Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
  • 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:

Underwood International College

User Doodle2017 has persistently modified the text under subheading Controversy by removing information from an article which is published in an academic journal and adding sourceless information. These modification are similar to the modification by user Eciffociu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (UIC Office backwards), a username which was banned earlier because of being a promotional account. With his modifications, Doodle2017 has caused severe harm to the neutrality and the content of the article. Kailliak (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Kailliak, I notified Doodle2017 of this discussion. At present I have no opinion on the possible COI or lack thereof. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
BlackcurrantTea, on March 6 2017, IP user modified "Controversy" by removing the content similarly to Eciffociu and Doodle2017. IP address is geolocated to Yonsei University, and Underwood International College is part of Yonsei University. This evidence supports the suspicion that Doodle2017, as well as Eciffociu and, are COI users. Kailliak (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
IP user had copy pasted copyright material from Underwood International College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) homepage. The user had also made modifications to the controversy. The IP address was geolocated to Yonsei University, thus, it seems like is a COI user. The user has been notified. Kailliak (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom

Kennywpara (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC) I have been requested not to edit [1] after I declared my COI in this diff [2] I suggested that others should edit concerning an important development, as I recognised the COI. After a few days I made a non controversial edit that included some of that information and Luther Blissetts (talk), requested me not to edit in this diff which I took as a de facto ban. [3] I am not an experienced editor. I would have thought an admonishment would have been proportionate. Is it a ‘campaign’ or a COI to expect that reliable sources are used and that information is sensibly displayed? On 27 Mar, administrator Sarah SV contacted me. The result of this discussion [4] was that she suggested that I do not edit the article in this diff [5] This refers to allegations that have no foundation, and I have not seen what has been stated about me. One editor is an avowed ‘anti’ person who has previously expressed annoyance (off Wiki) that the HF in the UK page contains verifiable facts. He would dearly love to sabotage the article. There are many aspects of the ‘anti’ movement that fill all the requirements of pseudoscience. The HF in the UK page should avoid that and present reliable information about regulation and practice. I have updated my talk page with a discussion of my supposed ‘activism’ and have declared matters where I have had an input, and stated that I will not edit anything to do with these matters. See ‘Is editing based on established science and regulation a POV?’ on [6] There is a big difference between advocating something (I do not promote the industry) and presenting reliable facts in an NPOV way (which I do). I have been complimented by several editors for constructive edits, and learned from constructive comments. See [7], [8], [9], However when editor Luther Blissetts commented this newbie did not get the required support. [10] This indicated that I should declare a COI. I read the COI page and did not think that applied, as it states ‘That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity.’ I have no financial inducement to edit. I am a retired and financially independent oil engineer that wants to present HF in the UK accurately. The accusation that I am/was an editor on ‘Backing Fracking’ Facebook page is false, although I frequently debunk myths on this and other social media. (I have declared admin on another little used FB page. I resigned some time ago as I realised this could be taken as COI) We have a situation where I no longer can edit, and neither can experienced Wikipedian [User:Plazak] after some issue of citogenesis, and the others Mikenorton, Beagel, Martin Hogbin no longer contribute, I assume because any comment made results in an extended unpleasant exchange. See this discussion, where one editor browbeat the opinions of others over an irrelevant change to the lead. [11] I also raised concerns about [WP:CIVIL] in this discussion [12] There are hundreds of edits a month. Is this [WP:DE] ? Should one editor [WP:OWN] an article? That is the case at present. There is much more to write about the conduct of one editor but I will stick to the COI issue at present. The editor in question is Luther Blissetts Kennywpara (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SmartSE for alerting me to this discussion. Kennywpara's COI has already been discussed extensively, and admin SarahSV has advised Kennywpara to use the talk page to suggest edits to the affected page, Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom page from now on. A {{connected contributor}} for two editors and {{COI editnotice}} have been placed on the talk pages. The page Shale gas in the United Kingdom is being updated with material moved from the Hydraulic fracturing in the UK page that belongs there (as per extensive talk page discussion going back to 2014) and I consider that page to also be a part of COI for both Kennywpara and Fyldeman. I'm not sure what further input I can make to this discussion that hasn't already been said. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Further information on this matter:
Admin SarahSV wrote on 28 March 2017:

Hi Kenny, thanks for the response (here and on the talk page) and for explaining that you have no financial COI. I'm replying here because this concerns you rather than the article. The COI guideline includes a section on off-wiki activism, WP:COICAMPAIGN: "Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest."

For example, you apparently made a real-life formal complaint about a professional, who you then criticized on the talk page. That violated COI and BLP. Another editor has posted that you run a Facebook page about the topic. It's also clear from your edits that you're what we call a single-purpose account, here to focus on one point of view about one topic, rather than helping to build an encyclopaedia.

It would probably be better for that article if those involved in real-life campaigns (on either side) would stick to the talk page or leave the topic alone altogether. SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The other editor 'involved in real-life campaigns (on the other side)' who has a COI, and who has declared that they have a COI for this topic is Fyldeman, who I will now inform of this discussion at COIN. Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Luther Blissetts. I have accepted that my obvious COI means that I should not edit the "Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom" page directly and cannot understand why Kennywpara does not do the same. We are both "activists" on different sides of the argument and frequently cross metaphorical swords on social media and occasionally in real life. I run a Facebook page opposing shale gas and he is documented to have run one supporting it. He has admitted this on his Talk page. I would have thought that Wiki rules were clear on this issue, and it seems that he has also received clear advice from an Admin. I'm not sure why he persists in claiming that he is a special case here. Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed Kennywpara is editing a related topic, which I've now added to COIN. As I understand it, Kennywpara has been asked by an admin to "stick to the talk page or leave the topic alone altogether" by SarahSV. He did give his opinion on the HF in the UK talk page, where he accused me of hiding information in, and tendentious editing of, List of additives for hydraulic fracturing [13] and I responded [14], but he didn't respond to my reply, and he has now edited the page he accused me of hiding information in, and tendentious editing of. 123. I would appreciate some clarity here, as I understood he had been asked by admin to confine himself to the talk page because of his COI in Talk:Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom(which I understood to also include this page most recently edited). Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added COI's for Fyldeman and Kennywpara for the Shale gas in the United Kingdom and List of additives for hydraulic fracturing pages. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that the COI issue that I am supposed to have has been misrepresented, and would like SarahSV (talk) @SlimVirgin: @LutherBlissetts: to review here initial request that I do not edit the HF in the UK page. I have made a limited COI declaration in my talk page [15] where I undertake not to edit anything in HF in the UK related to matters I have been involved in. In fact I declared it in my initial post here [16]. I reported this matter to the COI noticeboard, as I feel that the initial request from [User:Slimvirgin] was based on incomplete information. [17]
COI and ‘campaign’ issues seem irrelevant when the sum total of my off wiki activity has been to debunk false science. Is it ‘promoting’ an industry? I can see why it could be interpreted as that. Regarding the issue of [WP:SPA], I note
‘The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. ‘’’However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag.’’’ ‘
I have acquired a good independent knowledge of fracking that has enabled me to edit at a suitable technical level. Much of this has been because of the debunking of fake science that I have done. My talk page [18] shows that I have learned over the 3 years that I have been editing. I simply do not have enough technical knowledge in any other area to provide meaningful input. This is a specialised engineering area after all! I would prefer that editing on specialist areas should be done by suitably knowledgeable people.
My other supposed breaches of sockpuppetry have been covered. Basically an inexperienced editor who didn’t know he was doing wrong regarding uploading images, and I acknowledged that point. See [19] So why is an editor referring to this again in current discussion? See [20] This breaches many Wiki protocols, [WP:BITE] [WP:AGF] It was the same for [WP:BLP], where I apologised for an inadvertent breach of policy.
Now I see that LB has again used inappropriate language and is insisting that I do not edit a different article. I accept that a COI has been requested and I respect that. The page I edited is the one that should be the direct link to the ‘Fracture Fluids’ and I was going to edit the talk page to suggest that link be inserted. Currently the link is [21] a US based site that is irrelevant in the UK system. Changing the link to [22] will take the reader straight there. It’s the type of thing I referred to to here. [23] The edit (US data to US chemicals as a section, and UK data to UK chemicals) was uncontroversial. The deleted data involved matters that are not related to chemical usage, and had dead links. The ‘citation needed’ info was the same link as used on the HF in the UK page, with the direct quote. None of this is controversial. Please stop trying to attribute bad intent to matters that should be simple. If people want to see the regulatory position with regard to chems in the UK a simple click should provide that. I was following the Wiki advice [24] Is the edit controversial? My judgement is no, and I was going to refer you to it this evening but you beat me to it. I also have concerns about some of the recent edits and was going to make positive suggestions, links, and the like in the next couple of days. It may surprise editor LB but I want this to be a properly sourced encyclopedia page with working links and the like. Was it ever a 'campaign' article? Not according to the bulk of comments that appear on my talkpage. Nobody [WP:OWNS] this article Kennywpara (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I am mystified as to why Kennywpara continues to maintain here that his COI is in some way so limited that it doesn't matter. We are both vocal and public advocates on different sides of the fracking / hydraulic fracturing debate and I see his input every single day. I also know which pro-fracking social media groups he contributes to and has been admin of, and which pro-fracking websites he provides pro-fracking content to. I can't detail these here due to WP:OUT (and the dire warnings at the top of this page) but if any other admin needs to see what they are then I will happily oblige. Once again I would state that I acknowledge that my own COI means I should stay away from direct edits. I fail to see why Kennywpara cannot see this too. It seems to me that "the lady doth protest too much". Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) you should be able to confirm that the vast bulk of what I post (and I did declare that I post on social media) relates to providing science and evidence based material to people who do not seem to have much of a clue about what they are worried about. Wiki should be based on reliable science and evidence. Perhaps your website could adopt some of that? Kennywpara (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara. No I'm afraid I can't do that. Perhaps you could list any Facebook groups that you have ever been admin of, and any websites to which you have provided content, here to help the Wiki admins judge whether you are in fact an activist supporter in just the same way that I am an activist opposer. I accept that I shouldn't edit the articles directly, and I am very surprised that you don't as well. Maybe a list as suggested would help resolve this matter for the admins? Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor tagging disclosed conflict articles

Hi everyone, sorry to bother the good folks here at COIN but this seemed like the most relevant place to ask: an editor has tagged up a few of the articles where I have made clearly disclosed contributions as a paid editor, with a warning template saying the article has been substantially edited in return for undisclosed payments. This editor–Pinkchaddigulz–created their account on the 9th and since then has mostly focused on adding these tags to articles.

As I've made my disclosure clear in each case, did not edit directly etc. what's the best approach to challenge these tags? Would an editor here be able to take a look?

FWIW, since I work with User:WWB Too, I'm guessing this tagging is not random and is related to the recent interactions he had with Inlinetext and accusations against our firm (see above), though neither of us have any connection to the others (Pancyadams and Kaldari) from Pinkchaddigurlz contributions. Thanks in advance to anyone who can look into this. Of course, I'm open to any feedback on how to better disclose and ensure I'm following the ToU to a t. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 16912 Rhiannon,
  • Paid COI is disclosed on the talk page. I have reverted their first, not their second edit.[25]
  • COI is disclosed on talk page. I have reverted the edit.[26]
  • I have also reverted this edit[27] as that too had paid COI disclosure on talk page. Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:LutherBlissetts, but it looks like they reverted you and added back the templates in each case and have now added one to Pierre Nanterme, too (as well as to Thunderbird School of Global Management where a former colleague disclosed their COI). Any ideas? Again, I'm totally happy to disclose however is needed and have tried my best to be crystal clear about my COI to date, so I'm at a loss here. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
All three reverts have been reverted, which adds back the templates.
  • (Undid revision 774767773 by LutherBlissetts (talk)No disclosd. Talk page coi not enough in USA. Where is name of paid author ?)
  • (Undid revision 774771276 by LutherBlissetts (talk)No disclosd. Talk page coi not enough in USA. Where is name of paid author ?)
  • (Undid revision 774766456 by LutherBlissetts (talk)User:16912_Rhiannon is article hiding paid author so i'm giving warning reader)
The reasons they give are confusing. They clearly haven't read the talk page COI notices properly.
Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi 16912 Rhiannon, I reverted their reverts and left a message for them on their talk page. I have only addressed the three edits which directly relate to you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again! Hopefully they'll look a bit closer before tagging anything again... Could I trouble you to take a peek at Pierre Nanterme, too? I have been involved on that page and as always did disclose. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The aforementioned WWB Too here. Luther Blissetts, thanks for assisting my colleague on this matter. I'd like to add one more: the same user has tagged New Media Strategies, which I created (also disclosing my work) nearly ten years ago, using a different account from when I was an employee of that firm, NMS Bill. If you could review and consider reverting this change as well, I'd be very grateful. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:WWB Too, I notice there's no COI PAID on the talk page for New Media Strategies. Do you think one should be applied? It might make it easier to remove the {{undisclosed paid}} template, and help other editors should it ever reappear. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:WWB Too, I have added a {{connected contributor}} template and a {{COI editnotice}} to the page New Media Strategies. Now that the declaration is prominent, I will be able to remove the {{undeclared paid}} template. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi @16912 Rhiannon and WWB Too:, the case has gone to ANI. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ah, so I see. Thanks for the update and again, really appreciate you looking into this. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the delayed response, as I've been traveling. And thanks for adding the template to the New Media Strategies page, Luther. Being this was a decade ago, the template was not yet established as standard procedure. I appreciate you making this update. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome 16912 Rhiannon and WWB Too, you're welcome. That user has been banned, which is, I think, the best outcome. If they're a grudge-bearer, they may resurface again in the future with similar behaviour, so while the addition of a COI won't deter future missionary vandals, it will at least reassure anyone reading the talk page today of BI's transparency in these matters (to be commended!). Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mather Group PR firm


User talk: :) ...trying to extract some information, first... — O Fortuna velut luna 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

So many possibilities as to what article they are trying to create, they appear to be a Chicago based retirement/investment company. - Bri (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Chicago-based retirement/investment company? The domain for the email address on the talk page is "a Digital Marketing Agency that uses the latest marketing tactics." I wonder what their answer will be. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oops I was looking at another org with similar name ( - Bri (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, Jen Sinkler is listed on Mather LLC's testimonials page [28] where they claim they "got the whole [Wikipedia article] done incredibly quickly". The creator was Jgreene1333, a blocked sock. - Bri (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, indeed. I wonder how many pages were created by all those socks. Quite a coincidence that the sock's username starts with Jgreene and Josh Greene is the founder of Mather. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think we don't have to be coy anymore. Because they sure aren't coy about manipulating Wikipedia for SEO [29] and "defending" client articles from the "trigger-happy Wikipedia community". Added one more advertised client's article, SPA creator.
Zippy Shell, repeatedly recreated, is also listed as a Mather client and is personally connected to firm's exec. The only keep !vote at Zippy Shell AfD with a legible rationale was cast by a sock of Nmwalsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).
Added Mather clients CustomInk, and 1-800-Pack-Rat recreated as 1-800-PACK-RAT - Bri (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Pretty blatant abuse of Wikipedia by a large well known company. Has made the national news e.g. [30], [31]

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You missed Burger King Corporation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)! SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
What outcome are you seeking? The accounts named above are already blocked. ValarianB (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Community ban of the entire company - it's the company who decided to do this and meatpuppetted their advert into the article. They knew they were deceiving the public ahead of time and admitted it in the press. And broke the terms of use. I'll likely come back to this after the holiday, but if you want to take it forward now, please do. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
But what does that mean? Rangeblock the IP addresses of BK's corporate headquarters? ValarianB (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Christ, lets have a laugh about this and move on shall we? I only can imagine the headlines if we responded by banning the entirety of Burger King; talk about blowing things out of proportion. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that it's out of proportion. This was a coordinated corporate effort to abuse Wikipedia; responding at the corporate level is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
How about we think of more productive ways to use the publicity? What about, and this is far from the only option, an open letter to Burger King about Wikipedia's rules and guidance for companies, that could also be published as a blog post or something and might get picked up by media? Seems like a more reasonable response than enacting an unenforceable ban on an entire company for a handful edits. Sam Walton (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're so eager to find an excuse not to have them blocked. Blocking them does not prevent any other action. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying they shouldn't be blocked - the accounts are already blocked. This is about community banning the whole company. Sam Walton (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
How about merging Whopper into Burger King products? The products article is much more encyclopedic than the single-product article. John Nagle (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea but not a COI issue. It should be pursued through the normal merge discussion process (which allows for bold edits of course). And we will probably need to semi-protect some more pages to allow that process to proceed unhindered, but cross that bridge when we come to it. Andrewa (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea... others? Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I must say some of the comments made here don't reflect well on Wikipedia. (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Personally I am quite impressed by the discussion overall, and I note that this is your only contribution so far. Are you another Burger King employee? You are of course welcome in any case, but please note the disclosure requirements. Andrewa (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to elaborate, I find that many people who have reservations about Wikipedia have never visited the site, and are surprised (and not a few have confessed to being embarrassed at their ignorance) when I point them to some of our guidelines and policies. Many are impressed by our policies regarding copyright and verifiability, both of which they typically (and of course wrongly) seem to just assume are things we don't care about at all. Similarly, if this incident calls attention to Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, it will be good publicity IMO. It's an impressive document.
    • I can see how Burger King would like us to forget this whole sorry business, but it's probably in our interests to see it get prominent press coverage, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

How about grassroots action

I think that some grassroots action might be useful here, perhaps off-wiki and even off-Internet.

Wikipedia has great public cred and deservedly so, and I think the smart money would be that they've made a serious mistake and will eventually apologise. Softly softly of course. Nothing abusive or illegal. Make some fun of it. T-shirts with "Vive Wikipedia" on the back and "BK you make me sick" on the front? That sort of thing. Or if "BK..." is too chancey, just "Back to pizza". And let the public work it out. They will.

The old saying "any publicity is good publicity" is generally true, but it has exceptions just like "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" turned out to have. (Just ask United for example.) Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would someone please close this? Corporation makes a dumb decision. If anyone thinks anything we could do at this level will affect them, you are seriously mistaken. This is and always will be the Foundation's problem, not ours. So how about let's all go work on some articles, eh? John from Idegon (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Not me. Everything doesn't have to get kicked up to WMF. - Bri (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been searching for a Big Kahuna burger without luck. -Roxy the dog. bark 06:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with most of that. But the most important thing IMO is that we don't compromise our content in retaliation, and some other suggestions above seem to at least border on this. There seems a desire to do something at this level. I'm trying to point out that there are alternatives.
And we may not need to do anything. Grassroots reactions tend to just organise themselves.
It would be good to see a reaction from the Foundation IMO... or has there been one and I've missed it? Has anyone raised it via the appropriate channels? Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, in a few weeks we'll have an article on Burger King attempt to subvert Wikipedia, similar to United Express Flight 3411 incident. But we must of course be extra scrupulous to base any such reporting here on reliable secondary sources. This may be a start, assuming The Verge is accepted as a scource (I can't see why not).

For any interested who have not found it, Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017 is recommended reading.

For Australians (disclosure: I am one) this incident probably comes as no surprise, see Hungry Jack's#2002 to present for just how successful (not) the Burger King management has been in making its brand name a selling point in Oz. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Open letter

I think the above idea of an open letter is very good and does not preclude any other action. I've written a draft at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard open letter and will be polishing it over the next half-hour or so. I believe this letter requires quick action and apologize for my unavailability over the weekend.

Pinging @Andrewa, John from Idegon, Bri, Coretheapple, Slim Virgin, Roxy the dog, and Doc James:

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

By all means, but I really think that something this blatant is a Foundation issue. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Please excuse the multiple pings, but I think this is time sensitive @BlackcurrantTea and Nagle:
I wasn't thinking of going quite this harshly with the letter - especially not adding in 'demands'. Simply an explanation of Wikipedia's rules around paid/COI editing, that we wish they hadn't done this because [insert reasons], and that we hope they won't do it again. Pinging Ed Erhart who might be interested in putting something on the blog or another suitable location. Sam Walton (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The only demands are based on the terms of use requirement that paid editors disclose their paid edits (and for a general apology). I don't think we should go around asking "would you follow our ToU, pretty please?" If you feel that we should then please don't sign the open letter. If there's a claim that Burger King marketing and legal didn't know about our rules or the laws involved in a very aggressive million dollar advertising campaign, then that is only worse (for business people) - a case of total incompetence. Did you notice on the Burger King navigation template that there are 36 articles about BK's business, plus another 35 related articles. I believe that they know about our rules and choose to ignore them, or are totally incompetent. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Could be a way to educated the wider public regarding how WP works when it comes to paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; my request was just that we go with an educational rather than accusatory/hostile tone. Sam Walton (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the letter is an excellent idea and that you've made a good start, but I'd like to suggest a different direction. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Burger King open letter. I'd also like to say, I think time is on our side. We should not rush this. Reverting the inappropriate material was urgent. Reacting to it is not. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is absolutely lunatic, and on some level, is giving them exactly what they want.
On the first point, at most you'll get 100 psenonymous editors to sign on. How will that impact Burger King in any way?
On the second point, it might generate press coverage, which it's my guess is the intent. All that will accomplish is to keep this bullshit in the news. That gives Burger King exactly what they want, namely publicity.
One last point: although we all feel we have an ownership stake here, we don't actually have that. This website clearly belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, not the editors. Quit deluding yourself and drop it. Our job here is to write articles and to a lesser extent, police ourselves. This has nothing to do with creating articles and the self - policing function has already been handled. Let the Foundation protect its brand and go write an article, not a self serving letter. John from Idegon (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I've seen this argument many times lately and it vexes me: that the WMF alone has a stake in what goes on when it comes to Wikipedia and its public image. I couldn't disagree more. Don't conflate the WMF and its ownership of brands and servers with the Wikipedia community and its own intertwined, but separate and legitimate, interests. - Bri (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Disagree with most of this.
Most important, Wikipedia belongs to the community. WMF is responsible to that community for the stewardship of the website and other resources.
How will it affect Burger King (henceforth BK)? Impossible to tell. But our aim is not to punish them, it's to protect Wikipedia. I think that just publishing these open letters (they are already on the web for all to see) is a good start.
Of course I particularly like my rather shorter and simpler version. The problem is, I'm assuming that others think like me. We all do. (See how to reveal yourself without really trying.)
I think the smart money is on BK already regretting what they've started here. But I could be wrong. They could do very well out of it.
But that's not the bottom line. There have been suggestions (see that one-edit IP above for example) that Wikipedia has performed badly in responding. I think we're doing well! Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know Advertising Age and Marketing Dive have reported on the open letter and given their audience - marketing people - some good info on our rules. So far, I think the situation has changed from "Gee, anybody can put any garbage they want on Wikipedia and nobody will even say a word," to marketing people knowing "Of course people object to this nonsense - there are rules against it." So a small Wiki-win so far. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And Campaign a marketing or PR site in the UK has a short article that was reprinted by PRWeek a US site for PR professionals. We're hitting one of the target audiences! Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Somebody else started a list at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard open letter so I'll just list 3 more here and update a master list there if more come in
  • Consumerist
  • Grub Street, and
  • Eater, a sister publication of The Verge
Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Pico Far East Holdings Limited

Both Ryansing131 and are wp:SPAs and have only edited Pico Far East Holdings Limited. Ryansing131 created the article. The IP seems to be Ryansing131 logged out.

  • The article appears rather promotional, almost a vanity page.
  • This image, apparently of the company staff: File:PicoGlobalGP.jpg was added and removed twice 1 2.

Jim1138 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sofitel, again

Sofitel has been an ongoing problem article, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#Sofitel Luxury Hotels for background. Problematic and promotional edits have resumed and more eyes are needed. - Bri (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mean as custard for the cleanup. We still haven't heard yea or nay from Segmentluxe in response to my paid editing query and followup reminder, though they continued to modify the article after I placed it. - Bri (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental justice edits from UC Berkeley

I'll try to make this as neutral as I can. There is currently a UC Berkeley class, with Wikipedia assignments concerning "the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency". Several editors have expressed concerns about it; I am one of the concerned. Details at ANI and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents/Archive 6#NPOV problem. Have listed just one article that I was involved in thru which I found the class. Train2104 has compiled a fuller list of over two dozen problematic articles. Bri (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


The article was largely written by a WP:SPA and included promotional and improperly sourced texts. @EricEnfermero: removed some of it and got reported to WP:ANEW (result: no violation). This morning I found this message on my talkpage, clearly indicating a COI and (presumably) a violation of WP:PAID (undisclosed paid editing). I have explained my actions, but after finding out about the ANEW-report, I felt it was time to file a report here, since this implies TSG thinks they get get their way by harassing other users. Kleuske (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely by Huon, article AfD'd. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


I'd appreciate people who are good at evaluating these things to take a look at User:Jeh#COI disclosure and let me know if I'm within the green lines, so to speak. Jeh (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the noticeboard, and thanks for asking. Advice for expert editors point #6 is probably applicable. As you noted, transient relationships don't necessarily cause a lasting COI, but you do have to take some precautions. Making your position transparent, as you have done, is a good step. - Bri (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Passion1000 and Top10Cinema

Passion1000 appears to have some affiliation with the website Top10Cinema, as evidenced by the fact that he adds it to almost every article he edits (courtesy). Kailash29792 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kailash29792 (talk), Would like to confirm that, I do not have any affiliation with the website Top10Cinema. I'm quoting that website because I guess many wikipedians have used the references from all other websites and very few are quoting Top10Cinema. Whenever I have an oppurtunity, I have used other websites too. Thanks. Passion1000 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Okay then, I'll drop this discussion. But I think it is less often used because it's credibility is questionable. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, Khowar Academy, Chitral Vision

Most of the socks/meats were blocked in the first case for trying to manipulate AfDs. COI has continued...I've indef-blocked an account today that definitely has a COI. Requesting assistance identifying and cleaning up promotion.

  • As an example, this template ostensibly pushes someone's keyboard invention and their academy to the forefront. Also, take a look at Portal:Khowar and notice the Featured article section...I see the above articles and they have been "Featured" for a long time. Looks like promotion to me but I'll let you decide.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I have blocked the head/admin of a new(?) wiki that states that he has an affiliation with the WMF. See this. And a list with many puppets helped approve this project at Meta. @MF-Warburg: Please review the above and advise.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • The situation is this: The m:language committee, of which I am a member, had previously approved the creation of Khowar Wikipedia, based on an apparently large number of editors editing in that language on Incubator. Some dubious things, e.g. about the alphabet they use and about them all being linked to the "Khowar Academy", led us to request a checkuser of the editors. The result was that Rachitrali, Zaheeruddin25, Mirajbibi, Abdulqayyumfsc, Cataloguers786, Agbiyani, Balimkhot, Chetraro.hawaz, Akbaralighazi, Fidaaliadif, Hafiznoorahmadsialvi, Amjad Mehmoodfsc, Khowaracademy and Zahid Mehmood 786 are the same person, based on the Incubator data. The approval was then rescinded. - It might be good to have them checkusered here as well and to block them, if the check has the same result. I am unable to say whether the 3 articles you listed meet any notability criteria, but it would probably be good to rigorously remove everything that is merely a self-promotion from Rachitrali / one of his socks. --MF-W 02:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Is Khowar Academy a flat-out hoax? Bri (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much MF-W and that certainly does help. I've listed the accounts that you have added to the SPI case. There is no need to checkuser most of them as they don't have activity or are stale. The one that I blocked today may have other accounts but I'll leave that up to the CUs. Uncertain if it is a hoax or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sent Khowar Academy to AfD. This is the third AfD; #1 ended as Delete, but the article was re-created. #2 ended as no consensus, due to few votes. John Nagle (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

John Basedow

Tom Parker (darts player)

Probably a one-shot account to edit his own wiki article. MikeTango (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I posted the standard COI policy notice on the user's talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


Editor is using their userspace for self-promotion, as seen here. Username suggests a clear conflict of interest. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: This is a common occurrence with new users. I'd just nominate the page for speedy deletion as either WP:G11 or WP:U5 and leave a followup note like this on their talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

MiamiDolphins3 cleanup

I listed this editor and some commercial articles as a concern at COIN in mid 2015. Lately he was blocked for socking. A deeper look might be a good idea to see if there's cleanup required. - Bri (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Idaho State Department of Agriculture

A user who may be from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, given their user name, has been editing Agriculture in Idaho without making a clear disclosure of affiliation. After I placed the welcomecoi template on the page and suggested the user read policies on COI, a new editor with a similar name started editing. As the new user name does not have as clear a connection to the ISDA, I am not sure if another COI notice is in order, or a checkuser / warning about multiple accounts. Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ISDA Chelsea. - Bri (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Wiki Chelsea 2017 was indeffed, the other Chelsea account got a 24 hour block (which has expired) and they were advised by admin NinjaRobotPirate to respond here. - Bri (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect

I reported this article at ANI because of a possible legal threat but I think editors here should be aware of it too. There's been a flurry of edits by what appear to be involved editors --- both pro and con --- at both of these articles, the Anne Frank article and the article on its director. Note this edit by a self-described connected party. I saw this article referenced off-wiki so there may be further such activity. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The Knowledge Academy

Pmguru has reverted back to a promotional version of this article eleven times in the last few months including six times in the last week. Given that they're a single purpose account and they've removed negative content it seems very likely that they have a conflict of interest. SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

and it continues... @JzG and Doc James: care to take a look? SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Reverted to the last stable version and fully protected for a month. People need to get consensus on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Emotions Anonymous

A representative from the leadership of Emotions Anonymous is making edits to the Emotions Anonymous article. This user identifies themselves as User:Emotions Anonymous -Scarpy (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Any account that is clearly a WP:ORGNAME and writing about its own organization can be reported to WP:UAA. It'll get blocked per the username policy fast enough. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The user is soft blocked. I cleaned up the COI contribs from the article.- Bri (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Editor is continually editing Messy Marv adding own material[35][36][37][38][39], despite being warned of a conflict of interest[40]. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Meat? farm UPE /promoting an individual

Sock/meat farm here I suspect. Clear UPE. The oldest account is Anuj Parikh (Created 3 April 2017 at 23:20), with Rakesh Ranpura (Created 20 April 2017 at 22:40), and Parikhanuj1 (20 April 2017 at 20:47). They have all created puff-pages for one Chintan Bhagat (redlinked above in case it moves to Aspace): User:Anuj Parikh, a chunk of User talk:Anuj Parikh, Draft:Chintan Bhagat, User talk:Rakesh Ranpura, User:Rakesh Ranpura/sandbox, User:Parikhanuj1/sandbox. I'm guessing it's two people (AP & P1 are clearly the same person) working together; same PR firm perhaps. I have raised it on AP's talk page. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Darcey Bussell, John Crittle

Soulac17 has repeatedly removed cited content and replaced it with other content, which does not reflect the citations, including The Guardian. One edit summary in particular suggests that they may have a conflict of interest, for Darcey Bussell, "Birth certificate authenticated by mother". User has ignored talkpage messages. Such editors normally give up and go away, but this one seems persistent. Edwardx (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Soulac17 is holding herself out as Bussell's mother, based on the edit summary of this edit. I have advised her about the verifiability policy and the need for published reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


User:Clarawegenast, active since 18 April 2017, has contributed almost exclusively to this article. The other (three) edits insert external links to the website of this organisation into various articles about recent events (1, 2, 3). According to LinkedIn a person with this name has a clear COI concerning the organisation described. The user has previously been warned about WP:COI by Wiae, who also removed some promotional content, later restored by Clarawegenast. Can I please get some eyes on the article to confirm that I'm not being paranoid? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether it is worth adding Biratl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as well? They have also contributed solely to the articles on ReliefWeb and its parent organization, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and have just returned to post on the ReliefWeb talk page. They've also contributed File:ReliefWeb Logo.svg to Commons. /wiae /tlk 12:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering about starting an SPI for those two. Their fields of interest seem to match quite closely. Kleuske (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Earnest James Ujaama

The Intercept just published an article that appears to make a COI allegation regarding this article. I am merely relaying this story for your consideration; I'm not really interested in investigating this myself and will remain neutral on any decision made here. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The article reeks of COI and reads like an ego-document. Also "This author is in possession of all court transcripts, sentencing memorandums, and primary documents related to United States vs. Earnest James Ujaama, SDNY 04 CR 356 KBR. Most of these are filed under seal. At times, I have referenced a few of these documents throughout. Most of what is found on the Internet is piece-meal journalism, speculation or theory, and is outdated"
It isn't badly written, but as an encyclopedic article it needs WP:TNT, if only for the verbatim transcripts, editorializing and BLP-issues. The accusation in the Intercept sounds pretty plausible to me. Kleuske (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Three major contributors to the article are SPA's:
I'm not saying that is Ujaama, but the coincidence is striking. Kleuske (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
<more digging>
The Commons contributions of Semaj247 are also interesting. The only upload to survive is a diploma for Earnest James Ujaama File:MAED degree.png, but here Semaj 247 claims copyrights to a photo he uploaded belongs to Ujaama's mother. In the next message Semaj claims: "If anyone owns the copyright, it is me. These images were stolen hacked from the subjects website and they still belong to him. Regarding the photos of the books, I took them myself with permission from the copyright owner, the subject.". A bit later he writes: "I am the only person who has the authorization to release this information that cannot be obtained from any other source which is of huge benefit to those who wish to know more about the subject, Earnest Ujaama"
So if Semaj isn't Ujaama, which is possible, Semaj is at the very least closely connected to him. Connected enough to claim copyrights w/o Ujaama's protest. Kleuske (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
And spell the user name (Semaj) backwards, James, which is the subject's middle name. Concur this strongly feels like COI editing by the subject. The further notes section in the article and the article talk page have massive WP:OWN statements. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Weinberger

I've just undone a complete over-write of this article, done in good faith in response to a properly-presented edit request from a declared paid editor. I think everyone has stayed fully within the guidelines and I'm not naming any names here. But I would appreciate other views or comment on the article, the proposed rewrite and my own actions. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jim Naymu

This article and this editor came up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 90. I feel like it's nearly the point that trouble could happen if I just keep removing his contributions. Could some other folks have a look? Bri (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ocean Medallion, Medallion Class Ocean Vacations, etc

Almost all of this editor's contributions are about Carnival Corporation & plc products or television programs. The articles mentioned above are just the ones that they have created. The promotional tone of their contributions, such as "Ocean Medallion helps to make guests’ vacation experiences more seamless, from unlocking stateroom doors and speeding up the embarkation process. Other functions involve food and beverage on demand, anywhere anytime interactive gaming, personalized entertainment, and wayfinding to help family members find one another while onboard ships." is typical of a COI editor. I will leave them a COI templated notice, and let them know of this discussion, but action is needed! Edwardx (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough the phrase in Ocean Medallion about seamless vacation experiences is also found in this company brochure. It's not unusual for COI articles also to be plagued with copyvios. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than just that passage.
Medallion Class Ocean Vacations has also copied "the world's first interactive guest experience platform" from a corporate press release . Also lots of copying from Venturebeat, according to Earwig's copyvio detector. - Bri (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've done some copyvio cleanup on these. The first two have been redirected and need WP:RD1. I'm tempted to bundle the other four and send them to AfD, thoughts? — JJMC89(T·C) 02:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You've done a great job, JJMC89. However, I've nominated Good Spirits for speedy deletion as G11/G12 – it's essentially still just a copy of the company's publicity materials, with four non-independent sources. For the others, I don't know whether deletion or redirection is really the better option – redirect and revdelete would probably be the most straightforward solution if there's consensus here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Polisport Group

Wow, this is a near perfect recitation of the hallmarks and problems of a paid promotion.

  • created quickly by SPA
  • company history contains language like "created with vision and guidance of the founder"
  • products and services section
  • awards section
  • inappropriate links from other articles

Busy now, can anyone have a look? Bri (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Lingveno is a declared paid editor but is introducing problematic content violating WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOTPROMO. See for example the clean up required of Ahmad Ashkar. Rebecca Vogels, SOTpay and Jason Mace have all been deleted via AFD. I find the fake referencing here particularly egregious, particularly as I had already warned him about this. He has also removed COI tags: [41] [42] while citing a help page which specifically states that editors with a COI should not remove maintenance templates. While paid editing is permitted, violating core content policies is not and unless these problems cease to occur, I don't see how Lingveno can be allowed to continue to edit. SmartSE (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, yes, I have done some mistakes because of not fully understanding the regulations about the CoI and the paid editing. I think that it will be much better if I create another account in order to distinguish my volunteer edits from the edits with CoI, how do you think? Also, if the communty decides that I am not able to edit with the CoI, I will immediately stop any sort of paid editing and will only contribute as a volunteer as I have done before and as I am doing that in other projects. --Lingveno (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about paid editing rules it's about you writing promotional articles about non-notable subjects - that's a problem regardless of whether you are being paid or not. I see that you're continuing in the same vein as well: User:Lingveno/Alexander Hagerup. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
My userspace is my userspace, right? The article is still under construction and is undergoing major edits. Also, I am not sure whether I will be publishing that. --Lingveno (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the rest of this, but I don't see the fake referencing. The first of the two references is accurate, and the second links to an exert, so I can't judge if the full version would have contained the referenced material. - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well the reference was a video where the subject was interviewed and nowhere did I hear anything about nobel. It seems the organisation does call it the "nobel prize for students" but that's quite different from independent sources calling it that. The content I removed here most definitely was FAKE - absolutely none of it could be verified from the sources cited. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it wasn't fake - most was outsourced, and it was overly promotional, but fake is a bit strong. Reverting it was fine, but the sources are valid and cover some of the content, albeit not all. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Adding references that don't support content is a textbook example of WP:FAKE. If you look back through the history, you'll see that the content was there from the beginning and then they've just sprinkled references around to make it appear as if it is supported. That's obviously a whole lot easier than taking the time to read sources and then write content that is actually supported by them. SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The references supported the claim "where he earned his MBA in international business and was the 2015 alumnus of the year", but not the rest of the text. Calling them fake seems like a stretch. I just want to be careful about what the problems were. - Bilby (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have decided to go through the draft and review process for CoI article since now, I think it solves that. --Lingveno (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lingveno: That's a good idea, but it is important that you make reviewers aware of your COI so that they can account for this when reviewing. All paid edits need to be disclosed, not just those in mainspace as you seem to infer here. Also, this still doesn't absolve you from creating the problems that are detailed above. SmartSE (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse:,I indicated that in the edit history. --Lingveno (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Chalk (short film)

Promotional article, presumably written by the film's director, a WP:SPA. Hasn't responded to multiple policy advisories. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Article is at AfD. - Bri (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

IdentityMind Global

I've just reverted an edit to this page (which is on my watchlist for some reason) for removing text and adding a promotional tone. Looking at the page history, however, a number of editors identifying as affiliated with the company have edited the page. I wonder if someone more comfortable with COI and NPOV issues might be willing to take a look at the article? Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA