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.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. 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:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Dan Abrams Talk:Joanne Scott Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:Accenture Talk:Bill Ackman Talk:AGCO Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam Talk:Andersen Global Talk:Andersen Tax Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Avient Corporation Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Brain–computer interface Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Burnet Institute Talk:Camurus Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Celebrity branding Talk:Chagee Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:CivicPlus Talk:Claremont McKenna College Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Consolidated Contractors Company Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Deirdre Curtin Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Vladislav Doronin Talk:Glenn Dubin Talk:George R. Dyer Talk:Emily Carr University of Art and Design Talk:Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Adele Fornarino Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Francisco Partners Talk:Jeff Franklin Talk:Freudenberg Group Talk:Joan Gabel Talk:Gartner Talk:Gebr. Heinemann Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Getronics Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDaddy Talk:Matthias Goldmann Talk:John Goldwyn Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Martin Green (musician) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Guo Guangchang Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Hg (equity firm) Talk:HSBC Insurance (Asia Pacific) Talk:Illinois Tool Works Talk:Informal learning Talk:International Institute for Strategic Studies Talk:Italian American Museum of Los Angeles Talk:Han Jin (businessman) Talk:Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance Talk:Mark Kendall (filmmaker) Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Koho (fintech) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:LastPass Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lee H. Letts Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Jon Levy (behaviorist) Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Robert A. Mandell Talk:Mayfield (company) Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Medvivo Talk:Michael Meldman Talk:Metro AG Talk:Mitre Corporation Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Farah Mohamed Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Shayden Morris Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:NextEra Energy Partners Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Randy Olson Talk:Optum Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Parexel Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Nicolas Petit (academic) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:John Phelan (businessman) Talk:Plagiarism Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:RA Capital Management Talk:Rackspace Technology Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Erik Ramanathan Talk:Robert C. Robbins Talk:Rocket Mortgage Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Secureworks Talk:Sidley Austin Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Sonesta International Hotels Talk:Sophia Genetics Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:The Times Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Talk:Trendyol Talk:Trócaire Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:UC San Diego School of Medicine Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Hans Vestberg Talk:Vista Equity Partners Talk:Mariano Vivanco Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Kathy Warden Talk:Tetsuro Watsuji Talk:Stanley Weiser Talk:WikiHow Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zerodur Talk:Carl Zimmer Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Sunuraju

• Sunuraju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is a sock in my opinion and involved in UPE, despite a CU not finding a connection through SPI. I noted early on in the SPI filings that there would unlikely be a technical connection and needed to be based on behavior evidence. Suggestion from others was to bring this to COIN. I have provided the SPI filings below along with additional evidence. The evidence below is just a brief summary, but I can provide more evidence that user is likely a sock, or at least meat, of blocked user StayCalmOnTress. I do understand there are fans who edit similar pages, but these are more than a coincidence. In addition to the edits provided below, here is some interaction analysis showing their connection to now blocked sock Opinioncarter (from StayCalmOnTress) and suspected sock Munch03 (who seems to be editing more since Sunuraju has started editing less. CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

SPI and ANI filings

• First SPI with Sunuraju was filed on November 2, 2024. User filing noted that it may be related to StayCalmOnTress (formerly known as Nauman335). While there was not technical evidence found, an admin noted "Something fishy is obviously going on though, with new accounts recreating identical versions of the same article. Some more digging required than I have time for immediately, but some investigation needs to happen here."
• Next SPI was filed by me on November 6, 2024, noting that digging found that Sunuraju was not likely using the same IP in order to avoid a CU. I believed at that time they were associated with another SOCK farm and had extensive experience getting caught in CUs so likely avoiding (maybe a proxy, maybe remote connection, etc.).
• Third was filed on November 18, 2024. All three of these SPIs show behavioral evidence (although no CU evidence found) of SOCK and at least MEAT.
• An SPI was filed for Sunuraju under StayCalmOnTress on November 1, 2024 and since that time there were several more under that SPI. I don't recall if there was evidence with other socks filed under the Sunuraju reports which may have caused admins to merge there, but after looking closer at the edit history of Sunuraju, it is likely they are a sock or likely meat of StayCalmOnTress.
• Now blocked StayCalmOnTrees SOCK filed an and ANI report against me where an admin stated " Sunuraju may need a closer look outside of the CU results. To my eye, the evidence shows a pretty close connection" regarding the SPI cases against Sunuraju.

Edits

• Draft:Khaie1, created February 2nd by Sunuraju. Deleted five times under Khaie, G5, for being created by socks of StayCalmOnTress sock farm, most recent on January 15th (two weeks before the most recent draft creation). Note the draft under a name variation due to the many deletions of Khaie, but also the many deleted redirects such as Khaie (TV series) and Khaie (2024).
• Duniyapur (TV series), originally created by now blocked Sock Faymas who was filed in an SPI investigation with Sunuraju. Sunuraju editing the page up to January 1, 2024, the same day it was edited by user Opnicarter who is a now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress.
• Noor Jahan (2024 TV series), created November 2024 by Sunuraju. Two days later was edited by IP 182.182.52.21 which coincidentally made a comment in the SPI investigation here which sounds awfully similar to the ANI accusation made by Opnicarter.
• Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum, created November 1, 2024 by Sunuraju. When creating the draft, a user commented that it was already deleted per G5 at Draft:Kabhi Mein Kabhi Tum (Pakistani Drama) (believe it or not, by a sock of StayCalmOnTress). Here is the move log showing that FOUR other socks of StayCalmOnTress (known as Nauman335 at the time) attempted to create or move the page in 2024.
• Draft:Gentleman (Pakistani TV series), created November 2024 by Sunuraju. Note that the original Gentleman (Pakistani TV series) was deleted in April 2024, G5d based on creation by StayCalmOnTress sock (known as Nauman335 at the time).
• Draft:Meem Se Mohabbat 1, created on January 21, 2025 by Sunuraju. Meem Se Mohabbat is currently a redirect but protected based on editing of two other socks from the StayCalmOnTress sock farm.
• Faraar (TV series), originally created as Draft:Faraar (TV series) by Sunuraju on November 18, 2024. There was a lot of what is likely logged out editing prior to the mainspace in December by Swimear (now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress), then editing the next day by user:NiaziBOP (now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress). I moved this back to draftspace in December.
• Tumharey Husn Kay Naam, created by none other than StayCalmOnTress in June 2024, but moved to Draft:Tumhare Husn Ke Naam by an editor a few days later. Draft later edited in January 2025 by now blocked StayCalmOnTress sock Opnicarter, but they have since been blocked so Sunuraju submitted the draft to AfC on January 25th.
• Dananeer Mobeen is now protected from creation for previous sock creations going back to 2021. Sock of StayCalmOnTress asked for a refund on this in 2023 which is documented in the SPI here. As it is protected, user Munch03 (also suspect is a SOCK) creates disambiguation Draft:Dananeer Mobeen (actress) on January 15, 2025. It was moved to draft space by another editor but edited and submitted to AfC by Sunuraju five days later.
• Draft:Faraar (TV series) created by Sunuraju on November 18, 2024, heavy logged out editing the next few days, then edited by two StayCalmOnTress socks (Swimear and NiaziBOP) in December. Note that Swimear moved to mainspace prior to me moving back to draft. Also note that NiaziBOP only had 24 edits prior to their block, 33% of them were to pages shared with Sunuraju.
• Chikkar (film), originally deleted G5 for being created by StayCalmOnTress sock farm, it was recreated by an IP last year and then edited by Sunuraju in January this year.
• Voting in this deletion discussion to save page Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri which was created by user:Asad Siddiqui23, who was found to be a sock in the SPI file against Sunuraju. THIS is also evidence that user may be sharing account. Note their vote which is coherent and a clear !keep, yet they voted "stay by" in this and this discussion.
• Draft:Let's Try Mohabbat draft is protected for constant block evasion from what looks like logged out socking. Protected on September 23, 2024 and the next edit was in January from Sunuraju.
• Khalid Butt (actor), Sunuraju italicized the name of the films Khaie and Jeevan Nagar. Note that Jeevan Nagar was deleted multiple times but there is Draft:Jeevan Nagar that was edited by the StayCalmOnTress sock farm. Also, note Khaie and the drafts noted at the beginning of this filing.
• Mein Hari Piya, User Sunuraju updates name of Hamza Sohail on November 16, 2024, on the same day, StayCalmOnTress blocked sock WikiiUsee is updating the page of Hamza Sohail. On December 29, 2024, now blocked sock of StayCalmOnTress user:Shiza Sultan removes the link to Mein Hari Piyal from the Sumbul Iqbal page. Strange they wanted to unlink it but also note that Sunuraju failed to link the Hamza Sohail page from Mein Hari Piya so seems like they had some reasoning as to not draw attention to those interlinks.
• SPI for StayCalmOnTress filed on February 8, 2025 which includes IP 39.34.175.100 who was just blocked. The IP performed about 50 edits total to the same pages recently (or just) edited by Sunuraju (also a lot of crossover with Munch03) including Khalid Butt (actor), Osman Khalid Butt, User:PB987 (also blocked as a SCOT sock), and Raqs-e-Bismil.

• Comment: The WP:DUCK is quacking here. There is an obvious farm of puppets, sock or meat, at work here to promote a particular kind of articles. I would lean towards blocking on sight. BD2412 T 05:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they are using Munch03 more and more (pinging that user so they are aware), and now being disruptive by removing lots of information from pages without explanation. Also adding unsourced DOB to BLP on Anmol Baloch which also has several of the SOCKS listed in the report above. Would suggest a block for both at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Both users still editing without any type of response here, despite being notified. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that Munch03 was recently blocked for vandalism. Sunuraju is still editing and has decided not to respond here despite still editing. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Meteomatics

Here's the filled template:

Meteomatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Lukasjmueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article for Meteomatics was created and primarily edited by a user that seems to work at the company in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.160.87 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2025 (UTC)

XVALA

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

I'm actually reporting myself. I recently made a huge update and expansion to XVALA (here), thinking that once it was up, people could check it and edit/remove things as they felt necessary. The issue is that I know the subject of the article a little bit (not well; he's a friend of a friend), which I recognize is a conflict of interest. My understanding at the time was that my responsibility in such a case was to be transparent about it, which I was, and then to stand back and let it be changed in any way that others see fit, which I'm very happy to do.

However, it's since been brought to my attention that it's more complicated than that, and now I need to know how to fix the problem. To be clear, I have zero concern with how the subject is portrayed (as long as, obviously, it agrees with normal Wikipedia guidelines) and I don't care much what happens to my edit. I only added the information in an attempt to be helpful, and if it's the opposite of that, then by all means it should be dealt with. If my edit needs to be fully reverted or deleted or whatever, so be it. I'm only here to ask for advice now that I know that it's needed. There's a bit more information here. I appreciate any help you can provide. -- edi(talk) 19:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Indianapolis Museum of Art

• Indianapolis Museum of Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Virginia B. Fairbanks Art & Nature Park: 100 Acres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DWFulks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was warned about COI editing. Continued editing anyway. Was reverted other people and eventually responded I work for Newfields and am updating the page to reflect accuracy in the brand in a message that asks others to make the advertising-language changes they were making. No acknowledgement of the COI issues or that they're a WP:UPE editor. Further eyes on the target articles would be useful. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The Wonderful Company family of brands and their executives

• The Wonderful Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lynda Resnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stewart Resnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• POM Wonderful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fiji Water (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NYTechIntl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (one of many accounts that appear to be part of public relations effort)

Numerous SPAs, sockfarm and WP:LOUTSOCK suspected. Browse through edit history, particular in late 2010s. Many of highly WP:ADVERT "about us" like contents remain in articles. Need help in identifying likely PR editors, and prune promotional edits from those articles, as well as other The Wonderful Company associated companies/brands/products. Also see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Lynda_resnick_2020.jpg which I successfully had deleted for false attribution. Graywalls (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I second your misgiving there, it does look like a coordinated on-wiki advertising campaign. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Graywalls. I agree with your analysis. Edwardx (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I just added NYTechIntl as the discussion on their talk page is not convincing. First, an IP from New York, USA commented to COI warning, then an IP from Switzerland followed up which makes it unconvincing that more than one people may be involved in responding on the user talk page. Since they logged in upon being asked to do so, it confirms they still have account access and they've been around long enough to know better than failing to sign-in to participate in a discussion. Graywalls (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Renerpho

• Northolt Branch Observatories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Renerpho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a self-report. I'm sorry! I was reminded today that I had never declared the substantial COI I have about this article that I created in March 2018. The subject is a project that I (Daniel Bamberger) am personally involved in. I haven't worked on that article since April 2018.

While I was aware of the existence of the article (it's not like I forgot it existed!), I never came back to reflect about it in relation to my work as a Wikipedia user. I became WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED on 8 February 2018, and probably should have known about COI and the associated issues by then. On hindsight, I should have come back to it on my own, rather than having to be reminded by a stranger. Unfortunately, I guess the best I can do now is try to rectify the problem... If I can help with that, I will.

Upon reading the article again, I have to conclude that it absolutely suffers from the usual WP:NPOV and WP:BLOATED issues that I'd expect from someone writing about their own work. It's also substantially outdated, but I guess that's a secondary issue. Renerpho (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it is late where I live, so I may not be here to respond to any comments until tomorrow. Renerpho (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry

• User:Bluerasberry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bluerasberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Does a paid editing disclosure need to disclose payment? Bluerasberry and I were talking and they suggested that we bring this question here. On their user page they disclose that they are a WiR but do not disclose whether that is a paid position or not. My understanding is that paid editors actually have to disclose that they are paid, hence a paid WiR has to disclose both WiR and paid status while a volunteer WiR would only have to disclose WiR status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  According to foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use/Frequently_asked_questions_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure: a Wikipedian in Residence who is specifically compensated to edit the article about the archive at which they are employed should make a simple disclosure that he is a paid Wikipedian in Residence with the archive. This would be sufficient disclosure for purposes of requirement. (emphasis added) It seems clear that WIR should disclosed "simply" that it is a paid role, if it is indeed the case. Towards the case of Bluerasberry, it would seem to suggest that simply prepending the word "paid" to Since March 2018 I have been paid Wikimedian-in-residence at... would be appropriate, however, in the grand scheme of things, everything said about WIR seems to always either outright say, or otherwise infer that they are paid contributors, and I'm not sure how big of a difference that single word will make in the case of Blue... TiggerJay (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree that adding the single word "paid" would end any issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Thanks. My position is that I comply with the terms of service, and I support increased clarity on disclosure. To prevent misunderstanding, the English Wikipedia community could require that all COI editors publish specific text or structured data in a specific place. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community provides Template:Paid and it is used by approximately 11,000 editors. Note that your current disclosure does not technically comply with the ToS because it does not disclose that you are paid to edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate the clarity of an exact mandate. I never made a thoughtful choice about whether to use the word "paid" or any other particular word. I would happily comply with any specific rule, and I take this conversation as an opportunity to request less ambiguity and more blanket orders.

Originally I looked to Wikimedia Foundation staff, who are the biggest category of COI/paid editors. I just looked again. I think few or none of them use that template, they do not use the word "paid", and the few I checked list a role at the organization.

It is very difficult to explain anything about this, and I have never identified a way that communicates the necessary information in a way that people understand. Misunderstandings are continuous. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more clear it, as the TOU that you agree to every time to publish is referenced and it says quite plainly, as directly quoted above "make a simple disclosure that he is a paid WIR", which seems to clearly go beyond disclosing that you are a WIR, but specifically paid. But I do also think that it is clear the word "simply disclose" which is why I would proffer simple putting the single word "paid" in front of your user page WIR disclosure would satisfy that. I think that is pretty clear policy. I do not think a userbox is required, nor any lengthy statement. But it does seem quite clear that it is required to communicate your paid status. Again, that being said, I think it should be common knowledge (and inferred) that WIR are otherwise professionally paid people who contribute. As such, adding the word paid probably will not make any difference in how people view your edits and/or userpage, but nevertheless, still quite policy compliant. TiggerJay (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That isn't common knowledge its false, WiR doesn't have to be a paid positions. WiR does not mean paid. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: "who are the biggest category of COI/paid editors" that is an interesting claim, can you provide the source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: The Wikimedia Foundation has paid hundreds of people to edit the Wikimedia platform. The fact of that organization paying people to edit the platform is common knowledge. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There are well north of ten thousand disclosed paid editors... Your numbers aren't adding up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It beggars belief to imagine that there could be a coordinated organization larger than the WMF, but which is engaged in the Wikimedia platform with a shared purpose. Almost all of those thousands of editors are unrelated spammers. Individual attention at any number of them would not have network effects on the others, as they are not connected to each other such that action on one does anything to the others. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

What you said before was "who are the biggest category of COI/paid editors" which is significantly different. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There's COI and there's "paid editing". The quote a Wikipedian in Residence who is specifically compensated to edit the article about the archive at which they are employed is about editing an article connected to an employer. Wikipedians in Residence generally don't edit articles about employers, but rather edit in a broad topic area or, more commonly, lead events, support students, communicate with various audiences about Wikipedia, scan photos, etc. It's why we tend to treat WiRs a little differently from typical "paid editors" -- because having experienced contributors in such roles tends to avoid the more problematic sort of COI/paid editing. We do have WP:WIRCOI, which just says WiR status has to be disclosed; it doesn't say "and whether it's a paid position". That said, without speaking to Bluerasberry's particular role, if you're ever in doubt I think it's generally safe to assume that Wikipedian in Residence positions are paid, regardless of what the responsibilities are. There are rare exceptions, but it's a safe assumption. As such, the request above sounds to me like "when you declared 'I work for company X', you should've actually declared 'I am paid to work for company X'". I think Bluerasberry has a point -- if I understand this point -- that we often talk to COI editors as though there are very clear steps they must comply with, and it's not always true that there are. "Paid to do Wikipedia stuff, but not necessarily edit any articles related to the employer" is one of those areas where we're not explicit beyond "disclose the COI". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

All paid edits are COI edits, not all COI edits are paid edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Not all paid edits are COI edits. If the Royal Society of Chemistry wants to pay someone to write "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" to the Water article, there is no COI. A well-designed WiR project will aim to make edits like that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

How can you not have a financial conflict of interest with a paid edit? That doesn't make any sense... Any edit which someone is paid to make has a significant conflict of interest attached. The opening of the paid section of WP:COI literally reads "Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If the RSC is paying you, that gives you a COI with respect to the RSC, its staff, its projects, etc. It doesn't give you a COI with respect to the 99.999% of human knowledge that has nothing to do with the RSC. Would you consider ""Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" to be a policy violation if a paid editor writes it? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Its your job... You have a COI with everything you do for your job. Consult a compliance professional if you have more questions. On the specific point no that wouldn't be a violation, its not forbidden its just strongly discouraged. What the paid editor is strongly encouraged to do is to propose the edit on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Only, our policies do not strongly discourage contributions from Wikipedians in residence. Nor from professors (who are paid) in the broad area of their expertise, although the latter should use restraint in the narrow area surrounding their own work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Toad Sweat

• Toad Sweat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TJGuiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Toad Sweat is about a commercial product developed by someone named Todd Guiton. The article was created by a user named TJGuiton. The article is written like an advertisement, so this clearly comes across as inappropriate self-promotion. 141.158.39.140 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It sure is written like an advertisement. I've prodded it. Bishonen | tålk 18:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC).

The prod was promptly removed by the article creator. Now at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toad Sweat. Bishonen | tålk 23:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC).

With any apologies needed, I've updated the page to include all third-party references to make the information more reliable instead of sounding as an advertisement which wasn't intended in the first instance. I have been asked to document the original dessert hot sauce and that is why the page exists and how it is documented. I will be adding more third party documentation over the next few days. Thank you for the prompt and the advice. TJGuiton (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The same editor has made the article Dessert Hot Sauce, featuring none other than Toad Sweat Dessert Hot Sauces. Sources are non-existent and almost certainly AI-generated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bishonen: do you think this can be G11'd or should this also go through AfD? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

IMO it could possibly be G11'd, Helpful Raccoon, but now that you've taken the trouble to take it to AFD, the AFD may as well run, since that will make it harder to repeatedly recreate it. Bishonen | tålk 20:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC).

JECWV

• Samuel Felinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Teenager Business (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:The Death of Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Works by Samuel Felinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Samuel Felinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Felinton family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• As the Sunflower Whispers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MUkraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David Felinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Burl Stafford Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Death of Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JECWV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SamFelinton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dunkahoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user via the AfDs for As the Sunflower Whispers and Teenager Business. I noticed that both articles were created by the same person, so I took a look at their edit history. While they have made some other edits, a large amount of their substantial edits have been to add mention of Samuel Felinton and to a lesser degree, other family members such as Felinton's father David Felinton, to Wikipedia. Other edits seem to be to places associated with Felinton, such as the college he attends, Marshall University. Many of these pages have issues with notability, some more so than others. A common theme with these pages is that when they do have non-primary sourcing, the sourcing is almost entirely local. With the Samuel Felinton article, there is some non-local coverage but it isn't specifically about them but a walkout in which they participated. It is unclear if they were someone who managed/planned the walkout or if they were a participant who happened to get mentioned in the news. My point with this is that there also seems to be some mild WP:PUFFERY going on as well.

The user has received various types of notice on their talk page. Fram has warned them about editing with a COI, which they blanked. To be fair they seem to routinely blank their page, but I'll also note that many of their page notifications have been warnings about their edits or articles.

What makes me think that there is a COI is that the user is so focused on adding Samuel Felinton to Wikipedia. They have some interest in the local area where Felinton lives, but Felinton seems to be the main draw for them. They have also uploaded various photos of Felinton, as well as gain video of his film, which they claimed as their own work. They have changed their username approximately twice: it was previously Samz73428091 and SamFelinton. The user has denied any COI and states that they are an completely unrelated person who happened to hear about him.

There are two possibilities here. The first is that they have a COI. The other is that they are as they claim to be, a completely unrelated person who decided to come on to Wikipedia to edit on a fairly obscure person and their family since first signing up in 2022. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Correction: Felinton does not attend Marshall University but did hold a premiere there. The college Felinton attends (and has been edited by JECWV) is West Virginia University - the user also added Felinton to the List of West Virginia University alumni. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• The pattern of edits would be pretty concerning even without the smoking gun of their first username being User:SamFelinton (or the slipup of arguing can other people be named Samuel? [sic]). I think a topic ban from all Samuel and David Felinton-related content, broadly construed, is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  On the other hand, if they decide they have WP:ANIFLU and fail to comment here, I think an indefinite site block is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey guys, I will admit to a COI. Sorry for the inconveniences I caused. JECWV (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Great, and can you read through WP:COI and acknowledge that you'll follow that guideline's instructions from here on out? @JECWV: _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I read through the WP:COI and acknowledge that I'll follow the guideline's instructions from here on out. JECWV (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it would also be a good idea for you to review these modules on editing. While aimed at students, they give a good overview of notability and sourcing, among other things. These handouts (also by the same group) go over subject specific notability guidelines - also a good guide.

I am glad to see you admitting to the COI - my cautions here are these: make sure that you stay away from editing on the Felinton family and make sure that you learn/follow notability and sourcing guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding Burl Stafford Bridge by the same user. Seems completely unnotable. Per David Felinton, Felinton is the grandson inlaw of Burl Stafford. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Also added Category:Felinton family by the same user. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have a new concern. Dunkahoop, JECWV, what is your relation to one another?

For context, Dunkahoop created a new article on a Felinton film, The Death of Film. This occurred after the COI discussion was created and after JECWV confessed that they had a COI on Felinton related topics. This movie is very non-notable, as it's only received local coverage. It only has three pages of Google hits - most of which are either database listings, primary sources, or junk hits.

I will be blunt. It's extremely suspicious that this page is created after JECWV was told that they will be facing a topic ban on the Felinton family. It makes me wonder if Dunkahoop was asked to create this page, because the chances of them randomly finding this topic and deciding to create an article about it is extremely unlikely. Even if we assume that Dunkahoop is very, very interested in AI related film topics, this movie is so obscure that it's very unlikely that one would randomly discover this - they're more likely to know about it because they were told. And given the lack of overall coverage or discussion, it's unlikely that this is commonly discussed anywhere as well.

Dunkahoop - if you were asked to create this, particularly for compensation, you need to disclose this. It's recommended in general if you are asked, but required if you are being compensated. JECWV - if you have asked Dunkahoop to create this page, then this could be seen as you trying to evade the potential topic ban or repercussions from it. This could be seen as WP:BADFAITH on your part.

What is everyone's take on this? I feel like this is extremely suspicious given everything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no clue who this person is, I've personally will be stepping away form editing for a week and came back and did see that page. I have no connection to this person. JECWV (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I created the article not knowing of the COI with JECWV (I didn't know about him before this). Contrary to what ReaderofthePack suspects, I found the page on my own. I was browsing the List of cinematic firsts article and discovered the film, and given that it is the first feature film made with AI, I felt it was notable in that respect to deserve an article. I know that very little sources existed for the article (I tried looking for them and the website the film is supposed to be viewed on, and couldn't find them), so my intention was to start it and expand upon it when more information became available and the website for the film was launched. And yes, I am very much into AI, particularly it's applications in filmmaking. Last summer I majorly expanded the article for The Last Screenwriter, a film written entirely by ChatGPT.

Regarding Felinton, I have never met him and have zero connections to him, and I only just heard about him through this film. I wrote the article independently and without payment or having been asked by anyone to do so. If the film isn't notable enough, then I won't be upset if we move to delete the article, and I won't try to make it again. Dunkahoop 15:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

My apologies then - but with the page, please be careful and make sure to validate the claims before creating the article. It appears that there are a good many films making a same or similar claim - some of which predate The Death of Film. There is a long, long history of people coming to Wikipedia and adding various topics to Wikipedia, claiming to be the first. To be frank, it's extremely common for people to use it as a form of WP:PUFFERY - even outside of Wikipedia it's a pretty common marketing and promotional tool.

Where this poses an issue on Wikipedia is that it's extremely common for people to come on to Wikipedia and create articles for non-notable topics where the topic is claimed to be the first at something. Sometimes it's deliberately done in an attempt to promote a topic and prevent deletion. Other times it can be a case of someone just not being aware that others might have done it first (quite possibly the situation here with the director).

That's why it's so direly important to find independent, reliable secondary reliable sources that discuss and back up the claim. It's possible that being the first or a pioneer in something can establish notability - but it's also extremely likely that it doesn't. It's also important to make sure to validate claims when seeing a redlink on an article, because the above situations are so common. One redlink might be for a topic that passes notability guidelines while the next might solidly fail. In this situation the only people claiming it's the first is the director and local sources reporting on a local person. That should have been a sign to do deeper research and question the claim.

Again, my apologies - but you have to understand that we had a situation where a COI editor came in to promote the Felinton family. Then, suddenly, after they were told they were facing a topic ban, another editor swooped in and suddenly created an undersourced article on that topic. I would recommend reviewing the resources I listed for JECWV as far as sourcing and establishing notability goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I want to again emphasize the importance of not relying solely on someone saying "this was first" in an article. If it was an academic/scholarly article published in a journal about film and/or AI, then that would be different - but a claim in an article should be questioned until you have strong sourcing in an article backing it up. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Formally added the article and Dunkahoop to the discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Philip S. Hess

• Philip S. Hess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rarely I burden myself with thinking (talk · contribs)

This article has been meticulously prepared and formatted off-Wiki and posted in only 1 edit with just 2 further edits to add cats. Over-sourcing: 15 refs for a 188 word article, most of which repeat the same basic information and no in-depth coverage. The article may be a UPE.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It has been moved to Draft:Philip S. Hess. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)