Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 by posting personal information here. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the evidence, or email any functionary for advice. Functionaries and members of the Arbitration Committee will review private evidence and take any necessary action.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor 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:

Singapore Management University[edit]

User had been adamant over a few days to restore advertisements in Singapore Management University page. Additionally user has removed the advertisement tag without solving the outstanding issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongyao (talkcontribs) 11:38, February 28, 2019 (UTC)

Iridium Communications[edit]

Someone is apparently copypasting info from promotional material into the article.

Rossy Evelin Lima[edit]

This article appears to have been created and constantly updated by the subject's spouse, Gerald A. Padilla.

Smithfield Foods / WH Group[edit]

Single purpose account editing the Smithfield Foods and related such as its parent company (WH Group), its investors CDH Investments, executives, other companies in the group, as well as pages related to the Clean Water Act, a law under which Smithfield Foods was fined $12.6 million for dumping waste into a river ([1]). The edits include removing previous COI templates ([2]). MarioGom (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed 80% of the material from Joseph W. Luter III, as it was just a big coatrack for Smithfield farms.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not connected in any way to the subjects of the articles I edit on Wikipedia.Lostinspacetime1949 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I also want to be crystal clear with respect to "80% of material" referred to above. I did not add it. I am not responsible for it in anyway.Lostinspacetime1949 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook Group[edit]

This user appears to be a SPA with regards to Thomas Cook Group and its related companies and has refused to engage on any talk pages so far with regards to disclosure. shoy (reactions) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There are several things very clear here
  • We don't need a dozen articles on the Thomas Cook Group and associated articles.
  • Airline7375 has a strong conflict of interest and is likely a paid editor
  • They have been warned for various disruptions by several people.
  • They haven't responded to Shoy's question on whether they are a paid editor.
  • They should be blocked for UPE unless they respond here soon.
So, @Airline7375:, what's the story? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: This editor is continuing to edit without responding either here or on their talk page. shoy (reactions) 12:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
At very least, the three Thomas Cook Airlines can be consolidated into a single article, and Condor can probably go in there as well. Will try to get to that later this week.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting News Article – Paid government staffers edited the articles of four Pennsylvania politicians[edit]

Just finished reading a very interesting article (linked above, with another, similar piece here [3]) (requires a subscription, or incognito browsing) in LancasterOnline (a publication operating as part of LNP (newspaper) that detailed a campaign of edits by various staffers associated with Pennsylvania politicians; the article is opinionated but very good. To my knowledge, no editors on any of the four effected articles have made an attempt to disclose their respective connections. From a brief look at the articles in questions, it seems that puffery, editorializing, and the copious use of primary sources seems to be the most pertinent issue. Needless to say, these issues should be addressed and the articles cleaned up.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting you should post this. I'm getting the impression that it's quite common, unfortunately. Did you have a chance to see my notice on a similar thing? Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jules_Bailey Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

advisorshares[edit]

On August 10, 2018‎ a user with name 50.249.10.69 deleted two pieces of information from the AdvisorShares page giving the explanation that "fund.com no longer has any equity interest in AdvisorShares and Chuck Roberston passed away". I undid these changes on August 21, 2018‎ and commented that "These changes are made without citing any secondary sources of information. Also if the information reflected in these changes is not public, it is possible that the editor is connected to the company and has a conflict of interest". UserNameUnderConstruction made a similar change on January 16, 2019‎, which also stated that Charles Robertson passed away. I couldn't find any publicly available information online to confirm this. UserNameUnderConstruction should cite where they found this information or disclose if they have inside knowledge of the company's affairs. Zwx24f7 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like someone raised a similar concern about the same account four years ago on the talk page: Talk:AdvisorShares#User_"UserNameUnderConstruction"_editing_the_AdvisorShares_page_needs_to_blocked creffett (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Highly suspicious to note that User:Zwx24f7 has only 12 edits and is already on this noticeboard. Also note that User:UserNameUnderConstruction was in the past a target of noticeboard complaints by users who are now banned socks.Adoring nanny (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
User:creffett you might want to take another look at this. Idk what is going on here, but it is awfully suspicious.Adoring nanny (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, 2603:3003:703:c500:2907:fcb:ad77:cbea, again edited the AdvisorShares entry by deleting the information about fund.com, deleting the name of Charles Robertson and this time adding an unsourced sentence in the article that states, " The suit was later dismissed without merit." Instead of naming public sources for where they are getting information for these changes, they falsely accuse a "penny stock pump and dump" of being behind the changes they object to. If this user wants to make changes to the content of the article, I believe that they are supposed to cite secondary sources to back up their edits.Zwx24f7 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Murder of Hae Min Lee[edit]

Mainspace edits by User:Cynistrategus are all to this article and Thiruvendran Vignarajah. Vignarajah is the attorney who has defended the conviction discussed in the article. Edits routinely remove WP:RS that are inconvenient for the prosecution and insert references to non-RS. Editor insists he doesn't have a WP:COI.[4][5][6]Adoring nanny (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————

I have an interest in the facts and history related to the murder of Hae Min Lee, but no personal attachment to anyone related to this case in any way. Cynistrategus (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Then why repeatedly remove the Everett source[7]? Example diffs: [8][9], the first diff from my original post, and again here by User:Deaconfan1[10], who has made a grand total of two edits to Wikipedia.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Where to place podcast based speculative content can be discussed on the talk page of the article. Cynistrategus (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Not until there is a WP:COIDISCLOSE that comports with the diffs I've been seeing from this user. Here are examples that further illustrate the problem.[11][12][13].Adoring nanny (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problems with those edits are, I am trying to get more of the investigation into the article using police and legal documents as sources. Cynistrategus (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

In light of the number of edits which bias the article in the same direction, that statement is difficult to credit. That said, I've just templated this user on WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, all of which are routinely violated by this user's edits.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
As a postscript to this, User:Cynistrategus appears to have taken the hint and departed from the article.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I wrote too soon. He's back.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Jules Bailey[edit]

User was contacted for making COI edits on Jules Bailey, a former mayoral candidate and a politician. They acknowledged to connection. Reasonable search effort on the web will reveal on the more likely than not relationship. acknowledgement of connection. The COI pulled the contents from the article and copied it into talk. A different editor put it back into the article. After series of edits, the contents and position are essentially the same. Comparing before and after. While it has gone through the mechanical procedures to go set aside, request edit, and it was inserted by another account, but the promotional and partisan nature of the content are unchanged and I feel paid tag in the article is appropriate but I'm open to further input. Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

THESE indicate the contents added by the main contributor whose a COI. The COI admitted to having COI... and the extent of connection at the time looks considerable https://multco.us/file/56849/download

Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed the article a lot, removed the promo material. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee[edit]

An employee of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) removed in 2016 repeatedly content about an alleged sexual harassment scandal in 2013 ([14]). While the sexual harassment case was never substantiated with enough evidence, the allegations ended up with an exec stepping down and a few female employees resigning. This had substantial media coverage, both in 2013 and later, so it seems it is worth coverage in the article, probably with improved sources and follow up on later development of the case. MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

NSE co-location scam[edit]

The user removed content that was cited to reliable sources and disputed the neutral tonality. He had every chance to defend his changes on the talk page but failed to do so as well. Without any justification, the user is reverting back the content repeatedly. This is simply disruptive editing. LeoStephenTwain (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There also seems to be an undercurrent of accusing him of racism, considering these edits. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User Tokamac[edit]

Has edited topics related to the theories of French Physicist Jean-Pierre Petit for many years. He behaves like the owner & curator of the page. The external relationship WP:EXTERNALREL is probably academic. Could an admin make a quick search on Wikipedia & Google ?82.126.64.58 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Attila Konnyu[edit]

Article has been CSD'd under A7 BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This SPA has made the majority of the edits to this article (both by count and total size) and has repeatedly removed maintenance tags without addressing problems. Talk page message has been ignored. MB 13:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I stripped out the long lists of non-notable material, and checked the (very small number) of actual refs, none of which actually mentioned him (the source for the claim that he studied architecture at a university in Budapest was just a link to that university's architecture department). Article's now a stub, I submitted for CSD under A7. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Antiworld[edit]

Single-purpose account created in order to promote a local band on Wikipedia. Article deleted due to lack of notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 13:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Cam Howe[edit]

COI regarding Cam Howe. 1subwoofer has created pages for this individual at Cam Howe and Cameron Howe. Both have been deleted after afds. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Howe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cam Howe. Both titles have been salted after multiple recreations. 1subwoofer receieved a final warning about "Creating inappropriate pages" on these topics [15]

1subwoofer has spammed Howe into othe articles complete with linkspam to Howe's website, [16], [17]

Howe is the founder of The Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum. 1subwoofer is repeatedly spamming this forum into the Patterson Lakes, Victoria article, complete with links to Howe's website and the Forum's website. May19, May19, Apr19, Apr19, Mar18, Jan18 duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum is the community organisation representing the suburb Patterson Lakes, Victoria and is based out of the Patterson Lakes Community Centre. If a website supports the contents of the article, which it does, the there shouldn't be any further discussion. To close this matter, the only referring reference now comes directly from the Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum's website. (talk) 7:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting here that 1subwoofer just attempted to blank this section. - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Given that, I took this to WP:ANI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the history. Fact: the organisation in question represents Patterson Lakes, Victoria. 2.) Although most of the article is left unreferenced. At this stage there is ONE reference to the organisation's website. Duff wanted more references. Fine, so a total of four references are added. Two supporting the date of the establishment and two putting the organisation on context. 3.) Duff calls this link spam and engages in malicious behaviour reverting changes. 4.) Removal of 3 references to hopefully satisfy Duff occurs, leaving just one reference to the organisation's website. 5.) Obviously this should resolve the issue, so there is really nothing more to be discussed 1subwoofer (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Anderz Wrethov[edit]

Suspected user editing the article about himself. Aikclaes (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks to have been installed for promotional purpose. Two editors that appear connected have done most of the edits. I proposed it for deletion.Graywalls (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. How do we do the same for the Swedish-language version of the page? Aikclaes (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure. You could read this WP:Proposed_deletion and try to search for the equivalent in the Swedish version. The local language version may operate under a slightly different policy though, so read the explanation in the Swedish version you find. Graywalls (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. That's what I did, but couldn't find anything. Aikclaes (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I found no viable third-party coverage of the article subject (i.e., no niche/lyric sites), so a future AfD is not out of the question. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952[edit]

See this previously brought up concerns about promotional editing years ago. The editor came out of hibernation and made this edit to the awards section of Stacy Schiff, an article in which paid editing by Etherweave Communications/MichaelBorum (talk · contribs) 's UPE controversy just occurred. Looking through the account history of the subject of this COI/N, there's a pattern of embellishing awards and honors section of numerous biography articles. Graywalls (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC) and peculiar "minor" edits that are very common with that are very common in accounts that show tendency to make COI edits. Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The editor replied to their talk page: User_talk:Maryphillips1952#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion. Editor says she's just a fan. Should it be taken at face value despite the pattern? @Fluffernutter:, perhaps you're more familiar with this editor. Graywalls (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello - I responded to Graywalls inquiries about wikiposts. I have not received any payments for any posts. I have been a donor to Wikipedia, but have never received payments from wikipedia or people I have edited. I am interested in many topics and I am a fan of authors, classical music, musicians. I have made posts over the years, but consider myself still learning. Thanks for your help.Maryphillips1952 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

so, do any of the subjects know you're editing, and do they communicate about it? Graywalls (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if they know. I have edited several articles over the years. I try to find references and citations from various sources. For example I read Stacy Schiff had won the Peggy Helmrich prize for her book in Tulsa and wanted to place information on her page. I may not have done it correctly. I did not contact anyone about my edits. When scientists win awards, I try to post on their wiki page and edit. I have edited NASA missions. I have found citations for articles seeking citations to make articles better. My posts are backed with references for objectivity and documentation of information. I will try explain changes in the summary box in greater detail. Again, I am on learning curve, so I appreciate your suggestions to be a better editor. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Commment COIN stalker here. I looked at Maryphillips1952's contributions over the years, and yes, she does have a very healthy interest in Horacio_Gutiérrez. She has been editing his page for eight years on and off. Judging by her edit and talk page comments, I would say this is a genuine editor who happens to have a strong interest in the subject! S/he has edited a number of other pages quite diligently, so I don't think this is really a COI concern.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I disagree with her removal of NPOV tag at the time she did, but after you trimmed out puffery, the tag is no longer necessary. Graywalls (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree. I think this can be closed if you do not object.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontreal- Thank you for your help to resolve issue. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

More potentially suspicious articles[edit]

Batch ending 17 May[edit]

33% more than usual, probably because (1) I've added two search terms and (2) it is edit-a-thon season in the northern hemisphere. MER-C 17:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

GSL Group[edit]

SPA, almost all contributions relate to the GSL Group or Graham Lee, strongly suspect COI or UPE. Added a COI notice to the user page and speedied the articles created by the user as A7/G11, but I'd appreciate review of the other edits. creffett (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophisticated AFC subversion[edit]

According to Smartse (diff), Stevey7788 was collaborating with a sockfarm to approve tens of their creations. I have a small inventory at User:Bri/COIbox87, but these are only the most obvious. There were similarities noted to the Boskit190 sockfarm. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I put the full list of patrols and AFC acceptances on that page. While I deleted most of the spam from the sockfarm, there's still a few questionable (and maybe even corrupt) acceptances and patrols. MER-C 18:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think these slipped through the cracks. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

These I find suspicious based on content. There doesn't seem to be any connection between them, but you never know. MER-C 09:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed today that Shurtape Technologies was a declared-paid work, then AfC approved by Stevey7788. The creator, Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (has declared working at Full Metal Chicken, apparently an SEO firm) is invited to comment here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bri: specifically in this case, but also generally, should accepted AfC submissions that are discovered to be UPE be moved to draft-space en-mass so that they can be reviewed? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, I think they should. But I think we need to ask a slightly different question here: should drafts accepted by a sockpuppet – or associate of sockpuppets – be automatically moved back to draft space? I believe they should, unless the page has substantial contributions from bona fide editors. Ping Bri and MER-C for their thoughts.
What am I missing at Derek Fuhrmann? Could someone kindly spell out in words of one syllable or less why it's listed here? – I'm not seeing the connection. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Accepted AFCs later found to be undisclosed advertisements should be quarantined to remove them from search engine indices and deprive spammers of their products.
Yes. A NPP/AFC patroller accepting payments from one spammer in exchange for reviews is corrupt enough to work with any spammer. Their reviews cannot be trusted.
As for Derek Fuhrmann - it's definitely suspicious (see the deleted contributions of the creator) but seems unrelated. MER-C 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: The same account that created Derek Fuhrmann in August 2018 also created Amanda Mustard in January 2019. The latter AfC was approved by one of the socks blocked in Musbaunow SPI. There was a time lag of some 19 days, so the creator could be uninvolved. There's another connection too, involving possible Australian proxies, but I'm not ready to nail that down yet. Bri.public (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the ping, Bri! I have no clue who this editor is. In my work with my agency (Full Metal Chicken, which is not really SEO agency - we're full-spectrum marketing), I was assigned to study the viability of an article for Shurtape Technologies, best known for its popular adhesive tapes (specifically Duck Brand tape as well as gaffer tape, formerly sold by Permacel and widely used in the entertainment industry). In my research I found that it was clearly notable and felt that I could write an excellent article on the topic - I also found the entire coverage of adhesive tape on Wikipedia to be lacking, so I was not surprised this was not covered. This also ties in to where I live, the Hickory–Lenoir–Morganton Metropolitan Statistical Area; Shurtape is one of the largest employers in this area. So basically, I felt this was an area that needed work and was confident this would be a valuable addition, so I began writing the article. You can find a full edit history at my project page, where I worked on it for several weeks.
After producing what I felt was a satisfactory page, one that I felt met all Wikipedia guidelines (even in paid editing work I want to actually contribute to the project; my goal isn't to promote a product or band, but to expand on areas that are notable but have not been covered properly) and would be an excellent addition to the project. I went through the articles for creation process as required of paid editor. I made clear to my agency and client that this process would take as long as it was needed. The agency and client were extremely understanding and were in no hurry at all to confirm it - we want to do things legit, white hat, and that includes waiting for the process to work out on their own. We were willing to wait as long as needed for the review to take place - I believe the backlog was up to several months or something like that, but my client and agency as well as myself were okay with this. I think the article ended up being in wait around two months before it was ultimately confirmed.
The long and short of it is, then, that I can say that I have no connection to this individual or his farm and my agency does not have any connection to them. Our client does not understand Wikipedia, really, so this was entirely run between me and FMC. I also operate here on a non-paid basis as User:Toa Nidhiki05 (in fact the vast majority of my editing is there), so I'm not part of a sock farm or anything of that nature.
If there are any issues with the Shurtape Technologies article - and I hope there aren't, because I think I'm genuinely proud of how it turned out - I have nominated it for WP:GA but will gladly work with anyone to address them. I'm fairly confident it's a solid, notable article and I have the research to back it up, but obviously that's up to the community. My goal when editing from this paid angle is to operate completely transparently and in a white hat manner. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's nice that you are upfront about being paid. However the first source I checked in the Shurtape article is from what I would characterize as a very bad source: Business NC. Here's the marketing brochure, which makes clear that it is really just marketing, not journalism. The first three sources use Shurtape itself as a reference for itself, fifteen times. A good article it is not. It seems to be paid promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
What about that brochure says that? I see stuff about ad space but also about specific journalism awards.
As for sources, it’s important to note what the hare used for. The first 8 citations are used in the infobox. Of those, several go to Shurtape but cite relevant information: what type of business this is (public or private), founding date, subsidiaries, etc. These seem appropriate for primary source coverage, although the information is almost certainly available elsewhere. The actually body cites the Business NC piece as well as the website, but mainly for useful historical info. This could probably be found in newspapers as well. Shurtape sources generally are used for information that is useful but not not necessarily requiring secondary sources. By my count, 17 of 52 go to Shurtape, but a lot of this is minor stuff, like opening a plant in Mexico (2), reorganizing Henkel purchases (2), and also with pairing another source for the Permacel purchase (2). Most of the 17 are used once for a minor detail. At the Chipotle Mexican Grill article, for example, the menu includes citations to the website used only once (see: citation 103). I looked to several articles like this for guidance on how to structure and word things.
Regardless, I put it through AFC for exactly this purpose, to weed out any issues, so the fact it didn’t get legitimately approved is disappointing, as these could have been addressed then instead of now. You’re more than welcome to specific tag areas that need concern and I can do what a I can to propose fixes, like finding specific source improvements or trimming areas. The article is clearly notable, at least from my research (this is excluding newspaper access, which I now have with Newspapers.com). The goal genuinely isn’t to create an ad, it’s to improve the coverage of tape that is really not ideal right now (see: duct tape, gaffer tape, etc. as areas that are lacking). I’ll withdraw the GA for now. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Specific citations asserting the credibility of Business NC: *Former Managing Editor of the News and Observer has a regular column

It seems to be a credible business source. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You have a clear COI, so your arguments are extremely weak. However, the larger issue appears to be that when you created the article, you had not disclosed your paid editing connection. So it is undisclosed paid editing.
So it took you more than a couple of weeks to actually disclose that you were being paid to edit that article. For 20 days you edited the article numerous times without disclosing a conflict. After that you started adding "COI statement: I work for Full Metal Chicken, and Shurtape is a client." But for the first 20 days that it was a draft, you did not disclose. Would you not say that is UPE? I think UPE is something that leads to a block, as it is an abuse of the Wikipedia terms of use. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn’t create the article, dude. I wrote up in user space and submitted it to AFC because that’s what you do if you’re a disclosed paid editor. I nominated it for AFC in January’s and it was approved in March. I added the COI on the AFC talk later because I realized it might not be completely obvious I was paid, despite the user name and notice on my user page. The article was then approved and created by the user who was blocked up above, which is the reason it’s in this discussion. If you’re going to accuse me of something, please be accurate about it. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
this is clear undisclosed paid editing: doing paid editing in draft or article space without clear disclosure is UPE. You wrote the article and submitted it to AFC before you disclosed that you were being paid to promote the subject. Knowing that an article is by a paid editor is important for reveiwers, and, as you say above, you hid that by not disclosing on the article talk page. Your intention is obviously to promote your client, and you hid the promotional nature of your work for three weeks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure says:

Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.

I did this on January 16. This is also obvious in my account’s name. My user space edits began on January 23. The link to that page is clearly visible on my user page. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
How on earth is would anyone know that Full Metal Chicken (or whatever it's called), has Shurtape as a client? It's still UPE. All I can see is that you put a link to a "projects page" on your talk page, which is not the same as "They must do this on their main user page". You hid the project in a sub page. You did not disclose Shurtape, which is the ultimate client anywhere until weeks after you began editing. Let's see your first disclosure of Shurtape as client. It seems to be Feb 18th, long after you began working on their article. Finally, if it seems like I am giving you a hard time, it's because I am. You have not been clear enough about your conflict. Paid editors deserve a hard time and need to be extremely up front about their contribs. The wiki is better for it, as we are really not here to act as an advertising platform for companies. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
You’re not “giving a hard time”, you are assuming evil faith and saying things that are blatantly untrue. It’s absolutely fine to criticize the article - that’s exactly why I nominated it through AFC, as policy demands.
1) I did disclose I was paid, per policy. I did so immediately, on my user page, per policy, and specially stated I only use this account for paid editing. My name also pretty obviously discloses it.
2) Shurtape is listed on Full Metal Chicken’s Website as a client. It’s literally on the page I linked to. Literally every client FMC has is listed there.
3) I did not hide anything. I did what i normally do as an editor, which is work on articles in userspace and then make the change at once - or, in this case, per policy, nominated through AFC. You can’t nominate an article you AFC if it doesn’t exist.
4) I added the separate disclosure to the AFC talk to make it as clear as possible that i was paid, if the username and disclosure on user page were not enough.
You don’t like paid editors, fine, that’s absolutely your right. But that doesn’t exempt you from policy on interacting with other. That includes WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. You incorrectly accused me of creating a mainspace page and hiding that I was paid and that’s flat-out false. I expect a strikethrough or at the very least an acknowledgement that what you claimed was not true. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm civil, and just stating the facts. The edit history is clear: you did not disclose your client, the article subject, on your user page, nor on the AFC draft until weeks after the fact. You hid the client in a subpage called "projects". The policy says "They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries." I'll give you some credit for admitting it later, but the client was not disclosed on your user page, the article talk page or in edit summaries until weeks after you started the draft and submitted it to AFC. You have a massive COI in creating this article, seeing as you are paid editor for the client. It's using Wikipedia as a promotional platform.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have to say this until you stop lying. I did not hide anything. I created this account - which explicitly notes that this is a work account in the name itself - on January 16th and literally my very first edit was a disclosure of my conflict of interest. To quote from that edit:

Normally I edit on User:Toa Nidhiki05, but this is my account for edits where I have a conflict of interest or vested interest. I work at Full Metal Chicken and in this role will occasionally work to improve Wikipedia articles. In this role I will disclose that I am being paid and follow all guidelines about editing in such situations.

I also added a link to this on my normal user page. As you quoted:

They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries

I did the first one, and even though that alone satisfies the requirement. It doesn't say "and", it says "or". I have been nothing but upfront about what this account is for and who I work for from day one- I even provided a link to the website of the company I work for, which has a list of every single client it has.
On the 23rd, I went even further than my text-based disclosure and added the conflict of interest tag to my user page, which basically restated what I already said; by this point I had been editing the project page for a week, but it was already linked on my talk page, so again, it was not hidden. The link to the project page is directly accessible from my talk page. It's not hidden.
And again - I did not create this article. I wrote a draft version (because if you are going to submit something to articles for creation, you should have an article already written) and then submitted it to AfC, where it would be reviewed by another user and approved or rejected. My username and user page directly indicated who I worked for (see: this is my account for edits where I have a conflict of interest or vested interest) - the fact my account name literally has "work" in the name could not be any more clear . I added an additional tag to the AfC, a couple of weeks later, to be even more transparent. The article sat there waiting for a couple of months until another user reviewed it and approved it. I did not create the page. I have made exactly two mainspace edits on this page since: adding a logo, with full disclosure of who I work for in the edit summary, and archiving sources with a bot. I was not dishonest, and I did not hide anything.
You can like or dislike paid editors (and I get either one), but you can't just ignore rules and basic decency here. I am just asking you to stop saying things that are false. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
You created the draft and sumitted it to AFC without disclosing the connection clearly on your talk page, as required. Read the page Wikipedia:Paid_editing#How_to_disclose. It's crystal clear. You need to post the client and affiliation on your user page. You did not. "The conflict of interest guideline further advises editors to place the connected contributor (paid) template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page. The template paid can be used for this." As well as that, you're a paid editor and you are being disruptive here and on the article talk page. About your paid editing project. The simple solution to that is to stop using Wikipedia as means to make money and to promote companies. I'm not going to reply to this any longer. Arguing with paid editors is a waste of the volunteer (unpaid) time and resources of the wiki.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Read what it says again.

Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries

I did this, on my user page, day one. I dislocated that literally every edit this account makes is a paid edit. The website has a full list of every client the agency has.

The conflict of interest guideline further advises editors to place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page. The template {{paid}} can be used for this.

I also did this on the talk page as further transparency, although this is an advisory to do this, not a mandate. I do realize that I don't have a list of contributions on my userpage however, so I have added that now per guidelines.
As for disruption, I'm not sure how I've disrupted anything. I provided sources to rebut a claim you made about the validity of Business North Carolina and responded to false claims you have made about me, so unless merely responding to you is disruptive, that's another false thing you have said about me. That you do not like paid editing does not exempt you from WP:WIAPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki."). Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI: I just sent in a private CU request regarding a different sockfarm and at least one of the articles above. MER-C 18:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

NTT Ltd.[edit]

I notified the editor and he started placing the appropriate disclosures ([18], [19], [20]). However, NTT Ltd. may need to be moved to the draft namespace and reviewed. --MarioGom (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: also included in the list "More potentially suspicious articles" a few sections up. I trimmed the article, and think it could probably be merged to Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, but I do not know enough about the differences between the businesses to do it correctly. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have moved the article to the draftspace for incubation, as is allowed by WP:DRAFTIFY. For the moment, I am unsure the company is independently notable from Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, its parent company. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Adnan Malik[edit]

User is evidently editing his own article. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

United States Agency for International Development[edit]

Please, check the discussion at Talk:United_States_Agency_for_International_Development#Discussion_about_an_Editor. A major contributor to the article initiated his edits under a conflict of interest situation (2013) that may have ceased to be a COI since 2014. I'm not sure how past employment affects or how to proceed here. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thomas van Straubenzee[edit]

Knightfrankuk revealed themselves to be associated with/or represent Knight Frank, the company for which Thomas van Straubenzee is an executive, stating in an edit summary: "The information updated is correct apart from Thomas and his brothers Henry and Charlie attended Harrow School. If you would like to change anything please speak to Knight Frank Marketing Office digital.marketing@knightfrank.com" (see here). Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That's an outright WP:CORPNAME violation for WP:UAA to deal with, for starters. If this person wants to return with another username, they can do so after reading WP:PAID, and also WP:OWN by the looks of that edit summary. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

West Virginia Radio Corporation[edit]

50.73.174.35 is licensed to the West Virginia Radio Corporation (WVRC). WVRC owns a slew of radio stations under WVRC, but also as AJG Corporation, along with The Dominion Post newspaper. In 2016, they attempted to edit some of their company's station's pages here on Wikipedia and that was successfully shut down with a simple COI warning. In the past week or so, they have started up again. I have issued 2 more COI warnings. It's clear all the edits are coming from the WVRC IP and they are trying to make the articles less than neutral or more kind to WVRC and their owners. The latest edit was pure OR. I have done what I can, so I bring it to this board for assistance. - NeutralhomerTalk • 11:09 on May 25, 2019 (UTC)

I previously had this as an ANI thread but was told to move it here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 11:09 on May 25, 2019 (UTC)

Phuong My[edit]