Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Unity Environmental University

• Unity Environmental University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PatriotsFan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor was initially named "UnityCollegeMedia" so it is reasonable to assume that they have an undisclosed paid relationship with the institution (it was previously named "Unity College"). They have not replied to any Talk page messages and they continue to edit the article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes that appears likely, this may be related to the attempted sale of their legacy campus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. Their most recent update was described as "Added updates for accuracy and to come in line with current state of the institution" which included linking to a page about the university's president and praising his leadership. Definitely a conflict. Oswako (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Kinney Zalesne

• Kinney Zalesne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kzalesne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user above has a long history of editing topics related to their own name/career. The user has ignored repeated messages asking to request edits rather than edit their own page. Seems rather straightforward. 30Four (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It does seem problematic that they are editing their own Wikipedia page. Have they stated their COI at any other point? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

HDR, Inc.

• HDR, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article needs a thorough look over. The COI is obvious. Just looking through edit history and checking some of the editors, a handful of SPAs are in use in addition to some Omaha, Nebraska, US based IP edits that shows no significant edit elsewhere in the relevant time frame. It looks like the entire page is more or less curated into place by people associated with the article subject. Graywalls (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of their acquisitions were here before Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_148#Sean_Buckley_(entrepreneur). duffbeerforme (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is so imperative for public relations

For the interested. There are no astounding revelations, but it's a well-written piece for its kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dw.com/en/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/video-17745881 this one is dated at 9 years old, but they talk about the use of sock puppets by the PR industry. Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Linton Wells II & Eric Rasmussen (physician)

• Linton Wells II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eric Rasmussen (physician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Linwells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rasmussene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Linton Wells II article was created, and edited heavily, by Rasmussene, and also includes contributions by Linwells. Roughly the reverse is true for the article Eric Rasmussen (physician), which was created by Linwells and then heavily edited by Rasmussene.

Linwells' has few other contributions, and those are also potential conflicts of interests: Fay Gillis Wells (Linton Wells II's mother) and Strong Angel (an organization with which Wells is involved).

Rasmussene also has few other contributions, primarily to Strong Angel (an organization with which Rasmussen is also involved).

Linton Wells II and Eric Rasmussen are clearly associates in the world outside Wikipedia. In addition to both being associated with Strong Angel, Wells and Rasmussen are listed as members of the executive team and board of advisors, respectively, for Star-Tide. Rasmussen also lists Wells as a reference on his CV.

Given the usernames and the pattern of edits by these two accounts, it seems plausible that either (1) these accounts belong to two friends who are editing both their own and one another's pages (and, in the case of Linwells, his mother's page), violating Wikipedia's guidance regarding conflicts of interest, or (2) one or both of the subjects has hired someone to create articles and edit them on his behalf. I don't see any disclosures from the owners of either account (their personal Wikipedia pages don't exist at this time, nor do I see appropriate disclosures in edit comments). In any case, the edits go beyond simple correction of misinformation (extending as far as the reciprocal creation of the two articles linked above).

Beyond the misuse of Wikipedia, the potential of an ethical lapse here by a US Assistant Secretary of Defense and a physician respectively makes this situation especially concerning.

Szarka (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Klermodalwonfeyz

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.

---

• Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Klermodalwonfeyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Klermodalwonfeyz has refused to answer any questions about their potential COI with Vivek Ramaswamy when asked by multiple editors, and has instead continued to edit the article repeatedly, re-installing the same edits after they're reverted for inserting a non-neutral POV.

On 26 August, User:Neutrality reverted a series of edits made by this user on the grounds of them having a promotional tone and poor phrasing. Klermodalwonfeyz made more edits immediately after this, which Neutrality again reverted on the grounds of POV. Klermodalwonfeyz again made more edits to the article, which were reverted and a question was left on Klermodalwonfeyz's talk page about their potential conflict of interest, due to the promotional tones of their edits.

There was no response to this question, and on 9 September, after clearing their talk page of some notices, they again began editing the article - there were a series of edits that day. The next day, User:SPECIFICO left a note on the user's talk page asking them to respond to Neutrality's question.

There was, again, no response to this question, and the user continued to edit the next day without responding. Having the page on my watchlist, I noticed the edits and the strange phrasing and awkward language that Neutrality had noted in the very first diff in this report. For example, they introduced sentences such as:

• In after thought during an interview, Ramaswamy reflected "cult like" to some affirming advocacy rights groups 'is what this LGBTQIA+ movement has become'
• Ramaswamy believed supporting same-sex marriage in the United States when, for example, [...]
• Ramaswamy did not taken a public position on the [..]

I reverted to the last good version, and went to their talk page to leave a notice about this awkward phrasing, where I saw the two previous requests to respond to claims about COI. In my notice, I mentioned the awkward phrasing, the usage of what appears to be phonetically-spelt English in edit summaries (this edit summary is... "ad sayt. muv bodom tu top.") and again reiterated that they needed to respond to this COI question.

There was, for the third time, no response to this question, as they continued to edit - even having been reverted by multiple users (User:David O. Johnson reverted their changes once and twice to the last good version). When the editor added these changes again, including the chopped-up sentences highlighted by David O. Johnson in his revert rationale, I reverted, noting that they still had not responded to any of the COI questions... only for them to continue editing the article within hours.

After FIVE attempts (three on their actual talk page, two in edit summaries) to ask them to answer this question, there has been absolutely nothing from this user, barring an edit summary in phonetically-spelt English which to the best of my reading ability says something about being asked for "payments of interest" or "ransom", further heightening my concerns. In my eyes this case borders on a WP:CIR one so feel free to direct me to ANI or another venue, but given the clear issue with COI, I'm left with no choice but to file a report here. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

And not even a half an hour after this noticeboard report was filed, the user has again edited the page to reinstall their previously reverted changes. A pageblock from the page above and Vivek Ramaswamy really needs to be considered at this point. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The user's edits are not improvements and the garbled unintelligible edit summaries make it impossible to parse the changes. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The disruptive conduct is continuing and even escalating. I think this is more of an WP:AE issue at this point. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I had been tempted to file at ANI before this report, but as the user has now (finally) addressed the COI situation on their talk page but continues to edit disruptively, I would not oppose further escalation - though I'm entirely unfamiliar with AE procedures so I may have to leave that to a more experienced editor. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:24, 14 September 2023 (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.

Danny Lendich

• Danny Lendich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 103.14.70.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above IP editor has disclosed on the IP talk page and in edit summaries that she is the daughter of the article subject. After a couple of warnings from Yoshi24517, a post from Tim O'Doherty, and a thorough explanation of COI policy from myself, the IP editor has continued to make edits, including adding information without citations to WP:RSes (see this diff). I wanted to avoid bringing this here, but it appears that the editor has ignored our advice to follow the COI policies. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Voorts. Just got word and saw that the above IP has been blocked for a week, so we shall see what that will do. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Also thanks for the ping voorts, appreciate that. Shame it's had to come to this, hope the IP will learn the lesson and pursue her edits via the proper channels. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Deerfield Academy

• Deerfield Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Deerfield Academy alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jahaza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unsure what the exact relationship is, they hinted at being an alumnus and donor of the school on their talk page but refused to disclose either. Jahaza has a long history of skewing the page away from NPOV which has been addressed by multiple editors. Jahaza does not think that they have a COI and they don't think that there are NPOV issues with their edits to the page... Despite multiple unrelated editors apparently being able to diagnose their undisclosed COI based on their editing alone. According to xtools they are the #1 editor on the main page [1] and it is their most edited page [2]. Also the #1 editor at List of Deerfield Academy alumni[3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The instructions for this noticeboard clearly indicate that an allegation of a conflict of interest is to be supported with diffs showing that there are NPOV problems with the editor's work. That those have not been provided here is telling. Absent such problems, not all attenuated relationships are COI. Horse Eye's Back seems to think that being an alumnus of a school is per se a conflict of interest, but this is not something actually found in the COI policy. Jahaza (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC) (Updated Jahaza (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC))

Also, "multiple" here means two. Jahaza (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You repeatedly point to policy as if pointing to the policy shows that someone has violated it. I have not been uncivil and you should strike the insinuation. Jahaza (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Explaining what multiple means comes off as insulting/mocking, sorry if it wasn't meant that way but it doesn't appear very civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not mocking, it's correcting the misimpression that editors could have from your post. Jahaza (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

From my post? Its expanding on what's written in your post, not correcting anything in my post. Not sure what more is gained from going down this path, do you have a comment on the diffs? Note that even one editor being able to identify a COI based solely on the non-NPOV nature of your edits is one too many, if its not an issue its not identifiable by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, from your post. You wrote that "multiple unrelated editors" (two) had identified a COI.

Further, you omitted from your description regarding xtools, that I have the most edits, but I am not the person who has written most of the material. I have the most edits partly because I've been editing the page to remove vandalism and actual puffery for decades. Like here, where I took out a comment about the school being "among the most selective" [4], removing credential puffery[5], removing vandalism[6], removing athletic championships that were trivial puffery[7]. Jahaza (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

None of that counters the point that if your edits were in fact NPOV the fact that you had a COI wouldn't be identifiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It does, actually, if I'm removing puffery, then clearly I'm not in it just to add puffery. Jahaza (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If that is the case how was your COI identified by editors with no knowledge of your educational history? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to grapple with the actual diffs I presented, not just continue to assert things. You could easily identify my real identity and educational history through Google. Jahaza (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Do I have your permission to do that? Note that if I knew that I wouldn't have had to ask if you had a COI... I would have just told you that your COI was out of hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to say more clearly that the fact that someone is an alumnus is not by itself a COI. You also have to show that their edits violate NPOV. You agree that the material should be in the article[[8]], you dispute about where in the article, which seems to have been satisfied by my adding back a header that I had removed because I didn't think it was very useful for navigation and was bad for flow. Instead of taking the W, you seem to have decided that the important thing is whether I have a conflict of interest. You ignore evidence that I've removed other puffery from the article. Jahaza (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, hope these suffice [9][10][11][12][13]. That is through the beginning of the month. Earlier diffs [14][15][16]. Trying to bludgeon "elite" into the lead/body of your apparent alma mater about as clear as it gets in terms of NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• The first removed a template that was added in contravention of the template's instructions, which require a talk page discussion to be opened when it is added.
• The second removes original research that no one has added back, presumably because it's original research.
• The third adds mention of a book that is a memoir that's not particularly complementary to the school! I'll add more (negative) details when I get a chance and have the book handy.
• The fourth is a disagreement about the location of material that everyone seems to agree belongs in the article. Material that I sourced so as to make it more neutral, rather than insisting on it as a plain descriptor.
• The fifth reverted a placement of the same material in a totally inappropriate location. News reporting is not "popular culture" nor is it "books".
• The sixth adds cited material and does not insist on putting "elite" in the first sentence (which someone else had done originally, not me). It's actually agreeing to a deemphasis.
• Seven and eight add sources to re-add a disputed word, that's pretty much just standard editing. (I also found the addition of "American" to the lede very odd, since we don't typically start articles that way.)

Jahaza (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jahaza @Horse Eye's Back Everyone is getting off track here. Basically, the only question here is whether Jahaza has an external relationship with Deerfield Academy. Do you have a connection Jahaza with Deerfield Academy that gives you an incentive to promote the school? Are you an alumnus? Are you a patron/benefactor? The alumnus thing means less than the benefactor part, because being a benefactor/patron is a financial relationship, which is detailed in WP:COI.

The way you've been dodging to provide a direct answer is what is concerning, like @Horse Eye's Back pointed out earlier. From what I can tell, your editing does suggest some some sort of relationship, but from what you've said you seem to be adamant that no such relationship exists and that your editing is thus neutral. We can just skip all of this senseless beating around the bush if you disclose whether or not you have a connection in reference to my original question. I don't know why you seem to be hesitating about this , just disclose if you have a connection with Deerfield; the more you don't give a direct answer just makes others think you're hiding something, which leads to more senseless and trivial arguing. So do that, then we'll have to deal with it from there. GuardianH (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you continue to misunderstand the policy. I'm adamant that my editing is within the content policies and that therefore the question of what my attenuated relationship is is moot. Disclosing my exact relationship won't settle the matter, because it's not close enough to be in itself a COI and therefore the dispute will continue to be about whether or not my editing is sufficiently neutral.

It's a bad precedent to allow people to prevail in (minor!) content disputes by alleging a COI, especially when it's not based on the actual policy, but on the misperception that being an alumnus or a donor is in itself a COI neither of which is in the actual COI policy. Jahaza (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jahaza: Let's look at this another way: regardless of whether or not you have a relationship to the school (which you clearly do) your insistence on calling the school "elite" in just the way you prefer lacks neutrality. If your editing were up to par, you wouldn't have other editors arguing with your work. Now that you do not have consensus for your editing, you insist to us that everything you've done is above board (to your mind). A group of fellow editors disagree and no one else agrees with you. I'd suggest that you've overstepped and perhaps you should move on to another topic. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Except that they actually agree with the inclusion and calling the school elite in the article. Jahaza (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jahaza That's obviously not what he means. He speaking specifically about your insistence and edit warring on putting the label "elite" front and center in the lede, where it has the most prominent place, and all of which is an obvious abridgment of neutrality and hence suspect of a possible COI. GuardianH (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the dispute. I have not in fact insisted on keeping it in the most prominent place, which was in the first sentence, where someone else originally put it.

You initially removed the description from the article entirely, and you now agree that it should be included. I agreed to include it, but lower down.

I thought that the division of the article into small chunks to avoid it being on the lead by a technicality was pointless, but have agreed to that compromise.

You have suggested that someone being an alumnus is ipso facto a conflict of interest, when that is not actually the policy. Jahaza (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jahaza Being a donor, benefactor, or patron to a subject or institution is a financial relationship (Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships per WP:COI [emphasis added]).

WP:PE says: An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. [emphasis added]) If you are a donor/benefactor/patron, are you not investing in the institution? GuardianH (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you are misreading the policy. A donor to a charity is not an "investor". Jahaza (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Are they an other stakeholder? [17] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, is it not a financial relationship? GuardianH (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a financial relationship, it's not a "close financial relationship," which is what's in the actual policy. If you want to edit the policy do that instead of hounding me. Jahaza (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

As I've said, your editing gives every impression of bias and dishonesty. Please put the stick down before this escalates needlessly. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Accusing me of dishonesty is really over the top. You should strike your comment. Jahaza (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Eric Johnson (Texas politician)

• Eric Johnson (Texas politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2603:8080:6F00:981A:DFF:A722:1580:6E05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The bots at AIV recently caught this heavy editing of the article on the mayor of Dallas. All have come from IPs ... some from a range in the Philadelphia area, the most recent from the static Dallas one linked above. In the last series have been some large removals of sourced content as "inaccurate". It also seems a lot more positive, fluffy content has been added. Per Ad Orientem's comment at AIV, this needs a look from someone familiar with, or willing to get familiar with, the situation to distinguish the good edits from the bad. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the above comment. The page history, in particular some of the recent editing, raises some yellow flags in my mind. (courtesy ping @Daniel Case) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason for these edits has now become clear: Today Johnson announced he is formally switching to the Republican Party. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Todd Newton

• Todd Newton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Facts2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has been forthcoming that they are Todd Newton. Now we need more eyes to counter WP:OWNERSHIP issues, like overloading images. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see this edit string for a clear statement "My name is Todd Newton ...." - Arjayay (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been going on for years, involving many IPs and at least one other registered account, Carmcarp1 (talk · contribs), now dormant. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That talk page section linked to and this one on their talk page indicate that it is a shared account and I will block on that basis, but of course the COI issues are also glaring. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Singaporean politicians and people

• K. Shanmugam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hannah Yeoh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fandi Ahmad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Louis Chua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2502renegate2502 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been editing various Singaporean politician and people's articles, usually adding promotional or resume-like prose, particularly on K. Shanmugam. It may suggest a COI or paid relationship with these subjects. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the political career in K. Shanmugam to before these edits. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 10:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the pages they edited and removed the text I found promotional. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 00:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Emil Lee

• Draft:Emil Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PascalleWongAFoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see the editor's user talk page, particularly their not making direct and straightforward replies to questions about undeclared paid editing 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem interested in following rules on disclosing. If they come back, the editor should be blocked. I've put the draft on watch. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Allan R. Bomhard

• Allan R. Bomhard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arbomhard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question blanking the entire article and replacing the content with unsourced information which pointedly lacks any of the criticism present in the original article. I reverted and left a COI note on his talk page, but that was shortly followed by reverting my revert and putting back the unsourced content (diff of the original and edits in question). The user isn't extremely active on Wikipedia by any stretch but they've been warned in the past for COI edits and their edit history is exclusively a laundry list of COI issues (Allan R. Bomhard is one of the most active authors in both theories, which are typically considered fringe theories within linguistics). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, but also there's a nine year gap between the edits in question and today.

Just to disclose my own COI of sorts here, I recently (unsuccessfully) AfD'd the article in question. Warrenmck (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Defold

• Draft:Defold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I accepted this draft at Articles for Creation. Off-wiki coordination on the developer's web site was then pointed out to me by User:Ferret. See https://forum.defold.com/t/help-needed-to-create-defold-wikipedia-article/66645/17 . I have reverted my acceptance of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

To fully document: The founder of the project, Ragnarsvensson, created the article originally, which was deleted in 2014ish by PROD. Masem created a redirect around 2016. A member of the team, Britzl, tried to recreate it in 2020 and was reverted and warned of COI. Following this, Britzl posted as a representative of the team on their forums, offering free games to editors who would create the article for them. This resulted in a draft by WDeri77, which was declined and G13'd. 17 days ago, Britzl again bumped their forum post, encouraging multiple forum members to create another draft, with other official team members encouraging it. This draft was sorely lacked reliable secondary coverage, but was plastered with misleading primary sourcing. That version is now currently back in draft space. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I just went through and removed the ad content and sourced as much as I could. Would you give it a second take? HolmKønøman (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

User:HolmKønøman - Probably not. "Once burned, twice shy." Some of the reviewers are wary of being taken advantage of again. If there was ad content in that had to be removed, then that indicates that you were sneaking ad content into Wikipedia. We don't "owe" you a timely re-review, and if you have to wait three or four months, that is your own fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I fully respect that, and I have no expectation of a speedy review for a niche draft article with a foggy history (I was more looking for feedback to whether I was doing sourcing right because I haven't done it before), but I'd also appreciate if you would AGF with me as I in fact have never interacted with the Defold draft article before, never submitted it for review, and was not responsible for any of the content on the page. All I did was remove problematic content from a Draft page, not the first time I've done it and probably won't be the last. Accusing me of "sneaking ad content into wikipedia", or attributing the state of the article as "mine own fault" without even so much as checking my history seems very argumentative. I am proud of my contributions to WP and while I certainly haven't been around the block as long as you have this isn't my first day. Contributing WP and doing vandalism patrol have been hobbies of mine that I engage in from the back row of the classroom since I joined. At the end of the day I'm here for the same reason as you, to maintain an encyclopedia. Thank you. HolmKønøman (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@HolmKønøman:, I am curious how you came across the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been on my watchlist for years, you can check for yourself. I never tried to create or edit it before now, though.

HolmKønøman (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a UPE article

I've found an ad for a job which a blocked user has taken. It contains some information about the subject of the article which has been created recently (last 2 months at most): an author who has written 14 non-fiction books, contributed to many others and had a long career as a journalist with the weekly LIFE Magazine and Cleveland Plain-Dealer. I haven't been able to find the article myself, but if anyone else can work out which article it is, please let me know so I can block the creator and G5 the article. SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse Searching for " 14 non-fiction books" reveals

• Noam Friedlander
• Jeff Snook
• Lawrence Otis Graham

Graham was too long ago, as was Snook, as was Friedlander

Sorry, I was so hopeful and fell at the first hurdle. I presume you have tried this? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse More research suggests Ronald H. Bailey. Right time frame. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse I used this as my search. If Bailey os not the one, modifying this search may bear fruit 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Yes that looks to be the one! Thanks very much! SmartSE (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse there were enough clues. You should start an SPI if this is block evasion. There may be more that a CU can fined. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Yep I shall do, but based on past experience with the master, they are unlikely to turn up anything. It's this master in case you're curious. And annoyingly nobody participated in that discussion :/ SmartSE (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse If nothing else it will document what has been discovered. We can only do our best. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Casey Donovan

• Casey Donovan (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Entertainment Consulting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2405:6E00:1135:1F00:9D74:13F:3A87:E236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User who has edited articles without disclosing conflict on interest, potential to have used other IP addresses and user names too. Happily888 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Academic spamming: Bartholomew Hulley

• Phdacademicgenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:CB10:9C5:ED00:1438:837:6F2D:6047 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22French+Comics+in+English%22 A PhD thesis titled French Comics in English by Bartholomew Hulley has been getting cite spammed by various IPs and Phdacademicgenius such as in Special:Diff/1161075974 and Special:Diff/1161082869. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed all instances of Bartholomew Hulley's French Comics in English which were inserted by those two mentioned in this report. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Required disclosure for paid admin advising

There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new COI disclosure requirement. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Clif Payne

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

The standard autobiographical COI issues--addition of unsourced, anecdotal content, name dropping, etc. I reverted once and left a COI notice, to no avail. This is an interesting promise of intent [18]. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Scarlett Harlett

• Scarlett Harlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ScarlettHarlett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Huge additions of unreferenced text in their own article. Adding themselves to another article, George Green's School, with a reference that doesn't even mention George Green's School.[19] COI warning on talk page but apparently ignored. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Progress: user in question is communicating at User talk:ThaddeusSholto. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard A. Cohen

• Richard A. Cohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Truedad21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lukehhuneycutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Truedad21 has existed as a single-purpose account for editing the BLP Richard A. Cohen, a proponent of conversion therapy, since March 2019. Of their 140 edits, 100% are either edits to the BLP itself, its talk page, or disputes with other editors regarding Mr. Cohen. Many of these edits have been reverted as promotional in nature or otherwise undue. In March 2019 Truedad21 also uploaded two images of Cohen, listing each one as his "Own Work".

After refusing to answer questions about a potential COI with Cohen first raised in 2020, he has recently stated definitively that he has no direct connection with the subject [20] and (after some additional prodding) that he had selected "Own Work" when uploading the images in error [21]. Curiously, these image are labeled as having been created on 19 February 2019, about a month before Truedad21's account was created, yet later he claimed that these images were obtained from the source (PATH) by request. The photo exists on a number of bookcovers and websites independently of me.[22] Were the photos made widely available between February and March 2019, just as Truedad21 decided to create his account?

There have been some accompanying intemperate remarks from Truedad21, though they are not egregious: suggesting that others are trying to "cancel" him [23] and accusing me specifically of acting in bad faith because of an ideological distaste for Cohen's work [24]. Of course I do agree with mainstream psychology that conversion therapy is fringe, but my main concern here is that this editor's behavior really does not seem like that of an uninvolved person. I'd be curious to hear what others on this noticeboard think.

The second account I've listed here, Lukehhuneycutt, is an odd duck. It's made only one edit, a post at Talk:Richard A. Cohen supporting Truedad21's point of view [25]. The account was created four days before its first (and only) edit, which is often considered a red flag for sockpuppetry.

You can read the relevant article talk page discussions here and here. Discussions of Truedad21 and COI can be found at user talk pages here (and following) and here.

Please note that I do not consider any of this dispositive that Truedad21 is lying about not having a COI with Cohen, but I do think that it warrants more eyes on the situation –– and that perhaps CU may be warranted to check against sockpuppetry with Lukehhuneycutt. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur that Truedad21 is likely lying about their connecton with Mr. Cohen, and probably does indeed have some kind of COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)