Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:
▼ Requested edits
► Answered requested edits
► Declined requested edits
► Implemented requested edits
► Partially implemented requested edits
  Talk:Move (company)
  Talk:Post-it note
  Talk:Realtor.com
  Talk:Roku
  Talk:Roku, Inc.

Bravo Telecom[edit]

Histplit between Bravo Telecom and Bravo Telecom (Saudi Arabia) + hatnotes, both articles tagged with maintenance tags, PRODed, the Canadian one tagged for UPE on article and talk, BT.team hardblocked for promo+corpusername, Meding46 warned about disclosing paid editing. Will AfD articles if PRODs are contested. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:18, 25 December 2017 (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.
Moved from Talk:Bravo Telecom

Although I am reticent to get involved with "cleaning up UPE/COI" while, as y'all probably are aware already, I am a party to a ArbCom case request likely to go through, I stumbled upon this situation by complete coincidence and it would probably be negligent of me not to ignore it altogether... so I thought I'd post it here for a look by the good folks at COIN. ;)

I stumbled upon this series of edits to Bravo Telecom in 2015 by BT.team (clearly COI/UPE and should possibley be corphardblocked although it's never edited after this 2015 spree) and a previous attempt days earlier by Meding46 as well (see the edit summary of their first edit to the page), which apparently highjacked an article about a Saudi telecom company (http://www.bravo.net.sa), replacing it by an article about a (probably non-notable) Canadian one (http://www.bravotelecom.com). Not sure what should be done but I can at least leave my thoughts here and tag the article appropriately. IMHO the revisions for the Canadian topic should be histsplit into their own page, then tagged & deleted (or draftified) and the "Bravo Telecom" be restored to the prehighjacked version (and then AfD'ed if necessary)? I do think however that even if both the Saudi & Canadian companies are determined non-notable and deletable, the revisions for the two topics should be histsplit before deletion anyways. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • So.... is this getting ignored because I'm the one who reported it and I'm a pariah traitor to COIN, or is "an article being highjacked by a similarly named company" just not worthy of intervention? :P Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I restored the pre-hijacked version. And I am inclined to send it to AfD (BTW the hijacked version deserves the same). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yea, I mean, both topics are probably deletable at AfD, I'm just concerned that an actual histsplit might be needed since they are explicitly separate topics, even if both end up deleted. I'll be happy to perform the histsplit myself, I've experience with that, I just wanted opinions here before waltzing in. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:32, 11 December 2017 (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.

Malkawi[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Done The editor, being CU-confirmed to be socking and having a history of cross-wiki-abuse combined with COI concerns, has been blocked.Malkawi has been deleted.Winged BladesGodric 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

he is editing Malkawi article without reliable resources and it seems that there is an conflict of interest in his contributions because he tried to write it in many languages and were deleted. Please look at talk page. مصعب (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I approved some (or all) of them on NPP. He has declared, via username (and details on his userpage), that he holds the Malkawi surname - however this is a surname shared by many. This isn't an obvious screaming COI. Of the 3 pages created - Malka, Jordan clearly passes WP:GEOLAND, List of people from Irbid seems to pass NLIST (and has a clear criteria), and Malkawi is similar to other surname articles. All 3 could be written better and use better sources. When reviewing I was somewhat concerned that Ali Malkawi was being promoted (both in text, and with a picture) a bit too much - this was a reddish flag that had me look at these a bit deeper at the time. I don't think this is paid, it is perhaps a tad non-neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a need for checkuser review because there is another account edit similar articles with conflict of interest. الملكاوي (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) romanization is Malkawi (from arabic language). so I thick there is a need to submit CU request--مصعب (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
CU Confirmed the relation between the 2 accounts and both accounts were blocked--مصعب (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
there is a need to close this request because both users were blocked indefinitely with not that the user still trying to write about his tribe in other wikis--مصعب (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

COI with Watkin Tudor Jones (Die Antwood) supportes[edit]

Editors like Centerone and Gene Zef2 continue to add and insist on (self-)promotional and non-encyclopedic content supported by low-quality sources such as youtube.com videos. On the article talk page, Centerone clearly demonstrated a lack of distance to the topic already. User Gene Zef2's lack of distance is already visible by their username, which contains Zef, designation of the South-African counter-movement to which Watkin Tudor Jones' band Die Antwoord (supposedly) belongs. Allensbacher (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Allensbacher: A fan editing an article on a musician they like is not a conflict of interest. Do you have any actual evidence that Centerone has a COI? If not all I see is a content dispute that is best resolved through the normal channels (e.g. WP:RSN, WP:3O, WP:RFC). – Joe (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely no COI when it comes to Watkin Tudor Jones, Yolandi Visser, Die Antwoord, or any of their previous projects, collaborators or otherwise. I have no relation with them, their record labels, publishing companies, the movie studios they worked with, or anything else, either personally or professionally. I've never been to any performances by these artists, and I don't even own any of their work either in physical or digital form. My knowledge and interest in the subject came simply as the result of trying to figure out what the deal with them was when "Enter the Ninja" by Die Antwoord broke out internationally; I mentioned some of this in the talk page when I was making a plea to NOT make a change that WTJ / Ninja wanted made. allensbacher is seemingly misrepresenting or misinterpreting both my relationship with other editors Gene Zef2, as well as my edits - statements he has made both on this page, on my talk page, and on the talk page of the article; I don't insist on adding either 'promotional' nor non-ecyclopedic content, nor am I _adding_ youtube links (if I revert a bad edit that had that link as a reference, then it gets restored.) As Joe Roe said, this is really about a content, or edit dispute. allensbacher made several edits which I reverted and invited him to discuss on the talk page, which he did not do; some examples are, he removed something for being redundant which it wasn't, and then he subsequently removed it for being a hobby, which it also wasn't, and for being yellow journalism, which it wasn't. In my discussion on the talk page I point to the youtube videos because when discussing art, IMO it is helpful to actually look at the art, and the artmaking process. We may need better references in the article, but it might be more helpful if he just asked for better references rather than gutting important parts of the article, and eliciting the help of others to do so based on his beliefs; it would be nice if he assumed good faith first. I'm sorry if this is longer, more emotional, and more detailed than it needs to be, but this whole process, and being accused of edit warring and a COI really leaves a bad taste in my mouth and has been bothering me. Centerone (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've not seen any reason to call out Gene Zef as having a negative COI on any ZEF related pages. He's made multiple positive contributions to the Yolandi Visser page (where I encountered him,) and has been more than willing to discuss any changes or reversions that have been made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Additional: I've just noticed that allensbacher is potentially NPOV themselves with the comment "the South-African counter-movement to which Watkin Tudor Jones' band Die Antwoord (supposedly) belongs". The inclusion of "(supposedly)" is of concern when one of the few things that is sourced throughout the Zef, Die Andwoord, Watkin Tudor Jones and Yolandi Visser articles is that Zef is a major part of the group identity. I accept that better - or additional - sources could probably be found, but they are sourced nonetheless. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Gene Zef2 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Gene Zef2 Let me start off by saying I have known the band even before they was Die Antwoord, I knew them when Waddy was with the Evergreens, over 12 years ago before Constructus, Max Normal and MaxN.tv . I happen to personally know the band as I am the Admin For Die Antwoord World Wide Fans. (website since March '09) I had to learn what wikipedia wanted and did not want to see on their page, any movies or articles I have posted in the last year or so are based in fact. When I post a REF to a movie to a youtube video it is simply so that anyone reading the article can fully understand the subject matter. Now Too many times I see people complain about things but nothing ever gets solved around here. I mean I know people dont get paid around here for what they do.... But like I learned in the Army.... if you are not part of the solution.... YOU are part of the problem. What I am going to continue to do is MY very best to make their pages as accurate as I can. If you dont want to help, please keep your comments to yourself, and keep my name out of your mouth..... Gene Zef2 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Gene Zef2

It has been well-known that Gene Zef2 has a potential COI due to too close a relationship with the subject (nobody had to read into the mere mention of 'zef' in his name, it was never hidden); although it can be as Joe Roe said, he's just essentially a fan editing an article. Several other moderators and myself have taken a lot of time to try to educate Gene on all the issues surrounding managing that potential COI and all the ins and outs of why he should or shouldn't make certain edits, and we revert him when his edits are incorrect, or at very least warn him when his edits will be reverted so he can learn. Most of Gene's concerns have been around getting basic facts correct (like Yolandi's birthday, and getting a better picture for the articles -- the one on Yolandi's page for a long time was an especially bad representation, and it is these places where he could be helpful in sourcing appropriately licensed content, etc.). Most of his edits recently have been fact based and fairly neutral, although as you can see he can be a little passionate about the subject. Allensbacher has neglected to read these discussions and taken my simply warning him that his edits will be reverted on my personal talk page when he asked for my help, as evidence of me being his "partner" rather than just another editor trying to provide constructive criticism to another wikipedia editor. That doesn't mean that Gene Zef's edits are promotional anymore than my reverts of the incorrect edits by Allensbacher or others are. My only goal is a complete article that provides a proper context to fully understanding the subject in a concise way. We can certainly provide better references than youtube, but we shouldn't gut the article when links to youtube are the complaint, which at least initially, it wasn't. Centerone (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sustainability12345[edit]

I first encountered Sustainability12345 trying to edit the Ria Persad article, changing her last name to reflect the fact that she had gone back to her original name as she had been divorced. I undid that edit, but I did later move the page (you may revert it, I shall openly say that I did not consider the merits of moving or not moving it). Some edits of interest here are this very nice peacock term added. Problems for me only started arising when I removed this random list of awards, when this is almost always not encyclopedic. They undid that, saying that this is the article's notability licence in a sense (which is obviously not correct unless in an WP:A7 sense of course).

Attempting to discuss with this editor hasn't led to too much, they haven't replied to a single thing on their user talk page. I then noticed that they created a draft, Draft:Bryan Benitez McClelland, which I initially declined for being too promotional sounding. It is very interesting how this article has been constructed -- the whole article created in one hit, unformatted, then formatting added later. It is as if the article was sent to the editor in one whole go and then it was the job of Sustainibility12345 to make the relevant formatting changes. Seems like undisclosed paid editing to me. !dave 16:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears an IP edit remove the COI and advertisement tag I placed on the article about McClelland. They have reverted the problematic version of the article after I tried to tone down the promotional tone (even reverted the standard person Infobox). It looks someone is hellbent to maintain the quasi-resume profile version of the article. Also it must be noted that McClelland is affiliated with the Sustainability and Environmental Studies Department of Enderrun Colleges as its director hence why I tagged the article for potential COI in the first place.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hariboneagle927: Since nobody except you has seemed to have bothered to reply to this post I'm taking this to ANI. !dave 08:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

CU blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kendy2020. Time to get out the flamethrowers? MER-C 21:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

IiitHyd[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Done Clear-cut-case and nothing much to do over here, save waiting.Winged BladesGodric 09:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw IiitHyd make an edit adding information about International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad to Felicity.[1] Their username is clearly an abbreviation for that organization so I placed a WP:COI template on their talk page. They didn't respond but instead a half an hour later created Draft:Felicity, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad and edited the International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad article.[2] GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, going by my own evaluation of Felicity's standards and the fate of a few AFDs on more-prominent univ-fest(s), it isn't ever going to make it independently to WP.Anyway, he will be looking at a soft-block, if he resumes and I will be watching the editor.Winged BladesGodric 13:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Augustvideo[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Done 3 of the 4 creations have been deleted via PROD whilst one has been redirected.Nothing more to do.Winged BladesGodric 09:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked this account for spamming / what appears to be undisclosed paid editing. Any further thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Their creations listed above will need to be looked at. Looks like you already did Slendertone ☆ Bri (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Leon Recanati[edit]

Editor has agreed to follow COI process and use the article talkpages for requests or escalate with WP:BLPEDIT ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2017 (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.

User has over a period of months added unsourced family information (names of non notable relatives), for which they were warned in June. In the current interchange [3], the rationale is that they're removing libelous content, without specifying what that may be. The appearance is that this is a family member who's decided to oversee the bios, with or without proper sources. Whether there are other such edits to unrelated Miami articles may be worth checking. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I will be very direct we are a private family there is a conflict of interest of course but on the other hand using articles not well researched and sometimes decades out of date is not proper sourcing and several major mistakes where made on every article some useing vague information and some that is private about children and medical information I have no desire to put flattering information put on the other hand I want a concise accurate history of the family and family members there are many things that there are no published sources for as for not notable relatives they are already all over those articles if they must be there then at least it should be accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Flamingo is, in essence, edit warring by continuing to add this [4]. They have, in fact, admitted to being a family member in previous conversations. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I wish that the sources where accurate but most articles about non notable people aren’t checked to the standard for a biography I’m not edit warring I’m making the bios concise and accurate as possible as many people in the family are directly affected by what is written Flamingoflorida (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)FlamingofloridaFlamingoflorida (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A person finally made the articles neutral and non personal I have no need to change them so there is no more conflict of interestFlamingoflorida (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am fixing minor points to make the info box match the rest of the article as I would for anything else I am not adding any info that is not sourced Flamingoflorida (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be numerous examples of Flamingoflorida adding content w/o a source such as this Flamingoflorida's "source" appears to by word-of-mouth by the article subjects as mentioned in this entry on my talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The same is true of other edits to the family's bios, like [5] and [6]. There's a predisposition toward original research, some of which is supported by sources, but there's sometimes no distinction: [7]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the word of of mouth information and the information was already on Tom Kaplan article Flamingoflorida (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) The 2 edits you was only minor changes

https://www.geni.com/people/Leon-Recanati/6000000016422573923

Here is proof and in 1900 northern Greece was ottoman and in 1945 there was no Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC) https://www.geni.com/people/Daniel-Recanati/6000000008074925477

I have now added birth and death dates from outside information Flamingoflorida (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The business information on the family is public and the sources are most accurate but the personal lives have been been published in anything other then puff pieces Flamingoflorida (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The promise of a few hours ago to not edit the articles was meaningless. I've just reverted two unsourced additions of birth and death dates [8], [9]. Perhaps Flamingoflorida has WP:RELIABLE sources that will support these. At this point he surely understands the requirement for such references, as his edit history includes removal of content from multiple articles because sources were lacking. He also understands that first person knowledge is not acceptable. My proposal is for a topic ban, since the explanations and warnings of several experienced editors, going back some six months, have been to no avail. If this isn't the proper venue, I can open a second discussion at ANI. As I've suggested above, the concerns cover more than the family articles, but are most intensively focused there. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.geni.com/people/Raphael-Recanati/6000000008451369373 https://www.geni.com/people/Leon-Recanati/6000000016422573923 The sources are here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Check the articles now Flamingoflorida (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  • If one out of every three or four edits, or indeed even one out of ten are unsourced or require badgering from other editors to meet guidelines, we have a problem. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Flamingoflorida: These issues are exactly why we strongly encourage people with a close connection to a subject not to directly edit there. Would you consider making suggested changes on the article's talkpage instead? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've also suggested that here [10]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am adding sources cleaning grammar and checking against the sources I am not touching the meat of the article ie business or philanthropy if there must be these they should be accurate and concise Flamingoflorida (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source there is no one e;se who will research these sources but meFlamingoflorida (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Flamingoflorida: what you're doing is considered disruptive by at least two other editors. Please stop, add the sources to the talkpage, and ask someone else to make the change. You can easily do this with {{Requested edit}} ☆ Bri (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I will try to do that and ask you to help when I need it I don’t want disrupt anybody and bother anybody I just want a fair even articles involving my family many of the articles where puff pieces that not accurate Flamingoflorida (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Good to hear, and good luck! Please don't be frustrated if it takes a little while for the requests to be answered. It's a volunteer-run work. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2017 (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.

Gol Misra Elementalist small sockfarm[edit]

Sockmaster worked on a bunch of indian school articles, like Wifione and Nachalp per its Special:Contributions/Gol_Misra_Elementalist including:
User:Marchjuly noticed the funky edits around these:

Socks are all blocked and articles are tagged. User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris PRODed the Andrew Kass article and then self-reverted. Recording here in case this reminds anybody of anything, and so it is here for the future... Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  • This falls within my definition of G5 as when there are 5 or more confirmed accounts, we can be reasonably sure they have been blocked at some point in the past. I will tag and let another sysop review. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Barkaat Ahmad[edit]

person
affected articles

Very obvious paid editor. Has been blowing off community feedback til tonight when they made a feeble effort at disclosure, diff, after I gave them the template:uw-paid1 and started tagging articles with template:UPE. Will not talk. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this linked to Sangler?Winged BladesGodric 09:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Miss Indian World[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
YesY Done for now.The AfD for D. Brant resulted in a delete whilst Miss Indian World is independently notable enough.The concerned editor hasn't edited post the templating.Winged BladesGodric 09:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

For personal reasons this is one I'd like to keep some distance from. Could any interested editor have a look and do the necessary? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bri:--I think the 1st one is notable? Any minimal thoughts?Winged BladesGodric 11:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Concerned about autobiography mainly. Looks like I missed the fact that an editor was templated a bit before my post, so maybe it is a non issue now. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Arishfa khan[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
YesY Blocked and nuked. Done and dusted. Winged BladesGodric 09:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. jivarshu 19:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

CSD-ed the user-pages.Drafts let to remain.SPI launchedWinged BladesGodric 11:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rai Pannalal Mehta[edit]

This article has been created by @Pratap Singh Mehta: who I believe has an undisclosed conflict of interest with regard to the subject of the article. This editor was asked to disclose this COI here but did not do so. I have found a book Guns and Glories: Rajputana Chronicles, authored by Pratap Singh Mehta. The Wikipedia article uses large chunks of text from that book and would be a copivio if the book's author and the article creator were not the same individual. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing.Interesting.Winged BladesGodric 11:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex Gurteen[edit]

The user has created a very poorly sourced article on (what he describes as a "famous person") Alex Gurteen. And edits in a way (and has a prose style) that indicates they may have some link to the subject (as well as seeming to have a degree of "insider" knowledge of the topic).

It was suggested they had a COI [[11]] to which they failed to respond. I then mentioned this accusation on the articles AFD [[12]], Oscar248's response was vague and evasive [[13], I then asked straight up if they had a COI (after having directed them to the COIN page [[14]]) [[15]], as well as directing him to read further our rules on COI [[16]] his repsionse was still rather vague and evasive [[17]].

It is hard to fathom why he cannot just say yes or no, and it indicate he in some way not only has something to hide, but thinks there is a reason to hide it (in other words he is aware there is a COI and would have prevented him from creating this article). Either that or there is no COI and he is just playing some strange game.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter who I am, we just need to try and improve the article. I am trying to find the news article of Alex winning the ABF competition. I am trying to edit in a neutral tone. As far as I know there is not articles mentioning Alex's YouTube account. The exceptionally high number of views of Alex's oscar1994alex1999 channel warrants a Wikipedia article on its own. Oscar248 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned before there is no COI. Oscar248 (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well lets see what community decides. You made an odd typo, have an similar name to his YouTube challenge and edit a lot of pages about that local area.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't Alex (I clearly am) I feel it is important that the page is kept and that I edit for reliabilty as I have knowledge that is not known by other editors. I know it is not recommended but it is probably best for the page. I will improve the page over the coming days. Oscar248 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Did you read our polices on COI (And what constitutes one)?Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The user in question has continued to advocate for himself in the third person here while trying to force their own page to pass an Specific Notability Guideline criterion created for himself. Yosemiter (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also think this type of deceptive behavior is against one of the rules of COI somewhere. Yosemiter (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
And now he is comparing himself to Alexander the Great. Yosemiter (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Greg Murphy (politician)[edit]

Persistent addition of trivial puffery to this autobiography. The user has been warned multiple times, and I've also asked for a user block, but things are quiet tonight, and I'm not inclined to edit war 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Language Creation Society[edit]

Too many noticeboards. I'm archiving this because it's becoming too difficult for uninvolved editors to follow all the arguments concerning this article, and to read everything that has recently been posted about it. In fact, the amount of text is more likely to winnow out the truly uninvolved than to get more eyes on the article (which was Saizai's intention, I assume). Why is the article being discussed simultaneously at AfD, ANI, and here? Sai, I assume you posted here in good faith because Mendaliv wrote on ANI that "Honestly, this discussion should be at WP:COIN anyway". But I don't see that as a suggestion that it needs to be in both places; it doesn't. And it's unhelpful and baffling that you say here at COIN "Please see discussion at WP:ANI, and direct discussion there for the sake of non-duplication", whereas at ANI you say "I've started this as a subsection at WP:COIN. Please direct comments there." My italics in both cases. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 29 December 2017 (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.

Mendaliv[edit]

Please see discussion at WP:ANI, and direct discussion there for the sake of non-duplication. All involved have been ANI-notice'd. Mendaliv suggested it should be here too, so I am crosslinking as a courtesy and to encourage neutral review. Sai ¿?✍ 18:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Saizai: When you post at a noticeboard like this, you are asking other editors to give you some of their time to help you resolve a question. It behoves you, therefore, to follow the posting guidance at the top of the page, and to make the other editors' task as easy as possible.
You are guided thus:
So please don't expect others to follow pages of discussion elsewhere. Or at least don't be surprised if they choose to ignore your post.
For other readers, Saizai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has self-identified as the founder of the Language Creation Society. He has made four edits to Language Creation Society and wants to know if the editors here think that justifies the {{COI}} tag that the article now sports. In addition, I assume he wants guidance on how appropriate it would be for him to be editing the article at all. i should add that there are also other editors involved on the talk page who probably deserve similar consideration. HTH --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that the {{coi}} template has been removed following edits by other editors, and I am comfortable with its removal at this point. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

saizai[edit]

@JzG: has told me to not edit the article at all, and reverted my edits (which were based on text originally added by @7&6=thirteen: and @Adoricic:, as e.g. below:


I would like to know specifically which of my edits are improper. I believe that they are neutral, being mainly syntactic, cleanup, or fully sourced facts to correct some misleading or incorrect text.

Please note that I did not add any "namechecks"; that was Adoricic & 7&6=thirteen, whom I don't know and AFAICT have no LCS affiliation. I did remove names, as a way to cure the issue of JzG's revert while keeping accurate non-"namecheck" info about the organizational history. (As reverted, it read as if LCS is still a student group, and/or as if the other founders were part of the student group, neither of which is true.)


I would also like to know whether it is proper for JzG to threaten me from making any edit of the article, even banal ones like most of the above. I am trying to abide by the COI policy in good faith, and make simple edits that are not POV-ish. AFAICT, there's nothing wrong with doing so. Sai ¿?✍ 16:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

How about this: don't edit the article on the group you started. If you want to propose changes, do it on the Talk page. That is not a remotely contentious view around here. "Imroving" the article is promoting your group. Don't do that. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
You asked which of you edits were improper. My answer is all of them. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:26, 29 December 2017 (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.

User_talk:Idfubar[edit]

Blocked for violation of the Terms of Use on paid contributions without disclosure. Alex Shih (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A {{uw-coi}} was posted to the referenced page/section after confusion regarding a deleted article authored by another user, Corpania (specifically with respect to the author having a right to expect a copy of his work in the event of deletion); although the deleting editor addressed the matter on the author's talk page the other editors mistakenly engaged about the matter have decided to unilaterally end discussion in other forums (WP:TH & WP:HD). The warning has been left in place & with no reply, as of yet, from the issuer; the warning edit also contained a comment that is not part of the template ("<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED IF THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -->") with a timer configured to expire in the year 5000... though searching through CAT:G doesn't help to illuminate which policy/guideline applies to that post-template content - or the process by which it would be removed.

If there is no article or edit of specific concern, how can the absence of a conflict of interest (per WP:COI) be shown - and to what? Further, WP:EQ lists, as a first principle, "Assume good faith" - has the same been observed in the issuance of a pre-emptive warning (which, incidentally, came after explicit declaration of the absence of any conceivable conflict of interest & the editor's failure to apprehend proper use of the royal "we" in context)? Apologies - as the situation is not a precise fit to the guidelines - but that is also the point... idfubar (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please aware me about the policy which leads you to write:--specifically with respect to the author having a right to expect a copy of his work in the event of deletion.And honestly, you're far past the threshold of a block for acute disruption and I will agree with Cullen that your response to K on your t/p was utter semi-coherent bull-shit, which may additionally fit the definition of trolling.Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 14:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Further, how about you hear some of your own preachings and assume good-faith esp. when you have nil idea about what you're talking about.Whenever the template is applied to any t/p, the part. t/p is sorted into a part. category,The comment is in the template-documentation by default and provides for the only scope of the category removal:--If a definitive discussion decides that there is no COI on part of the contributor or The user is blocked.Also, I find it very hard to gulp that sans any COI, you would be indulging in these type of massive wiki-lawyering and drama-mongering at multiple venues.Winged BladesGodric 15:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Lea210 / oDesk / Upwork[edit]

I came across this while dealing with an image licensing issue. Almost certainly a paid editor. ~ Rob13Talk 23:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 related article — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Fabio Rosati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not so much a BLP as an almost blatant artspam for Elance/Upwork. Obviously written for and about themselves. This is the absolute height of gaming the system. I see no reason why these companies and their executives who openly defy our paid editing rules should be allowed the benefit on an article in our encyclopedia however notable they might be, but sadly our rules for inclusion are our rules, and with so many admins, New Page Partollers, and OTRS agents in the conspiracies, just about anyone can promote themselves in it these days. Possibly for discussion elsewhere, pinging Doc James, TonyBallioni , DGG, and Smallbones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean by admins being "in the conspiracies". That's a rather far-reaching claim. ~ Rob13Talk 05:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I too choose to disagree about OTRS (KDS was a one-off case) and sysops.Winged BladesGodric 06:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • First, I think it a very poor idea to refuse to have articles on organizations or people who are trying to subvert us, if they are truly notable. It's just as poor an idea as trying to include articles on organizations and people who help us even if they are not actually notable. The test of a commitment to NPOV is when you yourself are affected.
Now, In this case, Roseti is quite possibly notable. The articles is a press release, because it talks to much about the companies, but its fixable. The editor User:EagerToddler39 has done has done a good deal of excellent work onS South American politicians, but also some articles in 2014 and 2015 that could use looking at. But there is no particular reason to think he wrote this as a paid article.except the similarity with the deleted article on Kasriel.
As for the real issue, I will make a guess , based on known temptations that there probably were a 5 or 10 admins who have done some paid work mostly back in the 2001-5 period when anyone essentially could become an admin, , but at most 1 or 2 still doing it actively. NPPatrollers, yes, there are some problems, OTRS I think screens its people better than RfA. We do need to watch out at NPP and AfC, and we need more people spotchecking articles that have been patrolled in particularly susceptible fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Just as an aside, as this predates the disclosure requirements, User:EagerToddler39 was a paid editor and worked through Upwork, and was hired to create the articles. However, that was years ago. Remembering that we didn't require disclosure back then it should come as little surprise that contracting sites hired contractors to work for them - even the WMF hired through at least one of those sites. - Bilby (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Kudpung's point is correct even if the details may be quibbled. The point is that our processes are open to subversion and are in fact being subverted. Right now there's an Upwork job with the title "NEEDED: Wikipedia Editor with AfC Rights", being worked on by an undisclosed editor (probably a sock of this guy) for a few hundred dollars. Why do you think that is? There's a pending Arbcom decision on paid editing by an admin. There is a litany of admins who have socked and misbehaved grossly in other ways sufficient for desysopping, including notoriously Wifione who used 60 socks to carry out paid advocacy editing. To anybody on the outside this could looks like the whole project is corrupt, which is why we get headline stories like "Is Wikipedia for Sale?" and "Is Wikipedia's front page for sale?" in popular and tech press. Our reputation is on the line. So call it a conspiracy, call it systematic abuse of Wikipedia, but it exists. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
As I said, and as you seem to agree, what we have to watch is AfC and NPP. Your list is 28 out of 1500, and only one of it has to do with paid editing. But it is not rare for people doing undeclared paid editor to claim greater rights than they have, and we will never be free from it as long as we allow paid editing. There is only one way to avoid it: ban paid editing altogether, and advertise widely that any one who asks for money to edit a WP articles is acting against our terms of use, and anyone who offers money might well find themselves to be engaged in unfair competition. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
What does Arthur, Toddst, Chase me et al have to do with Kudpung's statement?!Winged BladesGodric 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(Comment moved to WT:COI) ☆ Bri (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Barring the recent case of Wilfione and Ricky81682 (who otherwise was a very good pedian), all are years back (MZMc, Everyking (whom the community re-trusted), Runcorn, Pastor Theo, Law, Robdurbar, ArchTransit and NSLE).But, the point is that over-sweeping generalizations ought to be avoided.And, barring the case of KDS, I don't think there are rogues in OTRS either:)Winged BladesGodric 06:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(Comment about banned user becoming an admin moved to WT:COI) ☆ Bri (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Somewhat more interesting in the case was that GC got his tools back!Winged BladesGodric 06:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Another sockfarm[edit]

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.

From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kendy2020. GABgab 18:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Tagged most of the articles listed as G5. Still needs cleanup in terms of edits to articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Bbb23 reverted most of the crappy little refspam edits. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I think everything that can be done here, has been. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (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.

Cryptocurrency alert[edit]

Bitcoin
General cryptocurrency
Other cryptocurrencies

This isn't your usual COIN notice, but I don't know where else to put it. Simona Weinglass of the Times of Israel published a script used in cryptocurrency scams

that included the following:

"You know, dear [name] that you are not going to trade, thanks to financial arbitration we will assist you (I advise you to go on Wikipedia). That is, we will secure your capital by taking only rising positions calculated through a trading algorithm (based on a database that contains the history and all exchanges made between users since its creation). But what is important to you is that you will be contracted on a 6% from the first month."

No, it doesn't make much sense to me, but very little of the script makes much sense except as - "this is how I'm going to get your money."

I have seen signs in stores advertising "As seen on TV". Now we're seeing ads "As seen on Wikipedia!"

In any case, I'll suggest keeping an eye on bitcoin and cryptocurrency articles. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Added some recommended watchlist articles at the top of this section. I just noticed some odd stuff in the December history of Bitcoin Gold, maybe it needs a look by experienced editors soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts Thalachallour Mahonakumar[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not concerned with this board.Winged BladesGodric 08:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources all relate to the person's institution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

See JesseHonigberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - it looks like a class project

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jaane Kyun De Yaaron[edit]

It seems the only article this article ever created and edited. The account name is also similar with the name of one of the music directors of the film. The user has also been notified for their COI before Ammarpad (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Masterknighted[edit]

I blocked Masterknighted and their confirmed sock, Brainplanner based on CU evidence and blocked BigGuy based on behavioral evidence. The background may be seen here. There has been some socking and meatpuppetry for accounts that seem to have clear conflict of interests. A more thorough COI investigation is warranted and Masterknighted's cooperation in this matter will be considered when we eventually discuss unblocking. I seem to have gotten assurances from them that you won't find anything else.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A small but interesting observation in this context: These 2016 edits by Masterknighted effectively implemented a suggestion that had been made repeatedly in the preceding months on the talk page by an openly declared COI editor (company representative), to de-emphasize and weaken the mention of some notable criticism of the company's product. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:VASCHEL[edit]

Obvious evasion of ACTRIAL to create an article about an unremarkable startup. I remember seeing this behavior from some sock farm somewhere... but can't remember the exact sockpuppeteer. There's bound to be more accounts and/or webhosts. Not notified for obvious reasons. MER-C 15:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

John Jones (record producer)[edit]

A poorly sourced autobiography/vanity page. And I've never seen so many red categories. Needs a lot of attention and deep pruning. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz says Linda Sarsour article has been manipulated[edit]

The newspaper Haaretz printed a story 3 days ago about conflicted editors on Linda Sarsour. It is being discussed at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Headline in Haaretz: Sex, Lies and Wikipedia. The article logs are very complicated for reasons I don't understand, but I can say that it was fully protected by Ymblanter in July, and this was recently made indefinite. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Refusal to declare COI officially[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
YesY Nicely resolved. Winged BladesGodric 08:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Question: Is it acceptable and satisfactory for an editor who is personal friends with the article subject, has stated in Wikipedia they are personal friends with the article subject, and has also stated in Wikipedia they are personal friends with the originator of and chief contributor to the article, to not formally declare their COI at the article draft even though they are contributing to the article? These editors often work in tandem and have done so previously in the face of previous edit warring squabbles and cases of sock-puppetry, backing each other up. I think this issue goes beyond just the normal COI, considering that the originator of the article and chief article contributor has a spotty history of honesty in Wikipedia regarding previous conflicts of interest, as well. I find the whole thing problematic. Am I exaggerating this in my assessment or does anyone else think this is an issue, as well? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: You're making this a much bigger deal than is necessary. I've already declared a COI on the article's talk page. If you want to add something to the talk page banner, then go ahead. I've already said that's fine. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Me editing this draft is not much different than me editing articles about other people I know in real life, such as Andrew Lih, Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, and Emily Temple-Wood. Is it really necessary to note this on every single talk page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There, now you can rest in peace. And for the record, I didn't refuse anything... Happy New Year, all! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Witzany reference spam[edit]

These IPs have been reference spamming the work of one author for > 10 years. See ANI thread from 2010. There are currently just under 100 mentions of Witzany here, most of which have been added as reference spam e.g. here where no content was added, just a reference to a book. It is probably appropriate for their to be some mentions in Biocommunication (science) and Biosemiotics but the vast majority of these need removing. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Franklin Road Academy[edit]

There is no action to be taken here, and bringing the situation to this noticeboard is premature. The noticeboard header clearly states: "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." This criterion has not been met; the user has only just now been informed of our COI guideline and has not made any edits since. --Chris (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (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.

In this edit, the user claims to be paid to remove inaccurate information from the articles. User also edited Friends Select School. Billhpike (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2018 (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.

Marilyn Barnett[edit]

Has all the hallmarks of PE and the creator has already had one article deleted G11: Daniel Reid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

One thing that sets off my alarm bells is an article claiming that somebody is notable for founding something that does not have an article itself. You would think that the notable thing would precede the article about its creator if it really was significant and the creator was not already notable for something else. OTOH, how often do we get people being paid to write articles about the dead? Vanity is typically a property of the living. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Vanity is also typically a property of a PR agent writing for his/her client. The point being here is that this article (to me at least) has the appearance of a biography masquerading as an advert. The subject, Ms Barnett, is not notable per Wikipedia criteria; the sources are all from local press, usually the same one, some barely mention her, and some are not about her at all. One is a routine executive profile.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Being relatively new to Wikipedia editing I am not sure if I am supposed to defend myself here or in another place so if this is the wrong protocol, please forgive me. I want to reassure you that I do not have a conflict of interest. I cant even remember how I came across her name, but it could have been on the Wikipedia list of requested articles, or else it could have been in an article I read that mentioned her. Either way, I thought she had some important accomplishments and should have a Wiki article about her. That is really it. Perhaps it is promotional, singing her praises, but cant that be fixed with some editing of the article? I am not wedded to the way the article is written and understand that Wiki articles are constantly being changed and improved. I am sure you know wiki editing is a learned 'art', and I am still learning. Thanks for your understanding and patience. Daniel Reid (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup agrees looks like undisclosed paid promotional editing. Expecially when taken into account their other contributions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Path Solutions[edit]

Path Solutions was brought up at this noticeboard in the past, then AfD'ed due to insufficient RS. Now recreated. The article sources look weak to me (who is bankingtech.com? IBS Journal?) and the COI template on an earlier draft doesn't exist on the final product. Spot checking sources like this press release and this CEO interview shows that source problems remain. Also noting this is an AfC product. If I could, I would wave a magic wand and send it back to AfC; this is not acceptable quality. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted in August 2017. Have started another AfD, suggesting we delete and salt. Edwardx (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Al-Masry Al-Youm[edit]

Deenasamirdakroury claims to be the marketing manager at Al-Masry Al-Youm, but has failed to make a paid-editing disclosure despite a notification and reminder at User talk:Deenasamirdakroury#Managing a conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=818596794"