions are deeply personal, and I prefer to maintain control over how they are presented to the public.

I recognize Wikipedia’s guidelines and the importance of neutrality. If there are specific concerns about content, I am open to discussing ways to ensure the article remains in compliance with Wikipedia’s editorial standards. I welcome constructive feedback and collaboration to maintain accuracy and transparency.

Thank you,

Abel Santiago Francis Acea (Fdkid)

I've posted a (hopefully) helpful message on their user talk and added a multiple-issues tag to the page. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Meteomatics

Here's the filled template:

Meteomatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Lukasjmueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article for Meteomatics was created and primarily edited by a user that seems to work at the company in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.160.87 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2025 (UTC)

XVALA

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

I'm actually reporting myself. I recently made a huge update and expansion to XVALA (here), thinking that once it was up, people could check it and edit/remove things as they felt necessary. The issue is that I know the subject of the article a little bit (not well; he's a friend of a friend), which I recognize is a conflict of interest. My understanding at the time was that my responsibility in such a case was to be transparent about it, which I was, and then to stand back and let it be changed in any way that others see fit, which I'm very happy to do.

However, it's since been brought to my attention that it's more complicated than that, and now I need to know how to fix the problem. To be clear, I have zero concern with how the subject is portrayed (as long as, obviously, it agrees with normal Wikipedia guidelines) and I don't care much what happens to my edit. I only added the information in an attempt to be helpful, and if it's the opposite of that, then by all means it should be dealt with. If my edit needs to be fully reverted or deleted or whatever, so be it. I'm only here to ask for advice now that I know that it's needed. There's a bit more information here. I appreciate any help you can provide. -- edi(talk) 19:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Indianapolis Museum of Art

• Indianapolis Museum of Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Virginia B. Fairbanks Art & Nature Park: 100 Acres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DWFulks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was warned about COI editing. Continued editing anyway. Was reverted other people and eventually responded I work for Newfields and am updating the page to reflect accuracy in the brand in a message that asks others to make the advertising-language changes they were making. No acknowledgement of the COI issues or that they're a WP:UPE editor. Further eyes on the target articles would be useful. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic COI editor

User:BethNASEM is, as the username indicates, an employee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. She's been editing sporadically since 2020. Her employment is at least disclosed on her userpage (though not the way the COI policy dictates), but her editing has been quite poor. Beth was warned on the 11th about copyright violations at Long-distance Amtrak routes (since revdel'd). I happened to notice her edits to Rail transport, checked her user page, saw the copyright warning, and therefore examined her edit to rail transport. Lo and behold, it was a blatant copy and paste from trains.com. I left a message about this, and examined her recent edits. Sure enough, her edit to Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act on the same day also contained close paraphrasing, though it was much less blatant and I had to dig a bit to find it. I followed up with a sterner message. She has not responded on her talk page.

I took a cursory look at her earlier edits, and found a paragraph on Gail Mandel was also copied and pasted from online. This edit was from 2020.

Beth returned today to make this edit to Leslie Richards. I checked the cited source, and Leslie Richards is not mentioned on the linked page or on the TRB staff directory. It turns out the edit wasn't wrong per se ([1]) but it is alarming that instead of citing this she just cited the about page which has no mention of Leslie Richards.

At this point we have a COI editor who has at least somewhat disclosed their COI, but is also violating copyright, misrepresenting sources, not using edit requests, and most critically not responding to talk page messages. I'm seeking at least an indef from mainspace to force communication, as right now I'm not confident Beth even knows what a talk page is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The Wonderful Company family of brands and their executives

• The Wonderful Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lynda Resnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stewart Resnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• POM Wonderful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fiji Water (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NYTechIntl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (one of many accounts that appear to be part of public relations effort)

Numerous SPAs, sockfarm and WP:LOUTSOCK suspected. Browse through edit history, particular in late 2010s. Many of highly WP:ADVERT "about us" like contents remain in articles. Need help in identifying likely PR editors, and prune promotional edits from those articles, as well as other The Wonderful Company associated companies/brands/products. Also see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Lynda_resnick_2020.jpg which I successfully had deleted for false attribution. Graywalls (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I second your misgiving there, it does look like a coordinated on-wiki advertising campaign. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Graywalls. I agree with your analysis. Edwardx (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I just added NYTechIntl as the discussion on their talk page is not convincing. First, an IP from New York, USA commented to COI warning, then an IP from Switzerland followed up which makes it unconvincing that more than one people may be involved in responding on the user talk page. Since they logged in upon being asked to do so, it confirms they still have account access and they've been around long enough to know better than failing to sign-in to participate in a discussion. Graywalls (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Renerpho

• Northolt Branch Observatories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Renerpho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a self-report. I'm sorry! I was reminded today that I had never declared the substantial COI I have about this article that I created in March 2018. The subject is a project that I (Daniel Bamberger) am personally involved in. I haven't worked on that article since April 2018.

While I was aware of the existence of the article (it's not like I forgot it existed!), I never came back to reflect about it in relation to my work as a Wikipedia user. I became WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED on 8 February 2018, and probably should have known about COI and the associated issues by then. On hindsight, I should have come back to it on my own, rather than having to be reminded by a stranger. Unfortunately, I guess the best I can do now is try to rectify the problem... If I can help with that, I will.

Upon reading the article again, I have to conclude that it absolutely suffers from the usual WP:NPOV and WP:BLOATED issues that I'd expect from someone writing about their own work. It's also substantially outdated, but I guess that's a secondary issue. Renerpho (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it is late where I live, so I may not be here to respond to any comments until tomorrow. Renerpho (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry

• User:Bluerasberry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bluerasberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Does a paid editing disclosure need to disclose payment? Bluerasberry and I were talking and they suggested that we bring this question here. On their user page they disclose that they are a WiR but do not disclose whether that is a paid position or not. My understanding is that paid editors actually have to disclose that they are paid, hence a paid WiR has to disclose both WiR and paid status while a volunteer WiR would only have to disclose WiR status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  According to foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use/Frequently_asked_questions_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure: a Wikipedian in Residence who is specifically compensated to edit the article about the archive at which they are employed should make a simple disclosure that he is a paid Wikipedian in Residence with the archive. This would be sufficient disclosure for purposes of requirement. (emphasis added) It seems clear that WIR should disclosed "simply" that it is a paid role, if it is indeed the case. Towards the case of Bluerasberry, it would seem to suggest that simply prepending the word "paid" to Since March 2018 I have been paid Wikimedian-in-residence at... would be appropriate, however, in the grand scheme of things, everything said about WIR seems to always either outright say, or otherwise infer that they are paid contributors, and I'm not sure how big of a difference that single word will make in the case of Blue... TiggerJay (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree that adding the single word "paid" would end any issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Thanks. My position is that I comply with the terms of service, and I support increased clarity on disclosure. To prevent misunderstanding, the English Wikipedia community could require that all COI editors publish specific text or structured data in a specific place. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community provides Template:Paid and it is used by approximately 11,000 editors. Note that your current disclosure does not technically comply with the ToS because it does not disclose that you are paid to edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate the clarity of an exact mandate. I never made a thoughtful choice about whether to use the word "paid" or any other particular word. I would happily comply with any specific rule, and I take this conversation as an opportunity to request less ambiguity and more blanket orders.

Originally I looked to Wikimedia Foundation staff, who are the biggest category of COI/paid editors. I just looked again. I think few or none of them use that template, they do not use the word "paid", and the few I checked list a role at the organization.

It is very difficult to explain anything about this, and I have never identified a way that communicates the necessary information in a way that people understand. Misunderstandings are continuous. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more clear it, as the TOU that you agree to every time to publish is referenced and it says quite plainly, as directly quoted above "make a simple disclosure that he is a paid WIR", which seems to clearly go beyond disclosing that you are a WIR, but specifically paid. But I do also think that it is clear the word "simply disclose" which is why I would proffer simple putting the single word "paid" in front of your user page WIR disclosure would satisfy that. I think that is pretty clear policy. I do not think a userbox is required, nor any lengthy statement. But it does seem quite clear that it is required to communicate your paid status. Again, that being said, I think it should be common knowledge (and inferred) that WIR are otherwise professionally paid people who contribute. As such, adding the word paid probably will not make any difference in how people view your edits and/or userpage, but nevertheless, still quite policy compliant. TiggerJay (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That isn't common knowledge its false, WiR doesn't have to be a paid positions. WiR does not mean paid. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: "who are the biggest category of COI/paid editors" that is an interesting claim, can you provide the source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: The Wikimedia Foundation has paid hundreds of people to edit the Wikimedia platform. The fact of that organization paying people to edit the platform is common knowledge. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There are well north of ten thousand disclosed paid editors... Your numbers aren't adding up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It beggars belief to imagine that there could be a coordinated organization larger than the WMF, but which is engaged in the Wikimedia platform with a shared purpose. Almost all of those thousands of editors are unrelated spammers. Individual attention at any number of them would not have network effects on the others, as they are not connected to each other such that action on one does anything to the others. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

What you said before was "who are the biggest category of COI/paid editors" which is significantly different. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There's COI and there's "paid editing". The quote a Wikipedian in Residence who is specifically compensated to edit the article about the archive at which they are employed is about editing an article connected to an employer. Wikipedians in Residence generally don't edit articles about employers, but rather edit in a broad topic area or, more commonly, lead events, support students, communicate with various audiences about Wikipedia, scan photos, etc. It's why we tend to treat WiRs a little differently from typical "paid editors" -- because having experienced contributors in such roles tends to avoid the more problematic sort of COI/paid editing. We do have WP:WIRCOI, which just says WiR status has to be disclosed; it doesn't say "and whether it's a paid position". That said, without speaking to Bluerasberry's particular role, if you're ever in doubt I think it's generally safe to assume that Wikipedian in Residence positions are paid, regardless of what the responsibilities are. There are rare exceptions, but it's a safe assumption. As such, the request above sounds to me like "when you declared 'I work for company X', you should've actually declared 'I am paid to work for company X'". I think Bluerasberry has a point -- if I understand this point -- that we often talk to COI editors as though there are very clear steps they must comply with, and it's not always true that there are. "Paid to do Wikipedia stuff, but not necessarily edit any articles related to the employer" is one of those areas where we're not explicit beyond "disclose the COI". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

All paid edits are COI edits, not all COI edits are paid edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Not all paid edits are COI edits. If the Royal Society of Chemistry wants to pay someone to write "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" to the Water article, there is no COI. A well-designed WiR project will aim to make edits like that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

How can you not have a financial conflict of interest with a paid edit? That doesn't make any sense... Any edit which someone is paid to make has a significant conflict of interest attached. The opening of the paid section of WP:COI literally reads "Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If the RSC is paying you, that gives you a COI with respect to the RSC, its staff, its projects, etc. It doesn't give you a COI with respect to the 99.999% of human knowledge that has nothing to do with the RSC. Would you consider ""Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" to be a policy violation if a paid editor writes it? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Its your job... You have a COI with everything you do for your job. Consult a compliance professional if you have more questions. On the specific point no that wouldn't be a violation, its not forbidden its just strongly discouraged. What the paid editor is strongly encouraged to do is to propose the edit on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Only, our policies do not strongly discourage contributions from Wikipedians in residence. Nor from professors (who are paid) in the broad area of their expertise, although the latter should use restraint in the narrow area surrounding their own work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Toad Sweat

• Toad Sweat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TJGuiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Toad Sweat is about a commercial product developed by someone named Todd Guiton. The article was created by a user named TJGuiton. The article is written like an advertisement, so this clearly comes across as inappropriate self-promotion. 141.158.39.140 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It sure is written like an advertisement. I've prodded it. Bishonen | tålk 18:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC).

The prod was promptly removed by the article creator. Now at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toad Sweat. Bishonen | tålk 23:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC).

With any apologies needed, I've updated the page to include all third-party references to make the information more reliable instead of sounding as an advertisement which wasn't intended in the first instance. I have been asked to document the original dessert hot sauce and that is why the page exists and how it is documented. I will be adding more third party documentation over the next few days. Thank you for the prompt and the advice. TJGuiton (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)