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:


Resolved: User blocked for advertising and group/organisation username by SoWhy. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Medwavescharters has the same name as seen at and has made only one edit: 20:53, May 29, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+813)‎ . . m Luxury yacht ‎ (APA (Advanced Provisioning Allowance). APA (Advance Provisioning Allowance) is the standard structure to pay your expenses on a luxury yacht charter.) (Tags: possible conflict of interest, Visual edit). I don't know how to address this, but I expect that someone here will. User:HopsonRoad 03:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: If an account
  • is identical or reasonably close to a business or organization, and
  • has created or edited an article about said business/organization (or added spam links to it) within the last 3 weeks
then you can report them to WP:UAA. Accounts cannot be named after businesses, organizations or other groups of people. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! User:HopsonRoad 17:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ve Interactive

TechEditor is an SPA with a dozen edits (all marked "minor" except for the last). Ve Interactive is an online marketing tech firm that was supposedly set for an IPO and a 300 million pound valuation until it couldn't make payroll and was sold in administration (bankruptcy) for 2 million pounds. TechEditor has repeatedly removed the word "bankruptcy" and writes things like "Ve's award-winning products help e-commerce clients get more from their websites by enabling online businesses to acquire, engage and convert new and existing customers."

Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin help requested - TechEditor is still wikiwashing the article [1] and has not responded to calls to engage with the community [2]. - Bri (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Including IP editor in this. They added the same material TechEditor had. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
They came back again today so I've semi-d the article for a week. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Adding 2701Edit to this. Only one edit this year, in March, but they've only edited Ve Interactive, at times in a clearly promotional way. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Kane Barry and the Eighth Doctor Adventures

Resolved: Not COI, page protected, future miners lose interest after being retconned. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple editors have been editing the Doctor Who article Eighth Doctor Adventures to include fictitious entries by Kane Barry(???) from 2018 till 2027. I can't find anything to verify nor support these entries, yet these editors insist upon them. I don't want to assume that they are all by Kane themself, but it seems a trend based on the edits.🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 21:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like common or garden hoaxing to me. Hoaxers often forget that it is 2017 and try to hoax things as having happened in the future. It is not just Doctor Who fans who have a flexible grip on the timeline. It is a good thing that Wikipedia upgraded ClueBOT to become sentient in 2019 and that all the hoaxers had been exiled to the mines on Phobos by mid 2021. If only Amazon had not also become sentient a few weeks after that and stolen all the money and goods in the world we would be sorted. Do you remember that time Amazon mistakenly tried to sell eBay, on eBay, for €0.99, in 2022? Seriously though, I don't see a COI here. This isn't somebody real advertising his own stuff. It is just nonsense. I have reverted all of today's stupid edits and requested page protecion.--DanielRigal (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand Initiative

Resolved: Editor's been gone for a while, JJMC89 cleaned up the article, nothing more to do at present. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The New Zealand Initiative has a controversial history, when it was previously known as the NZ Business Roundtable. An IP address registered to the NZ Initiative made changes to the article that basically whitewashed said history to make it look more like a public relations piece. In fairness, some of the edited-out content may have been a bit slanted or otherwise excess fluff, but all the same, there's a case to call a conflict of interest. Deepred6502 (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I put a notice about the IP's owner, links to COI policies, and a notice of this discussion on their talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Deepred6502, I just noticed that the user's latest contributions are from 2015. I'm trouting myself. Anyone else: feel free to close this, or I'll do it once I recover from the trout. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User WikiRecontributer47

I happened to notice a PROD had been placed on Karen Todner and in looking at it I noticed that it was PRODded by the same editor who created the article and has expended 350+ edits on it. This seemed odd enough, then they also put a SPEEDY delete tag on the same article. I asked them what they were up to on their user page and they seemed to admit being a paid editor in this edit [3]. I advised them they need to disclose per WP:PAID. The other articles listed above are the other article-space stuff this editor has created, they mostly seem to be related to lawyers and law firms in the UK. I would presume there's undisclosed paid editing here, this editor has also contributed to a number of other articles as well. Anne-Marie Hutchinson was already speedied and Laurence Edney currently has a PROD on it placed by @SmartSE:. --Krelnik (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Three more articles this editor has expended large amounts of effort on:
All three are related to law or legal issues. --Krelnik (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: You PRODed Laurence Edney, perhaps you can comment on the rest of this? --Krelnik (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Krelnik. Dodgy editing on the Davenport article dates back almost a decade. WikiRecontributer47 used to have a different username which matched with Davenport's publicist/assistant/housemate, who also lived with Laurence Edney. Karen Todner represented Davenport in a trial. The COI issues are fairly blatant but they may well not be being paid to edit and they may well have no COI at other articles. This diff doesn't show it well, but they recently removed that Davenport is a convicted fraudster and a self-styled Lord from the lead, along with dropping in the irrelevant detail that his house was used as a film set. There are other recent changes that I haven't been able to look at in sufficient detail to judge whether they are neutral or not, but I suspect more may need reverting. SmartSE (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Social Kinnect

Article about a Mumbai social media/SEO company written by a first-time editor, using lots of blog-published corp founder interviews and a local runner-up award. It's unclear to me how this even got to mainspace. Deb has asked the creator if they are connected but I don't see a clear reply. Bri (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

True. There was no response to my questions. Deb (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Nominated for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks team, I have removed most of the promotional part from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalpeshchatterjee (talkcontribs) 14:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you also removed the only reliable sources that had been cited. It is now objectively worse and more likely to be removed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Derek Fildebrandt

This article seems to have some major COI/neutrality issues, judging from the latest reverts and number of single-purpose accounts that have edited this article in the past years. Any help cleaning up/extra eyes would be great. Connormah (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Had a go at cleaning up, and removed some unsourced and fairly blatant promotional/POV content. Melcous (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Frank Ilfman

If the name of the user is their real name, google search suggests they may be closely connected to the subject (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The username is apparently the same as the composer's spouse but they haven't edited the article (or anything else) for over two years so I don't see how this requires any action or monitoring. The additions this user did make were to add simply biographical data and some fairly well-referenced awards and credits. 11 other editors have contributed since then, so these changes were well-examined. I don't think there are any issues for this noticeboard to deal with. If anything, the removal of that information was more damaging than its addition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


I stumbled into this on the French Wikipedia [4]

The French language accounts of Popo le chien and his paid editing account Pplc have been blocked for 6 months due to violating the French versions of "No article ownership" and "No legal threats". The commercial paid editing company involved is Racosch There are several other editors involved in this company and they all seem to declare their paid status and the companies they edit for, but not necessarily Racosch.

One of my main concerns is that the company and it's owners are deeply embedded in the Swiss Wikimedia Chapter. Popo is a former Chairman of the chapter. Another owner appears to be a current board member [5]. This IMHO questionable relationship was detailed (with some controversy) in the Signpost once, and twice.

I'm not sure that there is anything we can do about this, but we should certainly keep our eyes open. I took a preliminary look around and still have quite a few questions. If anybody could help me answer these questions, I'd be quite happy. I'll notify Popo both here and on the French Wikipedia. One thing that doesn't quite look right is that there have been no additional declarations since the Signpost articles. That might mean the company is going out of business (but why then threaten to sue?) or that they just quit reporting. A specific question relates to the company's blog of about Sept. 2016 that suggests that they edited the article Daniel Zappelli though this isn't declared by any of the company owners/editors but by an SPA. One possible explanation for this is the company's emphasis on training Another possible case of this type of thing is Philip Morris International (sorry for the interruption)

I don't know what to do about this, but I think that having many eyes on this situation, and perhaps knowledge of others' experience would help. Any additional info appreciated.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a cross-wiki issue and I don't know that you're going to get much help her. You might try Meta Wiki, but I don't know where they deal with COI there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
As i said, I don't know if we can do anything about it, but we should definitely look closely at it. If the company or its editors did break EN:WP rules, e.g. not making full declarations, then there is a way forward. I do hope Popo shows up here and clearly explains what's going on, and perhaps that will lay my concerns to rest. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder who the "confirmed Wikipedians, with thousands of edits under their belts on most large wikis (English, French, German, etc.) as well as on Wikidata" mentioned on Racosch's site are. From the Signposts I found Schutz, Manoillon, Manoillon (Pro), and Wicodric (all have been notified of this discussion). Are there others? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, and thanks for the notification. At this stage it is not so much a question of paid editing than that of harassment of paid editors. Long story short, there is a guerilla war within WMCH led by the same individuals who for more than a year now have engaged in a systematic campaign of harassment (on and off-wiki). After the last couple of episods WMCH's ED recommended I get a free consultation with the Chapter's lawyer, but we totally overlooked that getting lawyers involved is a big no-no, so that is backfiring (or playing right, depending on which side you're on I suppose).
I'm having a call with user:Doc James tomorrow on that issue. He is more familiar with your noticeboard so I'll leave it to him to pursue the discussion if he feels there's anything else that should be reported publicly (feel free to reach out by email as well). Popo le Chien throw a bone 08:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
PS: minor clarification: I never edited the Zappelli article in a Racosch capacity - a quick look shows that I last edited the entry (in French) in... 2008. I commented on an RfD about a year ago - the guy he had hired to clean up the entry had shown he had no idea what he was doing and I wrote a post along the lines of "manage your client's expectations". As for the rest Racosch offers many more services unrelated to Wikipedia.
I do not agree with the above presentation. I cannot really express myself freely here, having received an e-mail threatening of legal retaliation after editing on pages concerning clients of the protagonist on the French wikipedia. However I want to thank Popoo le chien for his public apology about the legal threats here:apologized here. --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping User:Popo le Chien. Yes we are discussing this tomorrow morning. Agree there is some elements of concern. Will be good to get further details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, Smallbones is reporting about "full declarations" of paid editing and this is a cross-wiki issue, but please may you report here if in the en.wikipedia the paid editing is allowed? The "full declarations" seems a reference to a rule or a procedure that is accepted if declared. At least there will be "for all" a clear reference about what is valid in this linguistic version of wikipedia. --Ilario (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Ilario, you may find the text and links here helpful, as well as the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so basically, explaining it to my grand-mother, I could say that it's allowed under some terms and conditions. Is not it? --Ilario (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to butt in here and say that I see a lot of hair splitting that verges on Wikilawyering. In response to your very last question, Ilario, everything is allowed on Wikipedia until it isn't (modulo the WMF's ground rules that even trump the community). It's better to hear the voice of the community and work through consensus, rather than trying to parse the exact language of the policies and guidelines. Many, many editors take a dim view of paid editing and will scrutinize it. When all is said and done, what edits are allowed and how far editors are allowed to go without sanction are both contingent on the will of the community, and this will is not always perfectly expressed in written form before the fact. - Bri (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Concerns FIBO Group

Just recreated a deleted article made by a undisclosed paid sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Could a volunteer with the ability to see deleted pages evaluate Spotware Systems Ltd (AfD) versus the newly created Spotware Systems? Of interest, Spotware has a history of involvement by a Morning277 sock. Of course it is a binary options-related company which is a red flag all by itself.
I ran a survey of this user's contributions which are concerning, including creation of multiple articles on Internet startups, execs, medical devices, financial institutions etc. – this list is surely familiar to COIN regulars. Perhaps Jytdog can comment on this cleanup of one of Pozytyv's creations. - Bri (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Doc James, I suppose you wanted to write "deleted article started by"... I don't think that replacing half of the references, moving, removing and adding sentences can be called "minimal changes".. Your rationale was wrong. That's why I recreated the article.. Bri, Spotware Systems is not a "options-related company", and of course options-related company is not a red flag all by itself... Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me, a Cyprus company selling "The Next Generation of FX & CFD Trading Platforms" is completely different. Or, maybe not. - Bri (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
they both claim to have developed cTrader. I've deleted G4. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Massive group of undisclosed paid editors

here. Have deleted a bunch of the articles in question as they are created by a very probably sock of a blocked account. Plus they were created in breach of our WP:TOU.

One has been recreated per User_talk:Doc_James#Overturning_G5. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:100 Celsius

Blocked and deleted some stuff. Other stuff needs to be checked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick look at his sandbox took me immediately to FxPro, a binary optionsCFD outfit. Blech. All contributions will need to be reviewed. - Bri (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Life Time Fitness employee(s)

This article has had a many-years-long history of single-purpose or COI editors (see talkpage note (2009), COIN archive 58 (2012) and connected contributors note). The latest editor replied on his talkpage to my query whether he was connected, and seems to think if he's an employee but not in the marketing department he's OK to edit. I asked him not to do that and said I'd direct him here for details. - Bri (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Joe Farrer

an edit summary from 21 December 2015 made in the first person implies that the registered user is Joe Farrer.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 02:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted the standard COI policy notice and notice of this discussion on their talk page. I'm not that concerned about this one: The user made a single edit a year and a half ago, to change their (or the subject's) workplace. They added nothing promotional, and haven't edited since. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Justin Boyd

The introductory sentence states that the subject of the article is named "Phillip Justin Boyd," which is the very nearly same for registered user P.justin.boyd who made this minor edit in 15 May 2017.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 03:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Another query undisclosed paid editor

User:Jeffmcneill and edits need review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing per [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dhananjay S!ngh

While investigating an SPI case, I came across this user. I attempted to access his domain as seen in this version of his userpage. It is forbidden in DNS lookups (403) for some reason so I ran a search on it and this ad at Freelancer comes up. He appears to be an undeclared paid editor. He is mixed into a much larger case of paid meatpuppets that I will be posting here for review shortly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sock farm

Please review the above SPI case to which I've added quite a number of accounts and articles. It seems to relate to several different groups and better suited for the investigators here. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Amitabhaitc, etc. articles sent to AfD, and most were deleted. Some AfDs pending. One deletion review pending. John Nagle (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ultimate Products

I have been reviewing the draft as part of the AfC process. A google search reveals the editor's employment, and a search for that employer indicates that they work for a "strategic communications consultancy". This, together with the nature of the article and the pattern of editing leads me to believe this is an undeclared paid editor Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The article reads like an ad. But the parent company, UP Global Sourcing Holdings, is doing an IPO for £150 million.[7] The parent may be notable per WP:CORP once they go public. For now, too soon. John Nagle (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Simona Capparini

Five days ago, Danielamoviement posted to the Help Desk, asking to have the DoB removed from Simona Caparrini, and claiming to be her agent. I did so. Another editor urged her to declare her CoI or Paid Editor status – she has not yet done so.

She then added a 1972 DoB with a reference to I deleted it as I believe the source is unreliable, like IMDB. She re-added it, and began a discussion on my talk page. I explained that a reliable source is needed, and invited her to declare her Paid Editor status. I removed the inadequately sourced DoB two more times.

Then two new accounts, Gianni53 and Oscar5757, appeared. Both restored Capparini's 1972 DoB, and both were involved in creating, about another IMDB-like site which supports the 1972 DoB. (I proposed it for deletion, another editor then speedied it.)

I suspect the cause of the problem is that Google gives Caparrini's DoB as 1966, and her staff have realised that if WP gives a later date, Google may change its opinion. Maproom (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User Maproom continues to delete and to deny a reputable source like with alleged accuses against Ms. Caparrini and other contributors who are clearly less familiar with the Wikipedia regolations and norms than he is. I suspect he has a personal interest in undermining and harming Simona Caparrini's reputation. I suspect something personal, not encyclopedic. Which are his sources? Has he checked the thousands of pages of instead of urging to remove its page from Wikipedia? That is an independent and reliable source with thousands of visitors every day. It is one of the most important italian web sites on Italian films and celebrities. If you don't know it, and cannot spend five minutes checking this web site, you better shut up. This is a true independent web site about Italian cinema done by professional journalists. You are offending them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar5757 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I had never heard of Caparrini until I read Danielamoviement's request at the Help Desk. I don't have any sources for her DoB, and have never suggested adding a date to the article. I am doubtful that is any more reliable than IMDB (and if it is, I wonder why Danielamoviement initially preferred IMDB as a source). I did not urge anyone to remove the CinemaItaliano article from Wikipedia; I proposed its deletion as a matter for discussion, but this was superseded when another editor nominated it for speedy deletion.
The important issue here is whether Wikipedia regards as a reliable source. Maproom (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that encourages users to submit biographies and date of birth for performers, it would not appear to meet our standards of being a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never read this page before in but I know that the journalists check their sources before publishing. Anyhow, if Maproom says that he has not intent of harming others, and in this case Simona Caparrini, I do apologize for saying that, but I assure you all that there are so many Italian actresses and actors on WP with no sources on their Dob and their work, that all this time spend on one page it has seemed pretty weird to me. Please check also the other pages of all the Italian actors and actresses. That what is is democracy: the law is equal for all. Thanks. Danielamoviement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielamoviement (talkcontribs) 18:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Danielamoviement: We aren't a democracy, but yes, WP:BLP applies to all articles discussing living people and WP:VERIFY to all articles. It is true that not articles give appropriate sources, but it is those articles that need to be fixed, we aren't going to drop our policies because some articles don't follow them. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

As you see I can apologize to others, as I did to Maproon but what I could not understand was this fixation on scrutinizing only one actress. Also is important to understand that not all contributors know all the WP guidelines in such details and we should not discourage people to contribute. p.s. as you can see I don't know how to write here following all the guidelines. I do my best. Please bear with me and other beginners on WP. User:Danielamoviement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielamoviement (talkcontribs)

Stevens Interactive

A new user whose first few edits were to create the article Stevens Interactive.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 03:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


The editor is very keen that the draft article should be accepted because there are articles in Wikipedia about their competitors. In the message they added to my talk page they wrote "All this companies I have listed do very similar services like we. Why they are notable and we aren't?" To me this indicates that the editor is writing the article on behalf, and is employed by, the company that is the subject of the article and is an undeclared paid editor contrary to the wp:terms of use. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Curb Safe Charmer:, thanks for bringing up this question. I would like to inform you I do not get paid for writing Wikipedia page and I will never get paid for it. Yes, I do work for Maytech but I'm focused on other activities that are my primary and Wikipedia have never been my primary activity. It was my own initiative to write about Maytech on Wikipedia and actually I'm volunteering right now because I'm spending my time responding to you instead of focusing on that activities which I get paid for. It's not written anywhere in my duties and responsibilities, nor I committed to anyone writing an article about Wikipedia, neither I promised anyone writing an article. I just thought "Wow, that's a cool idea to have a page on Wikipedia". I've seen so many pages about companies on Wikipedia, some pages are about big and well-known companies, some pages are about very small companies. That's why I thought it would be great to be on Wikipedia as well. I'm using Wikipedia so often and I trust it and I hoped to get support and guidance here, but it's so tough, really, I haven't expected there are so many obstacles to publish couple of sentences and every week there is "something new" why 5 sentences I wrote is not good to be officially published. I tried all my best and it's so sad that all my efforts are in vain and it all lets me down so strongly that I'm close to crying. One my friend he's Ukrainian Wikipedia editor and he told me how cool it is to contribute to Wikipedia and how proud he feels but all that I can feel is frustration and loss.

Anyway I would like to sincerely ask you to please have a look again at the Draft article about Maytech and please can you consider again to publish article about Maytech? As I said previously I for it and never get paid for it. Anastasiia09 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Jenna Andrews

The edit summaries on Jenna Andrews state "I work closely with Jenna on her digital presence", "she has requested this specific change", and "replaced with a bio from Jenna Andrews directly". I don't have much experience handling COI cases; right now I have added the COI tag to the article and left Akerston a message. Should I revert the article to the previous version as well? –FlyingAce✈hello 22:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I took out some of the "worked with" name-dropping. The article subject would seem to pass WP:MUSIC, with two or more recordings on a major label and some products which charted. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Reid Kirchenbauer

The subject of the article, Reid Kirchenbauer is the fund manager for a fund called Khmer Ventures. This connection can be established by googling "Reid Kirchenbauer khmer ventures". The creator of the article has the username KhmerVenture, which implies both a promotional/shared use username, an undeclared conflict of interest and likely paid editing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Has been blocked as a promotion-only account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Layer3 TV

Articles about executives of Layer3 TV, created as drafts by Andrewcantella, who declares himself an employee of the company. I just have no idea why anyone would accept pages like these for inclusion in our encyclopaedia, but somebody did. Now they need to be cleaned up or completely rewritten or moved back to draft or something. I had a go at Jeff Binder yesterday, and a new editor, TMTAnalyst, popped up, reverted some of the changes, and asked for the COI tag to be removed. It doesn't seem to me that it should be, but I'd like someone else to make that call. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and Elcorectomundo has edited only in this topic area, and was able to add a photo provided by Genovation Capital (one of Binder's companies). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It's clear to me that Elcorectomundo is related to Binder, and probably a sock for TMTAnalyst, but is not Andrewcantella. Andrewcantella edited appropriately (neutral, verifiable), disclosed his COI, and last contributed to Wikipedia in March 2016. The articles he contributed to shouldn't be tagged for COI based solely on Andrewcantella's involvement. (That said, Lindsay Gardner needs an edit --Elcorectomundo added hype to his article - I'll remove it.)
Apologies for the lengthy response, but I am the somebody who accepted the Eric Kuhn and Jeff Binder articles, and this is why.
Andrewcantella disclosed his COI when he submitted the Kuhn draft, yet another reviewer added an undisclosed COI tag and left it in the queue for someone else to review, which prejudices other reviewers. (here). We already make it very difficult at AfC for COI editors, and as such, we diminish the quality of Wikipedia by discouraging COI editors from adhering to policy. (As an AfC reviewer since 2013, I feel confident in saying that at least 50% of the submissions come from new editors with an undeclared conflict of interest.)
I have kept an eye out for Andrewcantella contributions since August 2015, when I came across the Kuhn article (with the undisclosed COI tag). He easily meets GNG, and the assertions of the article were verifiable. I gave it an edit for tone and accepted it. I accepted Jeff Binder in October 2016; he also met GNG, the article was neutral and verifiable at the time it was submitted, and Andrewcantella disclosed his COI. The Binder article was fine until Elcorectomundo showed up. (Draft as accepted on March 7 2016 and as it stood on February 11, 2017.) I've edited all of the Layer3 articles sporadically, added refs, updates, and removed hype. (I missed the Elcorectomundo edits to Binder, which, incidentally, began the day after the article was published.)
I see no issues with Dave Fellows, although I will give it another look (as others should), and in hindsight, yes, Eric Kuhn needs to be pruned. As for Elcorectomundo, I assume he/she will be blocked as a single purpose account or sock? Can the Binder article be reverted to the pre-Elcorectomundo draft, moved back to the draft space or blown up via AfD? (Not my area of expertise, although I will nominate it at AfD if others thingk it appropriate).JSFarman (talk)
JSFarman, I must apologise – my "no idea" comment could have come across as an implied criticism of you or Missvain, who accepted these articles. Please accept that that was not my intention, and that I know you did so in good faith. I really do have no idea why we allow conflict-of-interest editing in draft space, which is the source of so many problems here, but I've been told that reviewers will ensure that no promotional content reaches mainspace, so it's OK; I don't believe that that works in practice, but that's just me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now it makes sense, and thanks for that, Justlettersandnumbers. I understand why you feel the way you do. I'm going to do an edit for tone on the Kuhn and Fellows articles later today or tomorrow. (As previously noted, I should have been more thorough when I accepted Kuhn - I only cut the obvious.) I'm also going to offer guidance re: future editing for Andrewcantella -- I started on that yesterday. Thanks again for the clarification, no apology necessary! JSFarman (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hector Avalos

Elosofamoso appears to be a Single-purpose account who edits solely to promote the scholarship of Hector Avalos. I believe the scholarship of Hector Avalos is notable, and this user's contributions are of reasonable quality, but they are promotional in nature and I suspect a conflict of interest. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly an SPA, but a very slow one; less than 100 edits in 10 years. None on talk pages, which is unusual. A bit more engagement with others would help. The most recent problem seems to be edits at Hatred, such as [8]. This looks like a content dispute over biblical interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics is outside the scope of WP:COIN. That issue should be argued on the talk page of Hatred. John Nagle (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Smartmatic... again, again...

Not sure if I'm over reacting due to the previous edits on this article but I saw the tag on this edit saying "possible conflict of interest". This user writes on Medium promoting Smartmatic and has disseminated Venezuelan government claims of voter fraud (oddly they state that Smartmatic is a "Venezuelan firm" as well). The user originally made minor edits to the article which seemed decent, then began moving large portions of the history that might be deemed "controversial" to a lower part of the page (among other edits). The account was created days after another user of interest went under. This article has been controversial before, with a list of sockpuppets being blocked and a "PR Strategist" with links to the company making edits being notified, eventually ceasing to make edits after the notification. Once again, I am just looking for another eye on this article and a potential block for those who are not confirmed or autoconfirmed users. If I am overreacting, then I apologize.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed back some of the brochure-like text. Not sure what to do about lengthy election problem sections. John Nagle (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As a reporter based in the Philippines, I am aware of the opinions surrounding the elections and the technologies used during the elections. I began investigating said topic and conducting my research through Medium to display the facts and information I was collecting. I believe Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a public encyclopedia. It’s a comprehensive compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars that the public can access and contribute to. In my initial research, I found that many of these company pages did not exist on Wikipedia and the ones that did exist contained very limited or false information. In researching this project, I found it very difficult to differentiate between what was an opinion or what was fact-based. This is because of the way in which material was sourced, organized, or used on the page. My intention was to clean up the page and improve the accuracy of all information written, make it as neutral as possible, and make it more fact-based overall. For example, basic things such as the founding dates of companies were not correct and were sourced to an irrelevant Wikipedia page that is not remotely related to the topic. Controversies were also listed in the history section and based on government documents published on WikiLeaks, some of the information was inaccurate and had a lot of inconsistencies. According to Wikipedia, a controversy “is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.” While it is right and fair that controversies should be covered in the page, it creates confusion by place those issues in the ‘history’ section. According to the Wikipedia editing policy, when a problem is spotted, instead of removing content from an article the editor should consider the following:

· Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or accurately represent the sources

· Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact and neutral

· Merging, editing or moving the content to a more relevant history or headline or to an existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article

· Adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced and fair

· Requesting a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate

· Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself

· Adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself

· Repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located

· Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge

· Fixing errors in wikitext code or formatting

During my editing process, rather than removing Zia Later’s edits, I changed them as outlined and organized them instead. From my point of view, Zia Later has questionable motives behind his aggressive editing. He has removed the edits that I spent time researching, rather than following the steps outlined by Wikipedia.
Based on how aggressive Zia Later has been, his edits look more like an opinion rather than fact-based and neutral research. As a journalist, I am questioning his ethics and motives behind the edits he makes. The edits he makes lead me to believe that he is in fact part of the problem and he is creating controversial and biased material on the page.  I believe that neutral and fact-based research should be the priority, especially since everyone is able to access Wikipedia. His opinion-based research is not neutral nor is it correct. I believe his edits should be investigated, as well as the other entries he has created in the past. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
First of all, not a male. Now, there have been many from the Philippines such as the "PR Strategist" and other who attempted to whitewash the page multiple times. What I placed in the history is supported by sources and belongs in the history of the company (foundation in Venezuela, founders, funding, etc). When it gets pushed to the bottom into the "Controversy" section when it doesn't even seem to be a controversy (is the Venezuelan background of a company controversial? To who?), it is suspicious. There have also been the users who appear and disappear right when they are brought to the noticeboard, which you can find in their editing history. As soon as one user disappears or stops editing, another is reactivated or created to take its place. Yes, the article can be better, but it shouldn't be whitewashed. I don't have a POV on Smartmatic. Editing the article came up as I was working on other Latin American articles. However, I will not tolerate whitewashing on any article as it only raises more suspicions and is plainly the wrong thing to do. I explained that you had nothing to worry about and only a few of your edits were changed. Some of the filler that was removed in recent edits I originally left there just because it provided a buffer between the controversial and the "supposed" controversial info in the article. I will attempt to find more information to help with this.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Copernic Desktop Search Enterprise

A Google search for "Vince douville" copernic shows that this editor is an employee of the company that produces the software that the article is about. The editor has also contributed to Copernic and Copernic Desktop Search. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jacqueline Ayer

I'd like to add inline citations to meet the apparent objection to this article being taken to main article space, but Jacqueline Ayer was a close friend of my fathers', and her daughters are friends of mine. If I confine myself to adding citations to the existing text, would that be OK? - Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Thomas (American football)

Editor is holding herself out as the daughter of the deceased subject and changing the date of death. Published sources say Monday, the 5th; she's claiming it was actually the 6th. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: Published sources found to support the 6th. Could still use an extra voice to explain COI policy to user. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Currently nominated for deletion, but looks like it may end up staying. There is an open job on Upwork offering money for saving the article [9] The job description admits to having maintained the article "for several years". The promotional content has been dealt with, but an eye should be kept on it and the edit history may be worth investigating. Rentier (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:COI

I've started a discussion on WT:COI that may be of interest to folks here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:47, 23 June 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