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.
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.
Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead.
This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy.
Notes for volunteers
To close a report
Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
My Real Name As Per Government Identity vishal Dwivedi im hail from Kanpur Uttar Pradesh if you requred any more info contact me thank you. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my rael name is vishal dwivedi im a independent artist so i create this Wikipedia page This is my personal Page Comment.thank you. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a bit of a language barrier issue, I don't quite understand what the user is saying (here, and on their talk page User_talk:ItsVishalBawa#May_2024), whether they are or are not the Vishal Bawa described in the above draft. If they are, then this is obvs an autobio. If they're not, then the username is misleading and must be changed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Itsvishalbawa is mh Wikipedia log in user name thats the reason im facing on create account time and My Artist name is vishal Bawa try to understand this situation. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ItsVishalBawa Unless you are Vishal Bawa, you cannot use his name as your username. If you are not him, please tell us a new username you want to use, I can change it for you.
If English is not your main language that you use to communicate, you should edit the Wikipedia that is written in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Please help me on this case i want to change my username itsmvishalbawa to Vishal Bawa..
If this not different on the name so why not publish my draft article and whats the docs requred for the clear this use are person or not. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is a clear case of autobiography. I believe the confusion is arising from "Vishal Bawa" being a pseudonym adopted by "Vishal Dwivedi" and so when ItsVishalBawa said that their real name is Vishal Dwivedi (and that their "Artist name" is Vishal Bawa) that was a confirmation of them being the subject of the draft biography. Not sensing any ill-intent but it is likely that our standard templated messages linking to the relevant policies are too complicated for the user to navigate; will drop them a note to see if that helps. Abecedare (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just telling you that my real name is Vishal Dwivedi and my artist name is Vishal BawaBut on Sign up time My username suggest me to itsVishalBawa.
@ItsVishalBawa: thank you for finally confirming that you are, indeed, the person you are writing about. Please read and understand our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO. Autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. For the same reason you also have a conflict of interest (COI), which you must disclose if you wish to continue, see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsVishalBawa: this noticeboard is for discussing conflicts of interest; for general editing advice, try the WP:AFCHDorTeahouse. But since you ask, there is nothing in your draft that suggests you are notable enough to warrant an article. My advice therefore is to drop this matter entirely. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found this while removing citations to Simple Flying. Something sketchy going on here: Aleksandr Celiadin is the founder of GetJet Airlines, his article seems to be edited exclusively by accounts with limited other edits. The company seems to have previously set up an account and I think the other accounts seem to be likely related to each other. There is also frequently IP edits on this article adding material from the company (most recently [1][2]) and one of the accounts listed above deleted some (admittedly not well sourced) negative info about the company. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new account has shown up continuing this pattern of edits:
Names of customers of a UPE agency have been revealed in reviews[edit]
Browsing the internet, I have found a Trustpilot profile profile of a UPE agency. The agency is named "Wiki Proficiency" and is seemingly banned per WP:ABTACH.
There is an interesting pattern in their reviews. As for pre-2024 reviews, I could not find Wikipedia articles ordered by the reviewers, and there is a large number of very negative reviews.
In 2024, this pattern breaks. Positive reviews dominate, and for a majority of them, I could find articles named after the reviewers. No article had been created before the reviewer wrote a review to Trustpilot, and (with a few exceptions) the reviews were written no more than a month after the creation of corresponding articles. Where I was unable to find an article named after the reviewer, the reviewer mostly refered to themselves in plural or refered to their "company". I should however note I haven't found any relevant AfDs related to negative reviews.
There is a catch, however. Some of the article creators had over 1000 edits. There is one with 16000 edits and one even with over 40000 edits. As much as I try to assume good faith, I do not see any better explanation than that the editors were paid. I find it highly unlikely that the UPE company is tricking me.
If we agree the articles are paid for, we should do something with them. Even if some of them aren't downright promotional, the company is profiting of intransparency and dishonesty, so per WP:IAR, we should so something to stop them, even if unprecedented. Some options are deletion for a fixed period of time or draftification (the closing editor of the discussion that resulted in CBAN for the company noted that potentially useful articles might be draftified.)
I hope you could give me some advice. I intentionally didn't name the article creators, as I don't want to cast baseless aspersions before being advised on this matter.
It's not uncommon for mercenaries to claim credit for work they haven't done, in the (sadly very justified) hope potential clients don't do their due diligence first. I would not believe anything they say without concrete proof that they actually worked on those pages. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal and Jéské Couriano: Many thanks. Actually, how common is it for UPE companies to pick their fake clients this sophisticately? I mean, it is no coincidence that the articles were created short time before their "reviews"; it is quite probably part of their deception. Janhrach (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common enough that it's something that should be taken into consideration when evaluating UPE claims based on what the merc outfit says. This is a line of work where ethical considerations are at the bottom of the priorities list. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The TrustPilot looks like it's getting artificially inflated reviews. I sorted through a good amount of them and all of the 5-stars are pretty generic praises, no specific instances of "above and beyond" that a normal review might show, no name call outs. Peppered in are a few 1-star reviews still (which should certainly be watched out for in the future, should Chef Eddie G suddenly get his Wikipedia Page).
I think the value in this find is less about the articles they're claiming and more about the articles that people have asked them to make and they haven't. If someone went to one UPE, then they'll probably go to another eventually. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been repeatedly warned about COI editing and as recently as May 2024 continues to edit articles with a suspected COI. Vegantics (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warned this editor about their obvious conflict of interest and paid editing. They continued to edit the article in question, so here we are. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I work at Brigham and Women's Hospital and am David Bates's Executive Assistant, so updating his profile is within my normal job purview. I have updated factual information only that was provided to me by Dr. Bates, with proof available. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an hour ago you wrote "I work at Brigham and Women's Hospital and am David Bates's Executive Assistant, so updating his profile is within my normal job purview". What has changed in that hour? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed. Can you please tell me how to go about getting updated, factual, verifiable information posted? The information listed was incorrect, so I was only updating it. And I don't know who to "make the necessary declaration on [my] talk page." I am new to this and the attacks are not kind. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DWB Executive Assistant: See this page. By “the affected talk page” it means the “Talk” tab at the top of the article.
Also, please make sure that your changes can be verified with sources if possible.
A quick question: does the use of the username 'DWB Executive Assistant' breach WP:USERNAME?
(Specifically the part of that policy that states 'that usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they [...] only describe a particular role, title, position [...].)
I’d persevere if I was you. At this point all you need to do is familiarise yourself with a few Wikipedia policies (particularly those quoted earlier in this thread), then track down some sources that comply with WP:RS that provide evidence to support the various edits you were trying to make, and then request the changes on the talk page for your boss’ article. Assuming the requested edits are factually correct, not promotional, and can be verified by independent sources then the changes will probably be agreed and your boss will be happy. Plus, you’ll be being paid for editing Wikipedia, while everyone else will be doing it for free. So, as I say, I’d persevere... Axad12 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all! Sorry if this is weird; I've dabbled in Wikipedia editing off and on over the years, but I haven't looked at it for a while, so I'm honestly a little shaky on Wiki markup currently. My main user account is Taciturasa (talk·contribs), although it is currently inactive.
Essentially, I'm here to confirm that this IP belongs to the internal company VPN for AvePoint, and it appears to have provided a large amount of the edits to the AvePoint Wikipedia page (funnily, I just found this out after I poured coffee on my keyboard and almost made an accidental nonsense edit to the page for Adwaita (design language) while trying to clean it up).
I'm disclosing this because I've noticed before that the page kinda reeked of WP:PROMO and WP:COIEDIT. I really appreciate and align myself with Wikipedia's wish for a neutral PoV, and I think the evidence within the special contributions for this IP paint a pretty clear picture.
I think AvePoint as an entity could quite possibly qualify for notability, but it's pretty clear, both with it being known edits have come internally from CoI editors, as well as the advertisement-reading current status of the page, that it may need to be cleared of most of the information within it so it can be written more accurately.
Hope this helps! I'm not sure there's really any reason to notify other editors, since I don't know of the history of the page, but I know for sure this IP is involved, and I am currently this IP, but will certainly do what's needed (on my main account, if needed) to make good on that if you need it.
I'm here not knowing where else to go for the best, and in the spirit of WP:DOLT.
These IPs have slowly spent the day removing information from this Russian enemy of Putin. The first edit tried to quote our article Right to be forgotten, which is why I'm mentioning DOLT: they didn't make a legal threat, but I can see why they would want this person, and their location information, removing. This isn't the way to go about it, and I have no idea if we would even consider granting the removal of sourced information in this way, but that's all way above my pay grade and having better editors than I look into this seems a good idea.
Almost all of this user's contributions through their entire history here have involved promoting Arie and Elise Trouw, including by adding Elise to multiple lists of "Notable" people.
I do not know precisely who this user is, but in my opinion it is obvious from their behaviour alone that they have some personal connection to the Trouw family and are editing for the purpose of promoting Arie and Elise, not for the purpose of improving Wikipedia.
Users have, on multiple occasions, raised COI concerns on the user's talk page. The user has never engaged with those discussions.
I'm not sure what appropriate next steps are, but given that engaging via Talk page has failed repeatedly over multiple years, I figured I should bring this to this Noticeboard for others to discuss. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just blocked Pedestrian69 for continuing to edit on his apparently conflicted topic past the UPE warning without giving a notice either way. Hopefully this will at least get their attention - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user was warned of COI editing on 3/7/2024 and recently edited the article for Jim Sikora. They have almost exclusively edited the article for Jim Sikora and you can see on their 10/26/2019 edit that they have made edits to the article at Sikora's request. Vegantics (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Autodesplanifica contributions is a single purpose account which created a promotional account for a borderline notable academic. Back in April, I deleted the puff and queried whether there was a COI, which seems blatant to me. The user replied that there was not and accused me of vandalism (also by email). Over the weekend they returned to add more uncited promotional material and added a photo. I'd be grateful if somebody could take a look, thanks. Mujinga (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP on a Swiss prodigy for which there is an article on the German Wikipedia, Maximilian Janisch. An English Wikipedia account, Maximilian Janisch (talk·contribs), uploaded a translated version of the German article to Maximilian Janisch, which I tagged for COI. The account owner has openly identified themselves as the BLP subject on their talk page. On the article talk page, they have proposed a 7-day discussion period after which they will remove the COI notice. I have brought it here as I don't think many editors will see the English article. I do notice that a similar named account has edited the German article. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I will put some more background information here:
Grüezi Maximilian. I don't know how it is on dewiki, but enwiki policy strongly discourages autobiographies like this one. It's good that you disclosed your COI, but you seem to have overlooked the other parts of that guideline: that you should only propose new articles for review via AfC, and once the article is in mainspace you should not edit it directly. You note on the article talk page that conflict of interest editing is discouraged but not forbidden, which is true, but "not forbidden" does not mean optional here; it means that you should follow the guideline in most circumstances, even though there are sometimes exceptions. Those exceptions are when it's in Wikipedia's interest to ignore the rule, and that doesn't appear to be the case here. I have nominated the article for deletion and suggest you don't engage with it further. You are welcome to edit other topics. – Joe (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the useful information @Joe Roe: While you are right that the path to creation for this article was inappropriate due to mistakes on my part, I have nonetheless argued for why I believe deletion is not the right response over at the article deletion page. I agree that the article creation process is unfortunate but I still believe the decision of whether the article is deleted should be based on the article itself and associated guidelines, not the process through which it was created. In any case I will make sure to be more careful with COI editing in the future and I apologize for this inconvenience caused by me not having proposed the article via WP:AfC. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continued editing of an article that shares their username after being warned about a potential COI violation yesterday. Jdcomix (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
