Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 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 {{Request edit}} template:

"Notable" alumni from Columbia University[edit]

Conversation was originally posted to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#"Notable"_alumni_from_Columbia_University but was asked to be moved here

User(s) involved


  • Columbia University alumni


Today I came across Adam Cohen (government official), noting that there's no WP:SIGCOV, the only mentions are from employers or organisations that Adam is part of including his alumni from Columbia university. I have subsequently nominated the article for deletion. It then occurred to me that actually there is a pattern of such articles created by CatchedY. I am tagging Catched for transparency and WP:AGF - I do not want them to think that they are being spoken ill of or not given opportunity to contribute to a discussion about articles they have created. Catched has created a tonnes of stub articles about "alumni" from Columbia University. Almost all of them read like online bios/CVs/resumes. I presume this is so that their names can be linked in categories and other articles. However across all of them there is the common theme of reliance on sources from Columbia Uni and almost always organisations they work for praising their achievements. CatchedY has declared on their userpage that they are acting on their own volition and not being paid, sponsored or encouraged to edit by anyone else. I did just want to bring this to wider community attention. I'm not sure if this is the correct place for such discussions, but I am not an expert on Bio pages. However, I am concerned about the large influx of stubs about Columbia alumni and whether they are truly notable. Other examples include: John Clubbe (academic) and Neil Harris (historian). Some obvious cases where WP:NACADEMIC or other specific notability guidelines apply too. Appreciate everyone's thoughts. CatchedY's too. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not familiar with this particular editor but Columbia University and several related articles have long been hotbeds of promotional editing and article ownership; things only recently began to quiet down some after I asked admins to indefinitely semi-protect the article a month-and-a-half ago. ElKevbo (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with people having an affiliation to their own university of study, I am hugely concerned about the mass of stubs that have been created. It seems that the purpose is so that topics can link to actual people but they all almost read like CVS/resumes and a bit like the purpose is to fill up categories relating to the university. I thought this would be a better place to discuss rather than mass nominate lots of articles for deletion. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention. The Adam Cohen (government official) article was created almost two years ago when I was new to Wikipedia and had to learn the rules of notability through trial and error. It was first created as a page, then moved to draftspace and was later put back by another editor. I realized it did not meet the standards of WP:GNG and merits a deletion.
I no longer have affiliation with the university, but I also work in academia and this is a part-time personal interest I have been pursuing for more than two years now. As per the academic pages I created, I have strictly followed Criterion 2 of the WP: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." The criterion specifically mentions that the Guggenheim Fellowship is a notable award, so adhering to the WP:ACADEMIC standards, I have been mostly creating articles for recipients of the Guggenheim Fellowship or "less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige". This applies to my articles Robert S. Levine, Herbert E. Klarman, Philip Nord, Victoria de Grazia, Neil Harris (historian), John Clubbe (academic), Rudolph H. Weingartner, Robert M. Adams (literary scholar), Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Eliot S. Hearst, Jerrilynn Dodds, Susan Rubin Suleiman, etc..
I also adhered to the WP:ACADEMIC Criterion 3: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)." I have mostly creating the biographies NAS, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE) members, including Bruce Wallace (geneticist), Donald R. Olander, Jeffry Frieden, Virginia Page Fortna, Douglas Rivers, and Ann Douglas (historian). Rather than questioning the notability of those scholars, I am more surprised at how long they have been left without a Wikipedia article. Also, this is not a complete list, but every academic article I created has merited at least one of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria: of winning a highly prestigious award (Criteria 2), belonging to a highly selective and prestigious academic society (Criteria 3), and in very few cases, holding a named chair appointment at a major institution of higher education and research or holding the highest post at a major academic institution. There are very few cases where the holder of a distinguished chair appointment does not fulfill Criteria 2 or 3. Examples included Michael A. Elliott, newly appointed president of Amherst College, and Soyoung Lee, the Landon and Lavina Clay Chief Curator of the Harvard Art Museums. David Weissbrodt, on the other hand, meets Criteria 7 for being one of the drafters of the Minnesota Protocol for the investigation of extrajudicial executions, in addition to full, independent coverage from the NYT.
Other non-academic articles I have created are based on editorially-reviewed obituaries or profiles of major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, WaPo), magazines (Vanity Fair, etc.), and journals (The Lancet) that I consider to have met WP: GNG to establish notability, such as Leo-Arthur Kelmenson, Arlene Shuler, Ira Millstein, Vincent Sardi Jr., Peter Mendelsund, Merrill Brockway, Herminia Palacio, Megan Greenwell, Christopher Radko, Heyward Dotson, and Ethan McSweeny.
In terms of artists, I have followed the Wikipedia:ANYBIO guideline on awards and I have included Emmy Award-winning professionals including Scott Ferguson (producer), Eric Tuchman, Tony Award-winning producer Barbara Whitman, Tony-nominated actress Gabby Beans, and Nathalie Álvarez Mesén, who is a recent winner of the most prestigious Swedish film festival award, the Guldbagge Awards, and Saim Sadiq, who won the Jury Prize of the Un Certain Regard section at the Cannes Film Festival.
In terms of journalists and authors, I have included recipients of prestigious awards such as National Magazine Awards, Pulitzer Prizes, and National Jewish Book Awards. They include Joshua Rubenstein, Sarah Bunin Benor, Marc Tracy, Rebecca Donner, Menachem Kaiser, Cecilia Reyes (journalist), and many more.
The articles are nowhere near perfection, but the fact that they are stubs should not be the sin per se and a number of them are beyond my expertise and I was expecting others to fill in the blanks after the creation of the page. For example, there is a whole journal article explaining Caltech professor Noel Corngold's contributions to the field of nuclear physics but unfortunately, I am not a nuclear physicist. Additionally, my articles Herbert Klarman and Keren Yarhi-Milo have both been improved upon many days/months after their creation by other editors and I encourage editors with related expertise to do the same. I would gladly, upon request, provide a list of rationale and the WP: criteria for every single article I have created ever since I joined Wikipedia.
CatchedY (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a separate note, while I appreciate your kindness, your original sentence "Catched has created a tonnes of stub articles about "alumni" from Columbia University. Almost all of them read like online bios/CVs/resumes." is a rather blanket accusation and I would rather not see the hundreds of hours of time and effort I put into creating those biographies being trivialized and belittled as such. I would really appreciate it if you could be just a bit more selective with your word choice...thank you and look forward to the discussion! CatchedY (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly I apologise if you feel aggrieved about your work being questioned however there was no malice nor intent to belittle your efforts. My words weren't selected to tarnish all of your work - I dip sampled a bunch of articles but you have a huge contribution to wikipedia so it wasn't possible to analyse them all. My apology doesn't extend to brining up this issue though, as on your userpage you went out of your way to say you did not have an affiliation to Columbia U. Part of the reason I have brought this issue up is because I have been a page reviewer and have seen many articles similar to the ones you have written get rejected or ultimately end up deleted. I would like to graciously thank you for your detailed response however. I also note that you say you are no longer affiliated with the university. Can you please be clear (and transparent) about what your whether your "affiliation" necessitated your creation of articles relating to Colombia U? Its fine to be an employee or have graduated from there yourself, there's no issues with that at all. However, if you were encouraged by the institution itself or by someone affiliated to it (including a third party agency) this needed to be declared so that we can assess there was no undue attention or favourability given to the articles.

As for my comments about stubs about Columbia alumni. A stub is is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. I noted that many of your articles do adhere to WP:NACADEMIC etc however there also has to be substantial information that is independently sourced. My issue with lots of (not all; I checked a sample) was that many read like a biography with any direct sources from the person's employer plus 1-2 mentions from other publications where they have one a prestigious award. That is where we have a problem. You include Michael A. Elliott as an example - in my opinion, he is a good example of someone who may not be notable. Yes he has a publication (though the significance of it i'm not sure of) 2-3 sentences (a bulk of the bio) is sourced directly from one of his former employers and the tone is not encyclopaedic because its a WP:PRIMARY source. It sounds like promotional advertisement for Michael A. Elliott or like a resume/endorsement. The sheer volume of articles you have created demonstrates you have a clear passion for editing and the topic of Columbia University alumni is clearly of interest to you however, there are concerns that not all of these articles are appropriate for Wikipedia and/or may be not notable. Its going to be a big job to review all of these regardless of whether or not you have conflict of interest editing this topic. This is why I've asked others to comment as we always go with community consensus to ascertain if our rules and guidelines have been adhered to. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By affiliation, I was a student and I have graduated from Columbia years ago. That was my one and only affiliation with the university. I have since then graduated and moved onto another institution, so there is no more "affiliation." Again, I am a doctoral candidate at another university and I don't get paid at all doing those articles nor was I ever instructed to do so. The only reason that motivated the creation of those articles was that I felt indebted to my alma mater for a good, well-rounded undergraduate education. I am also practicing my writing skills through those edits.
Yes, I realized that a lot of the academic articles I created recently are not in good shape, and I will go back and edit them by including more information on their research subject or reviews of their works. In my humble opinion, Michael A. Elliott satisfies Criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC because he is slated to become president of Amherst College, a well-regarded liberal arts college in Massachusetts, next week. CatchedY (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may have been hasty with that. For that I do owe an apology. I have learnt lots today. Clearly my understanding of WP:NPROF is flawed and this perhaps isn't as big an issue as I first thought. It may be that Adam Cohen is the exception/outlier and that if many of your articles are about academics, there might not be as many issues like I initially thought. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Lil-unique1, thank you for your message. I did not receive the notification of your reply here but I saw your comment on my talk page. All good now! CatchedY (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a somewhat outsider comment here: I became aware of CatchedY’s edits while doing a casual check of some local NYC organizations on Wikipedia and seeing names I never saw linked to before being linked to. In the few cases I stumbled across, I was a bit puzzled by the fact that Wikipedia pages were being created or edited while their wider online footprints elsewhere were being, for lack of a better term, scrubbed.

I prefer to not go into the details about my knowledge of scrubbing of online content elsewhere here, but I find the timing of the articles being created in the context of scrubbing of content elsewhere to be a fairly odd coincidence. And then when I read CatchedY’s disclaimer on their profile page I was taken aback: “I have not been instructed, nor received any payments in exchange to edit, or create any Wikipedia pages. All actions are of my own volition.”

Why would someone be so glib in stating this in this way? Again, I am not accusing anyone of anything but I find the timing of these edits and this pre-emptive disclaimer on their profile page to be oddly coincidental. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Giacomo1968, would love to know if you can provide concrete sources to substantiate your first claim that I was "linking names to before being linked to" - thank you! I am just as puzzled as to what you mean by " Wikipedia pages were being created or edited while their wider online footprints elsewhere were being, for lack of a better term, scrubbed."
As for your question "Why would someone be so glib in stating this in this way?" I am a PhD student and my training has, unfortunately, not led me to write simple sentences. If my words are too convoluted, I am happy to change them into plain English. When I first joined Wikipedia, I noticed how much paid editing there is on this platform, so I preemptively added this disclaimer to my page to avoid the confusion as most of my focus has been on Columbia alumni-related articles. I might be accused of a booster, or someone working for the alumni office, or a school employee, or whatever. I don't even live in New York to begin with, and I have created pages that provide negative coverage, including a whole "controversy" section in the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. But unfortunately this gesture has only raised more eyebrows. It's a really a Catch-22 here: if I don't disaffiliate myself by saying nothing, I will be accused of COIN for sure and be asked to clarify my ties to the subject matter at hand, but even if I state that I no longer have any affiliation (as in, having graduated from the institution), I will still be accused of COIN.
Again, I write about deceased academics from the 19th and 20th centuries to political figures to 21-century singers and actors with really no order or specific agenda, if you look at my past history of contributions. The coverage of my edits and created articles span many industries, centuries, and I find it hard to come up with a cohesive "master plan" or some background story that explain how all of this can be part a coordinated publicity campaign as another editor pointed out yesterday. I see myself as more of a "grave digger" in the sense that I look up historical archives, old newspapers, magazines and obituaries and find people who went to Columbia whose accomplishments have been overlooked. CatchedY (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, please do not misquote me. I clearly said, “…seeing names I never saw linked to before being linked to…” and never said “…linking names to before being linked to…”
As for this, “Wikipedia pages were being created or edited while their wider online footprints elsewhere were being, for lack of a better term, scrubbed.” What I mean is while some subjects were cleaning/scrubbing their internet footprint elsewhere — such as on stand-alone websites, blog posts and even social media posts — suddenly Wikipedia pages were being created for these people or were being actively edited to clean them up. The more formal name for actions like this is reputation management.
I am not accusing you of anything. But in general, a lot of your edits personally raised an eyebrow on my side. As for proof of anything past this being a coincidence? I have none. That’s it. --21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there any specific examples you want to raise? Re the columbia U articles, we have established that there is no pattern of concern, and just some outlier articles that might not be notable. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. Not now. As I have implied in the above comments, I do not have anything solid that could — within the valid context of Wikipedia — that would raise an eyebrow to others. This all comes from personal awareness and knowledge on my side of the subject and entities; no paper trail I can provide at this time. But decided to post here when I saw this thread. That’s it. I simply wanted to say, “Hey! You are not alone in the concerns presented here.” --21:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. CatchedY (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I misread that sentence so I misconstrued the meaning of your words.
As to your second point, this is my first time hearing of this so-called practice of reputation scrubbing and I have zero connection to any of the people I have created articles about. Would you please provide evidence of what you suspect as reputation scrubbing? I am happy to explain the thought process behind my actions. CatchedY (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Would you please provide evidence of what you suspect as reputation scrubbing?” See above. I do not feel I have anything solid I would be willing to share here at this point. This all comes from personal awareness and knowledge on my side of the subject and entities. That’s all. I will leave this discussion as-is; the coincidences seem to be justified by your explanations but I personally fine it all odd. That is all. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply. CatchedY (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nottingham College[edit]

This is a procedural notice. Jamesmacwhite has 90+% of Wikipedia contributions at Nottingham College and similar linked articles. This editor was queried over CoI in October 2018 and provided a $paid notice on 28 October 2018. This editor has continued to substantially edit the article, most recently being 18 July 2022 with removal of an entire section, but appears not to have been appraised of the undesireability of continuing to make direct changes.

I have tagged both the article and talk pages, together with notices at User talk:Jamesmacwhite#Your editing at Nottingham College and Talk:Nottingham College#Entire section deleted by an employee of the College.

User:Jamesmacwhite has confirmed being a direct employee of the college at Ntmamgtw's talk page, 28 October 2018 (in this diff), I am an employee of Nottingham College...I am not directly being "paid" to contribute to Wikipedia but I do have an affiliation as part of my role within the organisation. and ...I feel my edits are not a conflict of interest, they are factually correct and can be verified.

User:Jamesmacwhite has now been requested not to make any further direct edits to Nottingham College, instead to use Template:Request edit.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

University of Texas at Arlington[edit]

This editor is a single-purpose editor focused solely on this university. I directly (but politely) asked them if they have a connection to the university over two years ago but they ignored the question. They continue to edit and have now expanded to edit warring with multiple editors to insert material and references based solely on historical research using the university's archives. ElKevbo (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their past edit summaries are interesting. Their writing styles vary widely, sometimes reading like a single, random person, someone who sounds like they are in an official capacity with the university, and the university making an official statement. (Notice the use of "we".) They also made a few changes to names to the style "preferred by the University". I don't know about you, but I feel like this is a shared account. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Hampshire Academy of Science[edit]

Editor was warned about a potential conflict of interest and then was informed that their edits appeared to be paid editing. The editor continued to add promotional information into the article and blew past all requests to declare their potential paid editing. VVikingTalkEdits 16:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor did not see any messages until now. Rest assured, editor is not receiving any compensation. Kindly restore editor's edits ASAP. WeLoveScience (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edits were entirely promotional and will not be restored, please disclose your connection to the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a member of the surrounding community and town (it is very insular). This is a popular program that many people participate in (and it has also been gaining some media attention), and so I thought I would add some updated information to the Wikipedia page. Is that against Wikipedia rules? WeLoveScience (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, why are the edits "entirely promotional"? The language is very neutral. WeLoveScience (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You actually copied and pasted promotional material from here [1]. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if I word it differently, would it not be considered promotion? I would be talking about the exact same thing. WeLoveScience (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I do original writing, can I get my privileges back? WeLoveScience (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem is your idea of what the article is supposed to be. Wikipedia is supposed to encyclopedically document things. Your edits effectively act as if you're writing for the NHAS's website, which is not what Wikipedia is trying to to do. For instance, much of what you copied over included the words "we" or "our", as if it was on the NHAS website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nagoya University of Commerce & Business[edit]

(Second link is a recent move of the original article's Talk page.) Editor has several times replaced sourced content with unsourced or poorly sourced content which reads promotional. Has not replied to messages on their Talk page. Googling suggests they may have a CoI. This is the most recent diff, which removed the CoI template and introduced promotional statements like "dedicating all his life to keeping up the ideals of the frontier spirit" and "The center holds over 210,000 books and valuable references. Inside is a self-study space designed to effectively improve foreign language skills". Tacyarg (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I added some relevant IP editors who seem to be involved. --SVTCobra 13:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The editing by Fmason1985 is continuing unabated and without addressing this noticeboard or talk pages. And they removed {{COI}} SVTCobra 06:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zainab Salbi article's primary editor is the person herself[edit]

I noticed this article is largely edited by the person who it is about using a self-evident username. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. universities partnering with ThriveDX to offer "digital skills bootcamps"[edit]

These new editors appeared today and added links to "digital skills bootcamps" in these articles. Each of these "bootcamps" are being supported and promoted by ThriveDX so it's likely that this is undisclosed paid editing in addition to the clear link spamming and sockpuppetry.

Is there any way to search for other similar usernames ("* digital skills") to see if there are other articles that need to be edited to remove this spam? ElKevbo (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also [2], UM Digital Skills at University of Miami.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All indeffed for promotional user-name, but it's not really conceivable that they're anything but a single person on a socking spree, even if (curiously) the accounts were created several months ago and not all at the same time. A search for 'insource:digitalskills' doesn't give me any more weblinks of the form they've been adding. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways[edit]

Username seems to be a match with the subject of the page. Also adds unreferenced content (from a primary source?). Liliana (UwU) 06:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two editors are clearly the same, but that's acceptable as the first was soft-blocked only. Shivani Vaid, if you have any connection to the ministry you're expected to disclose it; if you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way by it then disclosure is obligatory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eclary444 and Wjpool at Joe R. Pool[edit]

Eclary444 has declared a COI at Talk:Joe R. Pool, disclosing herself at Pool's granddaughter. In her malformed COI disclosure, she also declares herself to be WJ Pool's daughter. Many of the sources she has relied on while editing at Joe R. Pool have been listed as "Pool family archives. Wesley J. Pool, custodian" (see this version). Today, user Wjpool has come along with the same edits using the same sources (and no declaration of COI). One can safely assume that Wjpool is the Wesley J. Pool of whom Eclary444 spoke -- her father and Joe R. Pool's son. I have warned both users that, due to their conflict of interest, they should stop editing the article, to no avail. The edits at the article are problematic as, in some case, they are copying the text of articles which they hold in their archives verbatim into Wikipedia, in violation of WP:COPYVIO. Further, the edits the article make excessive points out of trivial facts (spinning the sponsorship of one minor piece of legislation into several paragraphs, for example.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CT55555/Canadaland podcasts[edit]

I have discovered what looks to be an ever-expanding web of conflict of interest editing on the part of an editor CT55555. The conflict of interest relates to the Canadian news website Canadaland, people involved with and subjects covered by their podcasts and to podcasting host Arshy Mann and/or news editor Jonathan Goldsbie in particular.

CT55555 created the biography of Arshy Mann back in February, then earlier this month one for Jonathan Goldsbie, and just the other day one for Robert Jago:

In at least the first two instances, notability is debatable, especially for Mann. I can't see any pieces here which are actually about Mann or Goldsbie. Thinly-referenced details such as "Goldsbie is noted for his love of theatre" strike me as hallmarks of promotional writing.

He created articles about and uploaded non-free logos for Canadaland's podcasts which, while interesting, probably do not merit their own articles, any more than Wikipedia has individual articles for every piece which appeared in the New York Times:

He also created articles about subjects, narrators and producers of those podcasts and books written by or related to them:

The majority of the articles listed above were posted over only three days (July 11-13) – someone must have been working on them full time for months.

As might be expected, he's also made a lot of edits to Canadaland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). One edit places Mann's name before even proprietor Jesse Brown's;[3] another refers to Gooldsbie as "JG".[4] Their podcasts are a central theme.[5] Some of the edit summaries appear to be deceptive, for example:[6]

Even CT55555's articles and edits which at first glance don't appear to be related to Canadaland or Arshy Mann or Jonathan Goldsbie often turn out to be related in ways that aren't immediately obvious. For example, this article below relates to Mann's own biography, which goes out of its way to highlight Mann's very minor role in the Rob Ford cocaine story;[7] see also:[8]. Mann also has a podcast discussing Rob and Dug Ford:[9]:

There are also a good number of edits about Canadian mining firms, about which Mann runs a podcast series.[10] This article about an anti-mining group in Papua New Guinea was featured in one of those podcasts – when another editor questioned the notability of this group on the talk page, CT55555 appealed to Canadaland:

CorrTimes (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have any conflict of interests, but I am flattered that you think my few days work would take months. This is a first, so I don't know if I need to provide any more of an explanation than I hear stuff on the news and then add articles about the things I hear and Canadaland's podcasts are one of the sources of news that I consume. Indeed I have created articles about notable journalists, notable podcasts, notable stories that Canadaland reports. This is one of various themes I've worked on, other themes (that overlap in some ways) include journalism, journalists, books, mining, ecology. CT55555 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for everyone's information, the linked articles go even deeper than is mentioned above: when I wrote the article about Thunder Bay (podcast) I learned about Seven Fallen Feathers and updated it. Then I learned about a book by the same author and created an article about it All Our Relations: Finding the Path Forward. I learned of the death of Barbara Kentner and wrote an article about her. This is what happens, I write about something and that thing leads me to the next thing. I edited Jesse Brown (journalist) too, he is the producer of Canadaland. That lead me to learning about the Trial of Jian Ghomeshi and me updating Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi#Reactions_and_analysis. I could go on. And if you picked any of my articles about uranium mining, you'll note they are all deeply connected to all my other articles about the same topic too. Uranium mining in the Bancroft area is deeply connected to many other articles I wrote. I write one, and it leads to another. CT55555 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlos Hank González[edit]

SEO effort by paid COI account to distance one Carlos Hank González (businessman) (new page title created by COI) from Carlos Hank González (politician) (new article entry by COI) has generated this disambiguation issue at orignal article Carlos Hank González after conducting a bold page move. Also noticed that the original Carlos Hank González article has a history of critical commentary being removed by a single purpose account. Not sure, what, if any issue there might be with this kind of editing, but perhaps it warrants some attention. Acousmana 09:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]