Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.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:Ada Aharoni
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Charlotte Hornets
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:CoStar Group
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Barbara Dane
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Epic Aircraft
    Talk:Fano (militia)
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Insteon
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Principal component analysis
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Sarepta Therapeutics
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:TradingView
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    Ek Main Aur Ek Two

    [edit]
    Ramdattabuvaji blocked indef. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor is solely interested in writing about Paritosh Painter and his works, but doesn't take heed of the multiple COI notices, speedy deletions, ... on their user talk page. This has been going on for months, and disruption continued today Fram (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You can add Ek Main Aur Ek Two - Hindi comedy play to the above list. Fram (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramdattabuvaji has been registered since 2018 and has only edited pages related to Paritosh Painter, which strongly suggests a COI. I would recommend that they be blocked if they continue their COI editing, as this appears to be a SPA and not WP:HTBAE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Persistent COI user was blocked yesterday by Star Mississippi. With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all! Fram (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Howard Maibach

    [edit]

    This editor is a single-purpose account who has twice added a lengthy list of books to the article on the dermatologist Howard Maibach. I have asked him on his Talk page whether he is, or is connected to Maibach. Sungodtemple has asked him twice whether he is Maibach. He hasn't answered either of us. Would be grateful if anyone else can have a look, and perhaps be more successful than I have been at communicating with this editor. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the material and instructed the user to comment on whether or not they have a COI, either here or on their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just some further background on the timeline here:
    user:Dermatotoxicologist first added the list of books on the 28/Aug.
    Tacyarg asked the user about COI on 31/Aug (and received no response).
    Derma(etc) was then asked for clarification on possible COI on 11/Sept by user:Sungodtemple who then removed the list of books.
    Dema(etc) responded to Sungodtemple without making any comment on the COI issue.
    Sungodtemple then pointed out the removal, gave the reason for removal, and asked once again about COI (again receiving no response).
    Then four weeks later Derma(etc) returned to the article to add the list again – presumably working on the assumption that no one was watching.
    The only reasonable conclusion, I would suggest, is that the user does have an undeclared conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Dermatotoxicologist is not responding and continue to edit the said BLP, it seems clear they are not WP:HTBAE but are instead engaging in COI editing, which is discouraged. Their username also suggests they may be the subject themselves or closely connected to them. @Dermatotoxicologist: Please understand that you may face a block if you don’t respond soon. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    COI editing is discouraged, but author bibliography might be ok on the ground of WP:NOTPRICE #6. I'm saying might, because I don't know if different expectations apply for a biography for someone who is notable an author or someone notable for something else, but also happens to author stuff on the side. Not saying that this person meets WP:ANYBIO as I haven't done any search yet. I deal with promotional editing all the time involving companies such as record label articles showing each artist, or each release. Graywalls (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RaviEditor and Umar Saif

    [edit]

    This account RaviEditor was registered in April this year and is a SPA that only edits the Umar Saif's BLP, primarily adding PROMO content and removing well-sourced information they dislike. This clearly indicates a COI in their editing. I warned them multiple times, but there has been no response. Instead, they are engaging in edit warring. I suggest they should be blocked to encourage a response at the very least. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I filed the report, the editor has started contributing to other articles, seemingly to create the impression they're not a SPA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Longterm Academic boosterm user:Richardatlarge

    [edit]

    This appears to be covert self advert account that has been going for over a decade whose apparent purpose is to increase the academic prominence of one Richard Degrandpre. This self promoting activity became quite obvious after their declined draft in July 2024. Someone warned them about COI back in July, however given the long term pattern, its likely they might come back. Also, that didn't address the rather covert self-promo. It only addressed the suspeted autobiography writing. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very concerning, although I would note that at the very beginning this account was not covert... [1], for their first month on wiki in 2007 they were open about their identity. Based on a good faith reading of that I would characterize these promotional efforts as more overt than covert, that does not however excuse them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say it was covert, because they continued promotional editing after they've made their user page less conspicuous and making others have to go through the user page edit history. Graywalls (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that while its interesting to try and get in their head it really doesn't matter... This is a bright line violation either way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And before this, something like this about the same author was being done by a publisher agent: Special:Diff/104146851 Graywalls (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the user seems to have been engaged in an amount of self-citation over the years, and is currently engaged in trying to get a self-authored article about himself into Wikipedia (albeit not very successfully). Upon returning to Wikipedia after a 3 year hiatus to start work on his own article he appears to have commenced work by removing certain info [2] from his user page which would otherwise have connected him to the subject of the article.
    I also noticed the following thread [3] which the user initiated, and where he very animatedly appears to try to get (previously removed) negative allegations installed on the article for another author. Given that the user seems to be an effective WP:SPA on himself and matters that he is related to, I couldn't help but wonder if there was some form of link.
    It seems to be the only issue on Wikipedia that he is animated about, and appears to be both arbitrary and to correspond with the second time his autobiographical article was declined. So, what do we have here, WP:RGW, WP:COI, WP:POINT or something else?
    It seems to me like a most unusual post for an editor to have posted on Wikipedia and I do wonder if it should either be revdelled or the user be warned not to use Wikipedia in this way again?
    The material that the user is animated about was added to the relevant article twice by two IP addresses, here [4] and here [5]. It seems that only 2 IP users and one registered user have any interest in this issue, so what is going on? Axad12 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:NOTHERE is the bets fit. They're not here to build an encyclopedia, but to increase his prominence in the academia in the hope of scholars coming to articles, seeing their work cited, then cite those works in other scholarly work. Graywalls (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I removed a further instance of self-citing here [6]. I also noted that one of the user's books was one of only seven 'Books & Journals' listed at the end of the article for prominent UK politician Michael Gove. Not sure which user added it there but it was clearly tangential (or irrelevant?) to the subject matter so I removed it. Possibly an instance of self-citing, possibly not, but removed either way [7].
    In fairness to the user, he does seem to have disappeared since being told in July that he wasn't notable and that autobiography was suspected.
    Re: the other material mentioned in my earlier post. I will ask the owner of the talk page if they will delete it. The issues referred to have previously been deleted twice from the article concerned, presumably on the basis that they are poorly sourced, potentially defamatory and non-BLP compliant. That being the case, they probably shouldn't be sitting on someone's talk page either. Axad12 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Faisal Mahmud Faizee

    [edit]
    Justice FAISAL MAHMUD FAIZEE blocked indef. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New SPA has been white-washing the article which is clearly about themself. Numerous warnings have been issued including a final warning and the article has bee Draftified by Wikishovel. I have posted an extended warning about COI on their talk page but everything has been ignored.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Justice FAISAL MAHMUD FAIZEE is persistently removing sourced content, which disrupts the editing process, I recommend a temporary block. This would enable another editor to take over the control of the BLP for the time being. PS. If they are indeed the subject themselves, as their username suggests, it's quite ironic that a high court judge would be engaging in such editing behavior and violating our P&Gs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User now indefinitely blocked by Star Mississippi. Axad12 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the Braveheart of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh" now that is some over the top promotion! COI or not there are some clear issues here Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Metalworker14

    [edit]

    I've definitively determined there's a strong COI between the editor and the band Symphony of Heaven and personally identifying private evidence has been emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. It isn't hard to find it, but we can't directly post such information. I am opening the case here, because I suspect further promotional activity such as promoting bands, record labels or sources cited within the articles the editor created. The user is a prolific creator of articles about Christian Metal and Metal bands, albums and record labels. Suspicion was triggered when Metalworker14 uploaded an image into Symphony of Heaven through Commons, stating that they were the copyright holder only for me to find that it's a downsized version of the black and white photo right above "biography" from the band's official website. The band's website is copyrighted and does not identify the author of the photo, and the photo that was on Commons did not have VRT verification. The user has previously been notified about uploading an image from the band's Facebook. In the process of investigating copyright matters, I browsed the band's website and came upon "For managemental concerns: Return to Dust Promotions" at contact section of the page. When I went to seek information on that company, the search result suggests COI with the extensively cited source "The Metal Onslaught Magazine is extensively cited in Symphony of Heaven as well as other articles created by the same author. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I cannot comment on whether there is a COI issue with the article you flagged without seeing the off-wiki evidence you found, I would like to add that this website themetalonslaught.com is not a RS at all, yet Metalworker14 has excessively used it across many articles which raises serious suspicions that they may have a COI with the magazine. I strongly suggest they stop using this source entirely unless they receive approval at WP:RSN. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib:, I believe that there is COI with the Magazine and the inserting party, actually. I just had to be really careful to not go foul of WP:OUTING but if you spend a few minutes Googling, it should become clear. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Off-wiki evidence does suggest that they have a COI with both Symphony of Heaven and Ascending King. And according to our P&Gs, Metalworker14 is required to declare their COI either on their user page or on the tps of the relevant articles, which they have yet to do so I strongly urge them to do so as soon as possible. Also, I recommend they refrain from directly editing these articles but if they continue to ignore these warnings, a temporary block may be necessary to get their attention. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Symphony of Heaven is one thing, but the bigger issue is the extensive use of sources they're closely related to that are not WP:RS trying to bolster the notability of non-notable bands, albums and recording companies. If you spent more than a minute or two searching with the research skills held by quite a few Wiki editors, that should become obvious. All I can say is that it's highly plausible and convincing that Metalworker14 has vested interest to promote certain authors and certain magazines, production and promotion companies. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is absolutely correct. The user has created over 150 articles and the frequency with which certain sources and authors are used would be considered industrial grade spam if those references were being added to pre-existing articles.
    The fact that the user created the articles themselves and used these non WP:RS compliant sources to support notability makes the matter worse rather than better.
    To be honest, the sheer number of links makes me wonder if Search engine optimization was a factor here. Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a large part of what music promoters do. Outside evidence suggests involvement of suspected COI editor partaking in the promotion business. Perhaps themetalonslaught needs to be suggested for Mediawiki blacklisting. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so. There is no place on Wikipedia for this sort of activity. Axad12 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a membership overlap between Symphony of Heaven, Timoratus, Ascending King, The Thlipsis, Mystic Winter. Also a member from those bands having COI with these sources cited by the user in question here
    Metal Onslaught Magazine, Life of Defiance Podcast.
    Other COI possibilities are Return to Dust Promotions and Battlefrost Productions Graywalls (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12:, were you able to locate the source referring to these? Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, A couple of days ago I had a look at the references for every 6th article that the user had created (as listed on their user page). I saw enough to appreciate that, as per your earlier comments, there was a recurring reliance on a rather small number of particular sources and authors. On that basis I was inclined to agree with your estimation that the user was involved in promotion and that there was certainly a clear and transparent conflict of interest in relationship to a particular individual.
    However, I must admit that I do not recall specific sources at this point in time as I seem to have been quite busy on this noticeboard in the intervening two days and this thread had rather slipped from my mind. Axad12 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Gilbertson (climber)

    [edit]

    User User:KnowledgeIsPower9281 has a likely conflict of interest with Eric Gilbertson (climber). The majority of that article's references constitute links to the subject's personal blog. In addition, KnowledgeIsPower9281 is engaged in taking original research presented in said blog that is being used as a reference on multiple articles. This includes ones they created (see examples here and here) and existing articles such as Mount Rainier where a discussion on the talk page regarding these edits is ongoing.

    KnowledgeIsPower9281 has received notes reminding them the need to disclose COI here and here, both of which were ignored. Their use of original research is disruptive and they are by far the primary author of Eric Gilbertson (climber), which I nominated for AfD last week. I am bringing up the COI notice here because of disruptive edits elsewhere. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ Cane, First, since you’ve already nominated the BLP for deletion, I don’t understand the logic behind filing this COI/N report. Second, which blog are you referring to that is being used as a reference in multiple articles? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response @Saqib. If there is a better place to handle the original research edits, please let me know. The blog is referenced as Country Highpoints. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DJ Cane, I agree that countryhighpoints.com is not a RS, but a WP:SPS and KnowledgeIsPower9281 appears to be aware of this concern, as reflected on the article's tp, yet they continue to cite it across multiple pages, including on this BLP which is concerning. In light of this, I would suggest that an admin step in and issue a warning to KnowledgeIsPower9281 to cease citing this WP:SPS going forward.
    As for the issues with the BLP, since the article is already at AFD, it may be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion. If the BLP is kept, I recommend initiating a discussion on the article's talk page to try to resolve the WP:OR concerns there and incase if that approach doesn’t lead to a resolution, you can revisit the issue here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at edit history of Eric's article, the timing of edits suggest some kind of off-wiki coordination with another editor named Keithgilbertson (talk · contribs) which has all of two edits under their account. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is mentioned in my conflict of interest declaration. It appeared that Eric's father independently uploaded a picture of Eric on the summit of K2 in 2022. I was not contacted by him, but thanked him for the contribution and fixed the formatting of the file. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all, I have declared the COI. I believe Gilbertson's achievements are notable in the climbing world, so if other editors rewrite the page in a more encyclopedic tone, decrease the reliance on the subject's blog, and use some of the reliable sources Gilbertson has done interview with (mentioned on talk page), could the article still be salvaged? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KnowledgeIsPower9281, Thank you for declaring your COI. Whether the BLP is kept or not will be decided at the AFD, so I suggest you wait for the outcome there. If the BLP is kept, I recommend avoiding direct edits to the article and instead, please use the BLP's talk page to propose any changes. In the meantime, as I mentioned above, please refrain from using countryhighpoints.com as a source in articles. I’ve noticed that it has been repeatedly cited across multiple articles by you. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to surveys he's done on mountain peaks and highpoints is Peakbagger sufficient as a source? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Peakbagger has been used as a source extensively, but things written directly by him don't meet the guideline. If his survey leads to Peakbagger updating their updating the elevation info section, this seems fine to me for minor mountains. Major mountains like Mount Rainier should not have this information presented in the infobox but can have it discussed in the body because in instances like Mount Rainier there remains a large body of official reporting, which should be favored over Peakbagger. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've abated a bunch of original research that's not directly supportable by the Peakbagger sources. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @KnowledgeIsPower9281:, what is the nature of your relationship with various corporate sponsored events, if any? I am seeing you've started multiple sports related events, only citing the event owner/sponsors. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Graywalls, see my response in my user talk page. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite denial, it seems like the Gilbertsons are kept in loop somehow. Keithgilbertson (talk · contribs) somehow joined while edits were actively taking place, and now Eric Gilbertson is involved in Eric Gilbertson (talk · contribs) on this topic. I'm quite persuaded that there's some level of coordination taking place outside of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Graywalls, as stated in my conflict of interest disclosure which I hope you have read, Keithgilbertson independently uploaded the K2 photo. As my COI disclosure states, Eric and I have discussed his measurements. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. The timing suggests though, they have been kept in the loop about Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (arbitrary break)
    [edit]

    Be sure to check out Talk:Mount_Rainier#Name_of_Mt._Rainier. Graywalls (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And again Special:Diff/1251612282 here. I have been tracking articles that contain the reference "countryhighpoints.com" and removing them; as I do with many bloggy/questionable sources identified to be widely scattered. Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite the warnings above, @KnowledgeIsPower9281: continues to add clearly unreliable sources, suggesting a potential WP:IDHT issue. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib, As I have previously stated on other talk pages, I will comply with WP policy and will stop using Peakbagger and countryhighpoints.com as sources. As I have told Graywalls, countryhighpoints.com and Peakbagger have been used as sources on WP long before I started editing, so I am not solely responsible for their usage on WP and it should be forgiven that, until very recently, I considered them (especially Peakbagger) as sound to use (i.e: Uzbekistan article). Of course, I now know better and will listen to the community on this as per WP:IDHT so as not to disrupt WP articles. However, please don't act as though I haven't been collaborative and cooperative with other editors as I have listened to what they had to say and adjusted my editing accordingly. I will of course refrain from editing anything major until a consensus, agreement, or compromise is reached between editors. Also, you should know that I have acknowledged that for Gilbertson's survey to be included on WP, multiple reliable secondary sources must be cited for its inclusion. Thank you. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only major edit I did on Rainier's height was changing the height to 14,410 which was an undisputed edit as the NPS & USGS use that value. While I added the survey back with secondary sources, other editors removed it (until a consensus is reached) which I did not object to. A footnote explains the 14,410 and 14,411 values, and mentions the 2024 survey, while the height of the mountain section explains only the former two currently. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief note to say that the creation of an account for Eric Gilbertson since this thread began and that account's contributions at the Mount Rainier talk page appear to be as textbook an example of WP:MEATPUPPETRY as could be imagined. That Gilbertson went directly to that page to make effectively the same argument as his own Wiki-biographer demonstrates obvious off-wiki co-ordination.
    The activity is clearly solely motivated by spamming links to a blog and generally promoting Gilbertson. Axad12 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as described in my conflict of interest disclosure, my talking with Eric of course has influence on my opinion. With that said, please do not assume my motivations for editing Wikipedia which are to improve the accuracy of the site and are in good faith. If you need more information, read through my user talk page and the Rainier talk page. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even past behaviors such as submitting Eric Gilbertson (climber) for creation and getting declined twice in AfC, then pushing it through on their own into mainspace followed by repeated insertions of countryhighpoints.com and Gilbertson stat containing peakbagger.com source is strongly indicative of more COI beyond casually having acquainted and started talking Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal was not to promote Gilbertson, it was to promote correct and factual information that he uncovered which I now know currently does not fall under WP policy for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I have agreed to not edit until a consensus is made, and have agreed to not use country highpoints or peakbagger as a source anymore. Also, I am better learning WP policy through this entire ordeal. Respectfully, Graywalls, I would appreciate it if you back off a little as I am no longer editing in the way you have mentioned and the conflict of interest describes everything. As a highpointer myself who has talked with him casually of course I consider his findings to be important, but through this experience know that WP policy requires his findings to have more substantial secondary coverage. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12:, Another thing I've noticed are novel names like Sare Firasu Hill for which there's no reliable source for and can only find user generated bloggy websites that even use that name. Credible sources like https://www.worldatlas.com/about only shows the highest point in Gambia as "unnamed". There are several places created by the same editor like this and those aren't even appropriate as a re-direct when name/location relationship can not be established in credible sources. Those are mainly based on Countryhighpoints.com or Gilbertson name containing Peakbagger.com. It degrades the information to noise ratio and removing those things start to become time consuming. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This all looks like very bad faith disruptive editing.
    Better if the various meatpuppets stick to editing their blog.
    They could even put a bio of Gilbertson there. Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that it is bad faith editing. I think it represents a long-duration of unnoticed and uncorrected poor editing that the editor has indicated they will correct. There seems to be a small movement to come down extremely hard against this user which I strongly disagree with.
    That it has created a tedious problem for other editors to clean up is not lost on me. @KnowledgeIsPower9281 could and should involve themself in the cleanup. I think we should assume good faith that they will improve their practices going forward and keep to their commitment regarding sourcing. If significant problems continue after these exchanges then we can point back to this and other current discussions as evidence of knowledge. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article has been declined twice at AfC and the COI creator installs the article into mainspace themselves, I would say that is a bad faith act. Axad12 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was a bad faith act. I don't think all of them were, though. I am content with the level of change the editor has indicated. If it holds, no problem remains beyond cleaning up the mess. If it doesn't hold, it won't be hard to handle the problem. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but for my money that single bad faith act is at the very centre of this COI editor's activity. However, ultimately the articles will be deleted and the edits will be reverted, so the good or bad faith of it all is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't take any initiative to pickup the mess they've deposited even after acknowledging countryhighpoints.com fails to meet sourcing standards. In fact, there's been a few instance where they re-added Gilbertson blog after removal and they were the one who added it in the first place. The re-addition happened after the COI discussion was already in progress. AGF doesn't expect us to indefinitely assume so. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls, I re-added it because I had a misconception of Peakbagger being a reliable source under WP policy and I accidentally added the blog back in there when reverting an edit. It's clear now what is reliable and what is not reliable on WP and I have adjusted my actions accordingly, and will not add anything from a blog (unless the information discussed has substantial secondary coverage and is cleared by other editors). As DJ Cane has said, there is no need to beat a dead horse on this subject. The edits will be reverted (I think most of them have at this point) and we can move on with our lives. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    https://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1275281 I just found this off-wiki discussion about this that was started on Thu Oct 17, 2024 14:09 (UTC) Snippet says "Wikipedia Editors Removing Peakbagger and ... Wikipedia editors are actively purging all pages of elevations taken from Peakbagger or from my dGPS surveys." Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The original post in that off-wiki discussion has now been deleted. Interesting to see, however, that one of the later contributors to that discussion felt that user:KnowledgeIsPower9281 may be a sockpuppet account of Eric Gilbertson, a suggestion that has already been made at Eric Gilbertson's Wikipedia talkpage. Let us hope that no further new editors arrive on Wikipedia to carry out the same agenda, or that thread will look a lot like off-wiki canvassing (if indeed it was not already that, hard to tell when the original post has been deleted).
    I note that in Eric Gilbertson's recent post [8] at Mount Rainer he said The article is now more accurate and complies with the wishes of the park. and I advise using NGVD29 for all elevations to be consistent with the park’s wishes.
    So, not only does user:KnowledgeIsPower9281 have a COI in relation to Eric Gilbertson, but Eric Gilbertson has an undeclared CoI in relation to reflecting the wishes of Mount Rainer National Park.
    So, does KnowledgeIsPower also have an undeclared CoI in relation to Mount Rainier National Park, since the editing agenda of the two accounts is indistinguishable and there has been clear off-wiki coordination between the two.
    Also worth noting that both users seem to have almost simultaneously announced that they have given up trying to install Gilbertson-related material on Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I have given up, it's that I will only add material pertaining to Eric and his surveys if it has secondary independent coverage. Given my COI, I will consult with other editors before adding it. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the umpteenth time, as my conflict of interest disclosure states, I am not Eric Gilbertson. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't suggest that you were Eric Gilbertson. I simply observed that suggestions to that effect had been made both on- and off- Wiki, presumably due to the extent to which your editing agenda matches Gilbertson's. Axad12 (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no conflict of interest with Mount Rainier National Park as I have not been in contact with any park official. The 14410 value is "officially recognized" by the government as it is mentioned on the Rainier NP and USGS websites. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so Gilbertson was editing to reflect the wishes of Mount Rainier National Park and you were editing to raise awareness of Gilbertson's work. I'm glad to hear that it was only a matter of the purest coincidence that those two very different editing agendas seemed to align so very closely at the Mount Rainier talk page between the 16th and 18th October. Thank you for the clarification. Axad12 (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Gilberson does have stake in not wanting to upset the NPS in that not upsetting the referee/judge/professor way since they're the one considering it. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was editing to improve the accuracy of the encyclopedia as his work reflected the most accurate information on country highpoints. Now I know that WP policy does not allow blogs or peakbagger so coverage on Eric can only be through reliable secondary sources. May I ask what the outcome of this conflict of interest discussion will be? I think it's time to wrap it up and move on with our lives as I have learned proper editing conduct on Wikipedia and will no longer be editing in the way I previously did. Due to the conflict of interest, I will always consult an editor before adding content related to Eric. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Castro

    [edit]

    User Eigilvesti, who has been editing the article "Rick Castro" since 2020, has just stated on his talk page that he is the subject of the article, Rick Castro. I have in the past tried to deal with the promotionalism and poor sourcing in the article, but wearied of it and slacked off. I'm posting links to WP:COI and WP:RS to the user talk page. I would appreciate other eyes on the article. Donald Albury 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eigilvesti (or better said, Rick Castro) has been editing their own BLP since 2007 and has been given enough warnings by now, but if they still won’t stop writing their AUTOBIO, I honestly don’t know what will make them stop. I must note that the BLP is in poor shape, with significant issues of WP:OR and PROMO content and it’s evident that Rick Castro is using Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, which violates our P&Gs. While I don’t wish to sound overly harsh, but I believe it may be time for Eigilvesti to be temporarily blocked to give them the opportunity to reconsider their approach. A temporary block could help reinforce that they do not own the BLP and should refrain from editing it directly going forward. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this reeks of over policing. all my sources are verified and factual. this is the history of my art. nothing is make up, created, fake or slanderous. Eigilvesti (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eigilvesti, I don’t want you to get blocked, but it’s important to respect our P&Gs, especially regarding AUTOBIO, which is not allowed - even if you're citing RS. You’ve been editing here since 2007, but continuing to insert PROMO content is wasting others' time. Even if you're a SPA but as long as you comply with the P&Gs, you’re welcome to continue editing and proposing changes on the BLP talk page. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. I do my best to comply.. I guess I will not post for awhile, since this all makes me nervous. Wikipedia is important to me and I don't want to abuse it. could you please restore my most recent post? all the sources are publications and posting by the book shops and venues in question. thank you for your time. Eigilvesti (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the sources you have offered have not been compliant with our guidelines. Beyond that, being verifiable from reliable sources is a requirement, but not a guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia. Content that the community regards as "promotional" is subject to removal regardless of the reliability of sources supporting it. Donald Albury 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the article here is problematic on a number of counts, which is presumably the result of long term conflict of interest editing...
    I've removed an amount of unsourced material from the article, including a long section on Critical Assessment which was entirely unsourced. The article was tagged for needing extra citations 5 years ago so the subject/COI editor has had abundant opportunity to locate and add these. I would encourage Eigilvesti to track down relevant WP:RS citations where possible and present them at the article talk page via a COI edit request (details of the process can be found here: WP:COI).
    I'll leave it to others to address the original research, promo and reliable sourcing issues. There are also some issues around overall tone. However, I must say that the article in its current form seems to me to be very poor indeed. It is essentially just a long list of disembodied sentences listing lots of things the subject has done. Some of these sentences are linked together to form paragraphs but it can't be avoided that it basically says: 'Rick Castro did this. Castro did that. Rick did the other' ad nauseum without any sense in which the reader is learning anything about the subject except being exposed to a list of exhibitions and awards.
    The overall impression is that most of the article is WP:UNDUE coverage and just an indiscriminate collection of facts. For example, the article is peppered with facts like the subject attending book signings, receiving grants, etc., none of which is encyclopaedic information. Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The critical assessment you have removed are from transcripts by art historian Edward Lucie Smith and publisher Mark Harvey. They were not posted by me. This is the bases of my artwork since the beginning. Now that this has been removed there is nothing to give readers an idea of what my photography is about. If you go to the page of art photographer, Joel-Peter Witkin- (whom I worked for throughout the 80s, and is a source) it has similar verifications of criticism, actually Witkin has less sources than my page. If one is not allowed to add to the bio, then it becomes a list of events. This all reeks of prejudicial hypocrisy. Eigilvesti (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eigilvesti, Did someone tell you that you're not the owner of your article? If you have concerns about someone removing or adding something, please raise them on the article's talk page, not here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in an earlier post, I would encourage Eigilvesti to track down relevant WP:RS citations where possible and present them at the article talk page via a COI edit request (details of the process can be found here: WP:COI). Material in Wikipedia articles must be reliably sourced, according to WP:V and WP:RS. Material that is not properly sourced can be removed. If WP:RS sources are presented at the article talk page the removed material may be reinstated, in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
    Eigilvesti, I have just spent the last 30-45 minutes going through your article making various minor changes to reflect the general Wikipedia Manual of Style, to remove some elements of trivia and promotionalism, adding wikilinks, etc.
    The reason that I did that was not because I am a prejudiced hypocrite, as per you comment above, but because (despite having no interest in you) I care about standards on Wikipedia and because your many years of conflict of interest editing had left the article in a poor state.
    If you had declared your conflict of interest some years ago, when you were asked to do so, then the article would have had more eyes on it and the various COI edits would have been scrutinised for suitability, wording, references, etc., etc. at the times that they were made. Because that didn't happen, the article needed scrutiny now in relation to a lot of past edits.
    As it stands there are still a fair amount of issues with the remaining text but I will leaves those for others to deal with.
    I'd also advise you to refrain from making entirely groundless personal attacks against people who volunteer their time to clear up the years of mess created by undeclared COI editors such as yourself. If anyone is being hypocritical here it is the person who created the mess and now apparently objects to the tidy up in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some further thoughts which may be of assistance to you...
    The removed Critical Assessment section, apart from being unsourced, was also written in the style of an essay (rather than an encyclopaedia article) and appeared to contain much original research which I assume would be very difficult or impossible to source.
    Even simple statements like the following would need to be adequately sourced: In including humor in his work, Castro confounds the Baroque—which focuses on simple, strong, dramatic expression—in favor of Mannerism, and he avoids the self-conscious, overcharged, unnaturally detailed, jarring elements of Mannerism. But if no one can be found to have said anything resembling that in print then it is just a user's own opinion and is thus, unfortunately, inadmissable.
    To work on a revised section on Critical Assessment I'd suggest that you start off by gathering as much material as you can that other people have written about your work, and then write something (from a neutral point of view) that you know can be adequately sourced throughout.
    If, on the other hand, you were to start with the removed section and try to add sources all the way through it then I expect that may be a frustrating task.
    Hopefully these notes are of assistance, Axad12 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alison Creagh

    [edit]

    Hawkeye7 created an article about the President of the Australian Paralympic Committee and nominated it for DYK. They dispute having a COI here, despite Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Serendipity, e.g. "media representative, with accreditation supplied by Paralympics Australia" and "Support from Paralympics Australia did not end in Australia. In Paris, they had set up headquarters at a site near the Paralympic Village known as "Our Mob", which contained meeting rooms, a TV studio, dining room and a McCafé concession (McDonald's being one of their sponsors). Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies." Fram (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hawkeye7: Writing a BLP about someone who sponsored your trip to the 2024 Paralympics to enhance Wikipedia content is one thing, but nominating their BLP for DYK seems a bit excessive and might not reflect well on you as an editor. I get that Fram has valid concerns, but I also see that you declined any involvement of paid editing, so to help ease the tension, I’d suggest you consider withdrawing your DYK nom. If someone else finds it interesting, they can always nominate it later! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Paralympics Australia did not sponsor my trip to Paris; it provided my media accreditation and assistance and support for our activities. I have never been involved in paid editing; this allegation is false and baseless. The article cannot be re-nominated later. WP:DYKRULES: At the time of nomination, an article must be considered new, which means it was created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to good article status in the seven days preceding a nomination. Nor can I withdraw it, for that is the prerogative of the reviewer and prep area builder. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, for the clarity, I didn’t allege you were involved in paid editing.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was Fram. All I have done is carry out my role as Wikimedian in Residence, writing articles to expand our coverage of Australian paralympians, coaches and administrators, and Australians at the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, here are some quotes from your Signpost article:
    Media accreditation meant that I had access to the media tribunes at the venues and could attend any game even when the event was sold out (as was usually the case). [...]. It meant that we could use the buses of the [...] the Olympic transport system. It meant we had access to the resources of the Main Press Centre (MPC) and the Venue Media Centres (VMCs) [...] It meant that my photographer [...] had access to the Nikon store at the Stade de France, where she was able to get some of her equipment repaired and borrow some very expensive equipment for the duration of the games to supplement the gear she had brought with her from Australia – all for free. (My emphasis on 'all for free').
    And Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies (presumably also for free).
    And Getting from one venue to another involved a trip on the Paris Metro using the Navigo cards issued to us as part of our media kit. Each day we criss-crossed the city on the Metro as we moved from one venue to the next.
    This all sounds like quite a trip. Adding up the financial benefits of this package, what would be the approximate equivalent cash value? Would, say, USD500-1,000 cover it? And what about cost of flights, accommodation, etc?
    The idea that there was no financial conflict of interest seems to be quite baseless. There is no meaningful difference between being paid for doing something and being given a large amount of expensive benefits for free.
    The project to create large numbers of articles on Australian paralympians has been going in since 2011. During that time you have created many such articles and, based on your Signpost article, attended multiple competitions, possibly under similar terms to those described above. That being the case, what do you estimate to be the total value of benefits received over that period from Paralympics Australia or other organisations?
    You deny conflict of interest and paid editing, so I think it would be useful to have a financial figure here to allow other editors to estimate to what extent that was (or was not) the case.
    Please note that WP:PAID states: Paid contributions on Wikipedia involve editing any page in exchange for compensation, including money or other incentives. (Again, my emphasis on other incentives).
    If an editor is in receipt of lucrative fringe benefits for the duration of a trip where they are researching future potential articles in relation to those who provided those fringe benefits then under the definition above the editor is being paid. However, regardless of that fact, the existence of COI seems quite clear. Axad12 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefits listed were all used to produce articles and images for Wikipedia. There was no personal use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That cannot possibly be true because the articles that were produced could as easily have been produced while sitting at home in front of a television and/or the internet. The images were taken by someone else so that is irrelevant.
    As far as I can see it was just an expensive free holiday which had no bearing on the creation of article text.
    The only possible exception would be the creation of the article on Alison Creagh, the president of the organisation who paid for the free holiday while you were an undisclosed paid editor... which leads us back to the obvious conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. Being present is a vital part. The difference between what can be done when one is present and absent is stark. A lot of material was gathered which could be obtained in no other way. And I was not editing in exchange for anything. That was not my motivation at all. My concern was to expand the coverage of disability sports, particularly women's sports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is nonsensical to claim that it is necessary to witness an event to be able to write an article on it. Articles are based on material in published sources, not what someone saw with their own eyes or info received directly from discussion with a subject. Axad12 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also would you care to share the details of the situation underlying the arbitration finding of 2011 where it was established (by a vote of 10 to 0) that 10) Hawkeye7 has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to LauraHale and should not be taking administrative actions on LauraHale, or at the behest of LauraHale. If I recall correctly, LauraHale was an editor who was also involved in producing large numbers of sports-based articles and had some specific relationship to netball. To what extent do the details there resemble the situation above (except in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest)? Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief update here... There is a marked similarity between the Australian Paralympic related activities of Hawkeye7 and those of the now dormant and WP:VANISHED user LauraHale. Both users seem to have created industrial volumes of Australian paralympic articles which were then swiftly nominated for good article status and inclusion in "Did You Know". Presumably this is some kind of joint endeavour, in which some form of conflict of interest was first demonstrated many years ago. Axad12 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I collaborated with LauraHale on Wikipedia:GLAM/History of the Paralympic movement in Australia in 2011–2012. This was a joint endeavour with multiple editors, not just us. She would research subjects and create an article in something like point form, and when I got home from work I would edit them into a readable and usable form. My practice with all articles I work on and not just Paralympic ones is to send them to DYK or GA on completion in order to get another pair of eyes to review them and correct spelling errors etc. Collaboration with LauraHale ended years ago, and I have not worked with her since. She vanished after a campaign of harassment by Fram. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago. Axad12 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you said something does not make it a fact. It was not demonstrated years ago. It never happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, just to be completely clear...
    Are you denying that you used admin tools inappropriately to assist another user with whom you had a conflict of interest on Australian Paralympics articles? That seems to have been passed by a 10 to 0 majority at arbitration and isn't just "something that I said". Here is the evidence [9].
    Or are you denying the existence of some other form of conflict of interest in relation to the creation of Australian Paralympics articles?
    I had only stated the former of those two things, but there is the interesting question of why the admin tools were used inappropriately. It has previously been suggested elsewhere on Wikipedia (and with some plausibility) that it was because of payments being received (by LauraHale and/or yourself). That is relevant to the discussion here as it indicates the long-running nature of the undisclosed paid situation. Axad12 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never used the admin tools on Paralympics articles. The racepacket case refers to events before I became involved with the Paralympics project. This was over ten years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so back in 2011 you were sanctioned for abuse of admin tools (in relation to your conflict of interest re: LauraHale), but then presumably later in that year (as per your comment upthread) you began working on the large scale paid creation of articles on Australian Paralympians (with LauraHale). My apologies for getting the dates slightly wrong. Axad12 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The interesting point here is that LauraHale was certainly being paid for the creation and editing of Australian Paralympics articles from 2011 to 2012, that is proven here [10] where the work next to LauraHale’s name is indicated at being done at a rate of $100 per hour.
    If I understand correctly, LauraHale was a Wikipedian in Residence at around that time, with (presumably) a declared conflict of interest – it’s hard to tell because her account was WP:VANISHED. You, however, were not a Wikipedian in Residence at that time.
    Very helpfully you’ve added above that LauraHale would research subjects and create an article in something like point form, and when I got home from work I would edit them into a readable and usable form.
    So, are we to assume here that LauraHale was being paid $100 an hour to create […] article[s] in something like point form, but that you were being paid nothing at all to edit them into a readable and usable form. Is that really at all plausible? And this is in relation to two editors who were found by ArbCom earlier that year to have some form of unknown conflict of interest between them. Axad12 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: I believe that is an aspersion against Fram per ArbCom's findings during WP:FRAM. Also, viewing DYK and GA nominations as a means to get a copyedit is at best oldfashioned, and ignores the publicity aspect; wasn't DYK exposure a HOPAU metric back then? In the present, it seems to me that the fuss over HOPAU-sponsored editing in the past, when you were collaborating on it with Laura Hale, should have indicated it was important to scrupulously disclose all articles related to HOPAU sponsorship going forward. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you may believe in the healing powers of wax fruit does not make it a fact. I may be oldfashioned but what I have said is a statement of fact. There was no fuss over HOPAU sponsorship. Ever. HOPAU articles are all categorised as such. And the majority of articles I have sent to DYK, GA and FA have been related to military history; I routinely send any article I work on along for review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I try to ignore the tired "attack the messenger" approach. They even accused me of making personal attacks against David Eppstein at the linked DYK discussion, despite me not commenting on Eppstein or their edits at all. Meanwhile, Hakweye7 still can't seem to admit to the basic fact of having an obvious COI here. One would think that after their Arbcom experience, they would be more scrupulous or careful now, but as they apparently deny that that Arbcom finding of fact ever happened, I guess this is to be expected. I hope they read and comply with all the Wikimedian in Residence rules, e.g. they "are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there" (WP:WIRCOI) and "there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution." (emphasis in original). Fram (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding the likes of Mary Major serves on the board at the International Rootbeer Chugging Society, and citing the society itself or her own website is quite common promotional articles. The fictional IRCS is likely authoritative and reliable that Mary Major is on their board, but I have to say that's probably undue inclusion. I'll leave it up to others to weigh in on this re-addition Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing the subject's board memberships is routine in biographical articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems very odd that a user would go on at great length in Signpost about the generosity of their patron, but not take the entirely reasonable precaution of making a simple CoI declaration on their user page re: all the generosity they have received. It is clearly concerning that instead of doing so the user is opposing unconflicted users' edits on the article they recently created on the president of the organisation providing the generosity. Axad12 (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because WP:PAID clearly states except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Such grants have never counted as paid editing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but WP:PAID also states that Wikipedians in residence who are paid must disclose which organization (GLAM or similar) pays them. Is there some mention of that fact somewhere on your very busy user page, or on the articles where you made the edits, or are you just another undisclosed paid editor? Axad12 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Wikipedian in Residence, but I am not paid for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely it would be more correct to say that you haven't made the necessary declaration in relation to being a Wikipedian in Residence but that you have stated that you've been in receipt of benefits which are, under the definition in WP:PAID, equivalent to being a paid editor.
    However, the lack of the required declaration means that you were (and still are) an undisclosed paid editor, pure and simple. You cannot possibly claim an exemption under a status that you hadn't disclosed in the appropriate fashion. Axad12 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was not paid, I did not realise that such a declaration was required. No payments were received. I apologise for not putting a declaration on my user page. I did not realise that was a requirement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't directly related to the user discussed here, but I had a look at Paralympics Australia. Wow. The article looks as if it's company controlled social media profile and edited as if it was intended to be another social media platform to regurgitate contents from organization's own information. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • My practice with all articles I work on and not just Paralympic ones is to send them to DYK or GA on completion in order to get another pair of eyes to review them and correct spelling errors etc. Seriously? Using DYK as a spellchecker is ridiculous, If you don't feel capable of writing an article without a second set of eyes, you should give up the autopatrolled permission that was granted to you as a courtesy like ten minutes after your desysop, as opposed to abusing DYK. That's of course assuming that really is the only reason... Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have written over 100 featured articles. How many are you claiming to have written? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As soon as a user resorts to high score-ism, claiming that only those with an equivalent high score can scrutinise them, it's a clear sign that they are busted.
      (See also: Greg Henderson (another undisclosed paid editor), Doug whatever-his-surname-was, etc. etc.)
      This isn't about your high score. It's about your undisclosed paid editor status. Axad12 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that is resolved then. I was not an undisclosed paid editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yes you were... because you hadn't disclosed that you had received benefits or other incentives in relation to work undertaken. That is perfectly straightforward. No money has to change hands for someone to be WP:PAID, as already indicated at some length above (and presumably accepted by you as you have now apologised above for not having made the necessary declaration for an editor in that situation). Axad12 (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You presume incorrectly. I have not accepted that. I was not paid or compensated in any way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, well in that case you have still failed to disclose that you received benefits from a third party in relation to whom you created articles. So you are the definition of an undisclosed paid editor. Axad12 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In relation to issues on whether or not you received some kind of payment for much earlier work on Australian Paralympics articles, I would urge you to respond to concerns raised in my earlier post here [11]. It would appear to be a topic of some importance that the matters raised there are resolved. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was not paid anything at all! I have always been an unpaid volunteer editor. Is that really so unusual? For the last ten years I have normally spent an hour a day working on some Wikipedia article or other, or performing administrative tasks for the Military History Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies but hopefully you will appreciate that it is simply not plausible that one individual was being paid $100 per hour and the other was being paid nothing at all, both for essentially the same work, while in collaboration on specific articles, and when a conflict of interest was noted between the 2 editors earlier that year. Axad12 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did write about it on the Signpost after the 2012 and 2016 Paralympics... I am not sure what you mean by "received benefits". Let me explain how it works. I apply for media accreditation for myself and other Wikimedians on the team from our National Committee (NOC) as a free-lance journalist writing for WMF or Wikimedia Australia (WMAU). The OCOG wants a single point of contact so that is me. I have to get WMAU to sign off on it. The NOCs have only have a certain number of accreditations to give out. Sometimes the IOC or the OCOG also wants WMF or WMAU to sign various undertakings. If your application is successful, they send you an id card, which is also your visa for that country. Now you are a journalist with the same standing as those from any other "non-rights" organisation! But it is all on your own dime unless you can get a grant from WMF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so when you said that the General Manager of Communications [at Paralympics Australia], gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies, presumably that is over and above what you mentioned directly above. So, we have (at the very least) free tickets being gifted and we have presumably other forms of generous [...] support, so what did that consist of? Axad12 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have written over 100 featured articles. How many are you claiming to have written? This sort of contradicts your earlier statement that your primary reason for submitting articles to DYK is because you need help proofreading. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 06:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite so.
      When editors obsessed with high score-ism refer all their new articles to GA and DYK it isn't to do with proofreading. It is to do with metrics of some nature (either on-wiki or off-wiki metrics). Anyone with any doubt on that has only to look at Hawkeye7's user page, here [12] and look at the lines of stars, crosses and question marks on display (over a whole page of them!).
      Those are not all there in the name of proofreading. Axad12 (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      JSS: that's not completely fair to Hawkeye7's statement, which indicated the desire both for getting another pair of eyes and correcting errors. I definitely use the various DYK, GA, FA processes for that as well, as a second reader may spot small issues with neutrality if there are any. And even editors with a strong grasp of writing make occasional mistakes, which is compatible with the AP perm. Axad12, are you referring to the press pass as a free ticket? I don't think that's how it works, as you'd still need to buy tickets to an event even with a press pass? Possibly the id card as a visa means that some money was saved there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is some background in relation to paid editing in relation to LauraHale, paralympics articles and Hawkeye7.

    Prior to the 2011-2 Australian Paralympics project, LauraHale (contributions history: [13]) was a 2-year WP:SPA in relation to the subject of netball and made thousands of edits on that subject, creating many rather obscure articles (Netball in Vanuatu, etc).

    Then in mid 2011 her netball-related activity stopped and she became an SPA in relation to Australian Paralympians, an activity for which it has already been established above that at least from 2011-2 she was paid $100 per hour.

    Hawkeye7 has said that they collaborated very closely with LauraHale on the 2011-2 Paralympics work, but rather implausibly denies having received any payment, despite the fact that Hawkeye7 was sanctioned for abuse of admin tools around that time in relation to LauraHale, a user to whom Hawkeye7 had some form of established conflict of interest according to ArbCom.

    Fast forward to 2018 and the details of a further Paralympics Australia project from 2015 onwards can be found in a post here [14]. The project’s aims and activity continue those of the 2011-2 project. LauraHale and Hawkeye7 continued to produce large numbers of Australian Paralympian articles during the 2015-8 period and LauraHale can be demonstrated to have been a member of the project. Hawkeye7 cannot be demonstrated to have been a member of the project but their output of articles in that topic area strongly suggests that they were involved. It is clearly plausible that this was also paid activity of some kind.

    LauraHale's activity on Wikipedia ended in mid 2019. Hawkeye7 continues to be associated with Paralympics Australia and continues to create and edit articles in that subject area. It seems to me that it is highly implausible that Hawkeye7 was not remunerated in some way for the work in 2011-2 and plausible that payment for such work may have continued over much of the last 12 years. Axad12 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like you have no evidence for the paid editing accusations. Do you think it's appropriate to make these kinds of WP:ASPERSIONs? Wouldn't it make more sense and also create less friction to stick to COI accusations? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, when it comes to COI/UPE we do not require outright proof, and indeed it is virtually never produced in such discussions. Demanding outright proof of COI/UPE activity would generally speaking be unreasonable (as inevitably it would require some degree of outing). Similarly, consistent denials by a COI/UPE user are irrelevant as they are commonly encountered from COI/UPE users (see, for example, three different threads lower down on this noticeboard). The issue is thus simply whether there is a plausible pattern of COI/UPE activity, which in this case clearly there is over an extended period of time.
    User A was being paid $100 per hour to create new articles. User B was working in collaboration with User A and was actually doing half of the work. Clearly it is virtually impossible that User A was not reimbursing User B in some way, as User A’s $100 per hour was dependent to some degree on User B edit[ing the articles] into a readable and usable form. That is all the more the case when Arbcom had previously determined that there was some kind of off-wiki contact between these users. The same pattern of editing then continues for some years. Sorry, but that is enough information for there to be serious concerns than User B was a paid editor.
    Also, I do not consider discussing the plausibility of UPE in the context of a COIN discussion to be casting aspersions. That sort of discussion is the purpose of this noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that LauraHale would pay me a brass razoo is beyond incredible; it is completely fantastic. Never happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it is the notion that you were not compensated in some way which stretches credibility.
    I think it would be useful if you were to clarify the nature of the conflict of interest between yourself and LauraHale. Evidently it relates to something off-wiki, as pretty much all CoI inevitably must.
    Earlier that year you had abused admin tools in some way in her favour, which was highly inappropriate (putting it mildly). That was evidently an extreme course of action which would not have been undertaken on the basis of a passing acquaintance.
    Whatever the nature of the relationship which led you to abuse those tools, it was evidently a type of relationship in which it would have been entirely natural if, later that year, one party was to have compensated the other for work undertaken on their behalf, especially if the other party was being well-remunerated for her part in that work. Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this years old LauraHale stuff have to do with Alison Creagh? Is it possible we are off topic? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It relates to the length of time that the user may have been involved in UPE. The topic of this thread is COI in relation to Hawkeye7, so that is entirely on topic.
    If a thread is started about COI in relation to one user and one article, it is absolutely standard practice for any further COI-related information to be introduced and discussed so that the scale of any issues can be established.
    Similar practice is found on, say, ANI. Axad12 (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On many occasions I've worked as a paid Wikimedian in Residence, collaborating with volunteer editors. On numerous other occasions, separately, I've edited collaboratively as a volunteer with paid Wikimedians in Residence. I suspect most Wikimedians in Residence have done the same. This is far from unusual. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps so, but given the abuse of admin tools in favour of the known paid party earlier that same year (and the established off-wiki CoI between the two users) the likelihood of the situation having been as innocent as you’ve suggested is low.
    Also, in your case I’m sure the WiR status was always declared. In the present case the appropriate disclosure was only made as part of a defence against concerns that activity had been WP:PAID, and was made very belatedly (4 days ago) in relation to activity from 2012 onwards (for which see the user's user page). Axad12 (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The activity has never been paid. Your conspiracy theory is just plain nutty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies (someone who, like yourself, had a minor role in a well known controversy, albeit in her case off-wiki)... Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? Axad12 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be careful of bludgeoning. Not every comment needs a response from the same editor. Now would be a great spot to let fresh voices chime in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I had intended to leave the discussion until receiving the user's most recent and rather personal response, which I believe warranted a brief reply. I will now stand down unless someone addresses me again directly. Axad12 (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We have certainly gone well past the point of casting aspersions. I notice in this thread OP User:Fram has been content to let another user to do all the advocacy. Suddenly the onus is on proving the negative: On the contrary, it is the notion that you were not compensated in some way which stretches credibility and the likelihood of the situation having been as innocent as you’ve suggested is low are both unqualified personal attacks against Hawkeye7 and should be struck. Dragging the now vanished Laura Hale in from twelve years ago is another purely unfounded attempt to broadbrush the subject unfairly. I consider the timing of this COIN report to be obvious negative political campaigning against one of Wikipedia's most productive and respected editors, a career military man who studies the most granular aspects of warfare, and a kind fellow who has donated uncounted and unpaid volunteer hours over the last 13 years to support the Australian Paralympic committee as an unpaid Wikipedia in Residence, facilitating the bonds linking our community to theirs, and has been long trusted by both. [struckthrough as besides the point, not as inaccurate] In this thread he stands accused of writing an article about the president of that committee (just one among his 546 page creations, 484 DYK notices, 370 Good articles, 146 A-class pages, 110 FAs, 96 TFAs), attending the Paris Paralymics on his own dime (pleads guilty), and getting passes, internet access, and food assistance as volunteer press (ditto). Am I missing anything? Oh, right: specific allegations of wrongdoing with proof some evidence for each allegation. None has been presented. As far as I can tell, Hawkeye7 had demonstrated themselves a remarkable representative of our en.wiki community, has proven himself trusted over many years of active contributions, hasn't been shown to have done anything wrong, and no amount of aspersions is going to stick without diffs. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      FYI, by granular aspects, I meant boring details (logistics). Anyone want to refute the premises of my assertions (he's productive, respected, a professional military scholar, donated countless and unpaid volunteer hours as PA's publicly disclosed WiR, wrote a good faith article about the charity's president and turned it in for DYK, like he always does)? Anybody have any documented reasons for us to believe he's done anything at all wrong? No? Because that's the entire purpose of this thread on this noticeboard. BusterD (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm afraid that demonstrates a misunderstanding of this noticeboard.
      As I said above, when it comes to COI/UPE we do not require outright proof, and indeed it is virtually never produced in such discussions. Demanding outright proof of COI/UPE activity would generally speaking be unreasonable (as inevitably it would require some degree of outing).
      If outright proof was to be required before action could be taken, this noticeboard might as well be closed down.
      The points that you've made, however, have no bearing at all on whether the user has engaged in UPE. Axad12 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I enjoy it when editors who claim to be relatively new at H7's RfA discussion (diff) attempt to point out the purpose of various noticeboards to two-decade Wikipedia veterans, while all the time recklessly conflating the bare minimum standard of documented reasons for us to believe you with outright proof of COI/UPE activity which nobody (especially the OP) has provided. BusterD (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I notice in this thread OP User:Fram has been content to let another user to do all the advocacy." I try to avoid bludgeoning and have stated my case. I am not "content" or responsible for what others write, no matter if it comes from Axad12 or from you.
    "I consider the timing of this COIN report to be obvious negative political campaigning against one of Wikipedia's most productive and respected editors". The COI tag was placed on 27 September 2024, long before they became a candidate at the election. That Hawkeye only responded there after becoming a candidate, and that his answer lead to this COIN report, is not "political campaigning", and it would be good if you kept your WP:ABF aspersions to yourself.
    "Anybody have any documented reasons for us to believe he's done anything at all wrong? No? Because that's the entire purpose of this thread on this noticeboard." Uh, yes, they deny having a COI and haven't followed the guidance for such situations (e.g. WP:WIRCOI). This discussion is not about the result (the article), nor about his other creations, which are completely irrelevant for this discussion. You have not demonstrated at all how they wouldn't have a COI wrt to the CEO of the organisation he is a WIR for. He creates an article for the boss of the organisation which arranged for him to have a press entry and other perks at the Paralympics. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Fram (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear as mud. My bar for success is demonstrating how they wouldn't have a COI? Nobody's made a reasonable case or brought ANY evidence to support such an allegation. As such, these are aspersions brought to the correct noticeboard for discussion. Just as the accused is running for admin. On the day. BusterD (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @OhanaUnited: you seem to have misunderstood the intention of COIN and this thread. As said at the top, this is to determine whether someone has a COI with an article, and "There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request" none of them matching your close of "nothing actionable". This isn't ANI, I didn't ask for action against an editor, I asked for a determination whether they have a COI or not, nothing more. Fram (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @OhanaUnited: Here I agree with Fram that we need clarification in the close: whether Hawkeye's open relationship with APC had any undue impact on his willingness to write an article about a notable individual in the org's leadership. Hawkeye7 has NEVER EVER denied having a connection with the organization. He's had a long and openly documented relationship with the organization on behalf of the Wikimedia community. He just presented this in a spectacularly visual way to the community to through the linked Signpost article. By this report, Fram has inferred (without accusing and without evidence of any kind) Hawkeye7 has done something improper. I'd be satisfied with a statement that while Hawkeye7 clearly does have a well-publicized institutional connection with APC and now PA, there's no evidence this motivated his actions any more than a good faith desire to see the org well-covered. I'm not great at brevity here, but Fram is right; we can't just let this hang. BusterD (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If Hawkeye7 failed to put the right notice on this DYK nom (and if reviewers caught it), that's a much different hand slap than this unspoken accusation. Even the best contributors make errors occasionally. That's why we have a page history. BusterD (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to overturn my closure. But my warning to Axad12 stands. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn is exactly the wrong word to use, IMHO. I agree with your closure 100%. I'm not requesting a change of any kind. I concur Axad12 intruded themselves in a somewhat volatile and distracting way. Fram wants a determination convicting or exonerating Hawkeye7; only three outcomes apparently. My comment was pointed towards obviating any such determination. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @OhanaUnited:, I'm not a fan of elements like I'd also advise you in your close. The role of a closer is to summarize the consensus reached in a discussion, not to give the closer's impression of it. Sdkb talk 14:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reopened, with the permission by OhanaUnited above. Fram (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their closing statement in full read: "Plenty of accusations without evidence. Several shifting goalposts. Nothing actionable at this point. And User:Axad12, I'd also advise you to refrain from making entirely groundless personal attacks against people (to use your own words). OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

    J1477

    [edit]
    J1477 was blocked; no further action needed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I really didn’t want to bring this up at COI/N if the editor would just honestly acknowledge their COI, but they’ve refused to do so and continue to deny it, when asked repeatedly. And their denial doesn’t make any sense to me, so I’m filing this complaint for the record. They repeatedly created BLPs for Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin. Rafey Kazi is the CEO of the U.S.-based firm COBAIT, and as per her linkedin profile, Laura is a Digital Marketing Strategist there. They also created a bio for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who is Laura’s father, according to her own website. As per linkedin profile, Laura previously worked for Dnet, and J1477 created a page for Dnet (A Social Enterprise) that was later deleted. She also worked for BRAC, and similarly J1477 created Targeting Ultra Poor Program - The Graduation Approach, an article related to BRAC which tagged as advertisement since April 2023. And given Laura also worked for IBCS-PRIMAX Software (Bangladesh) Limited, one should also take a look at this. So overall, this editor has been trying to promote Laura or the organizations she is or was connected to since they joined Wikipedia. They previously uploaded several images related to InfoLady, an NGO run by Laura.
    My aim isn’t necessarily to get J1477 blocked, but I’d like an admin to intervene and address the situation, as our efforts seem to be in vain. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to Saqib’s Comment:
    1. "I really didn’t want to bring this up at COI/N if the editor would just honestly acknowledge their COI, but they’ve refused to do so and continue to deny it when asked repeatedly." I regret not addressing this directly earlier. My initial reluctance to acknowledge a conflict of interest (COI) stemmed from my belief that my contributions were made in good faith, without the intention of promoting anyone that I am related to or anyone paying me. However, I now realize that the connections between the subjects I’ve written about do give the appearance of a COI. For that, I apologize, and I am now willing to admit to having a COI due to the connections between the individuals I wrote about.
    2. "They repeatedly created BLPs for Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin. Rafey Kazi is the CEO of the U.S.-based firm COBAIT, and as per her LinkedIn profile, Laura is a Digital Marketing Strategist there." The articles on Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin emerged from my initial interest in Mohiuddin Ahmed. He indeed is a notable figure due to his historical significance as a freedom fighter during Bangladesh’s war of independence. While researching Mohiuddin Ahmed, I came across Laura Mohiuddin, who is his daughter and worked in social entrepreneurship. I found her involvement with Infolady and IT fascinating, and as I followed her career, I came across Rafey Kazi, leading to an article on him. One thing led to another, and that is how I became involved with these related subjects.
    3. "They also created a bio for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who is Laura’s father, according to her own website." Yes, I began by writing the article on Mohiuddin Ahmed because of his importance as a freedom fighter and diplomat. His contributions to Bangladesh’s history are significant, and I believed he deserved recognition on Wikipedia. My intention was to document his notable achievements, not to promote personal connections.
    4. "As per her LinkedIn profile, Laura previously worked for Dnet, and J1477 created a page for Dnet (A Social Enterprise) that was later deleted." My interest in Dnet came from learning about Laura Mohiuddin’s work in social entrepreneurship and her involvement with Dnet. I found her contributions to this organization noteworthy and believed that both Laura Mohiuddin and Dnet were worth documenting. While the article on Dnet was deleted, I created it with the belief that it met Wikipedia’s notability standards. You may want to research Dnet's award winning programs.
    5. "She also worked for BRAC, and similarly J1477 created Targeting Ultra Poor Program - The Graduation Approach, an article related to BRAC which tagged as advertisement since April 2023." I wrote the article on the Targeting Ultra Poor Program because it is an award-winning program, and I found the initiative to be an impactful part of BRAC’s work. While I understand that the article has been tagged as promotional, my intent was to present the Graduation Approach in a neutral manner.
    6. "My aim isn’t necessarily to get J1477 blocked, but I’d like an admin to intervene and address the situation, as our efforts seem to be in vain." I appreciate that your aim is not to have me blocked, and I acknowledge that the connections between the subjects I’ve written about do make it appear as though there is a conflict of interest. While I initially didn’t believe there was a COI, I now understand that my editing patterns—writing about people connected through family or professional associations—may give that impression.
    My Clarification:
    I have written articles on Bangladeshi personalities and organizations outside of those connected to Laura Mohiuddin. For example, I contributed an article on BASIS (Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services), which was eventually deleted and later recreated by another user, suggesting it was indeed notable. Additionally, I have written articles that have since been deleted or are no longer showing up, likely because they were created long before 2017.
    However, since the connections and links between these individuals and organizations are raising concerns and the perception of a COI is growing, I feel that I have no other choice but to admit to a COI. I recognize that my failure to acknowledge this earlier has caused frustration, and for that, I apologize.
    Moving forward, I will no longer edit articles where I may seem to have a COI. I remain committed to contributing positively to Wikipedia and am happy to work with the community to ensure the articles I’ve worked on meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and notability. J1477 (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    J1477, First, I kindly ask that you refrain from posting such long statements, repeatedly. Second, your response wasn’t very helpful; while you now admit there’s a COI but you’re still not being transparent and honest about it. I want to clarify that having a COI isn’t forbidden as long as you are transparent about it. You still have the opportunity to honestly declare your COI. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief note to say that I find the user's explanation above entirely unconvincing. If what they are saying is true then they would actually have no COI (being interested in a subject is not a COI), and all they have admitted is that their editing pattern could give rise to the perception of a COI.
    However, it seems perfectly obvious that they have a very real COI which they refuse to declare.
    As Saqib said above, this editor has been trying to promote Laura, people close to Laura, or companies related to Laura, for years. The only reasonable conclusions are that it is undeclared paid editing or the subject editing about themselves and those close to them. Axad12 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Time line of events:
    2012: AfC declined for user's article on IBCS-Primax Software [15]
    2015: Speedy deletion of user's articles on Dnet [16], Infolady Social Entrepreneurship programme [17], Aponjon [18] and Bangladesh Association of Software [19]
    Dec 2020: User created article on Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat), father of Laura Mohiuddin. Article is currently nominated for deletion here [20]
    User page deleted as unambiguous advertising and using userpage as a webhost [21].
    March 2021 Speedy deletion of user's article on Rafey Kazi as unambiguous advertising. [22]
    Nov 2021: AfD deletion of user's article on Laura Mohiuddin on notability grounds. [23]
    Userpage subsequently deleted again under U5 (i.e. not a webhost), presumably for hosting the same material?
    Feb 2022: Speedy deletion of Laura Mohiuddin under G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) [24]. User's comments include I demand that the page be restored and This is absurd, ridiculous and disrespectful! […] Are you allowing racism come into play here?.
    User then recreates the article again the following day, deleted again under G4.[25]
    User is asked what their relationship is to Laura Mohiuddin, no response. [26]
    Userpage again deleted under criteria U5, presumably for once again hosting the same material.[27]
    April 2022: Speedy deletion of Over 50s Cricket World Cup (presumably there is some relation to Rafey Kazi) [28]
    October 2022: Edits reverted and warned for adding links to Cobait.com (where Kazi and Mohiuddin work) [29]
    October 2024: Current activity re: the recreated article for Rafey Kazi being nominated for AfD, various denials of COI, as per comments and links above.
    I should note that this isn't the entirety of the user's activity on Wikipedia, but it is the majority of it. Of the other material, it is entirely plausible that some form of as yet undetected COI also exists. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, shows no sign of admitting their obvious COIs, and more worryingly seems to believe that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. The behaviour above is clearly endemic and will surely continue until the user is prevented from promoting themselves and other people and companies that they have links to. Axad12 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I mention that they repeatedly created an article on Infolady Social Entrepreneurship Programme, which is a charity run by Laura per this. @Axad12: you've got an e-mail! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disclosing stock investment?

    [edit]

    This is a general question, not about a specific user or article. WP:PE mentions "being an … investor" as an example of a financial COI. Does this mean that people who own small stakes (well under 1%) of publicly traded companies need to disclose their holdings on their talk page? I haven’t seen this discussed on this noticeboard before, and I tend to avoid writing about companies in which I own any stock, but I am not sure if small stock holdings are considered a COI. White 720 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuzzy line. I think even a 0.1% stake in a publicly traded company would be enough to keep most of us awake at night worrying about fluctuations in the share price, unless it's also less than 0.1% of your personal assets. Would your assertion that your small holding was not a COI pass the MANDY test? Safer to use the WP:ERW to keep the article's integrity intact, and your own integrity too. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, thanks for your response. For certain megacap companies, a 0.1% stake would be worth over $1 billion; a more realistic stake for an individual investor would be closer to 0.000001%. White 720 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to remember Dennis Brown encountered this a while back. No idea what, if any, result emerged. SerialNumber54129 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some split in the community on this, and there is no clear consensus, although one or two admin will go rogue and try to block anyone they can in these cases. I personally am not going to divulge my stock holdings, regardless of size, out of principle. My edits can be examined by anyone and are clearly not for financial gain, so it isn't anyone's business. Common sense says that if you own a substantial amount of a stock (my personal opinion means it is ~10% of your net worth, or you get ~10% of your income from it) then there is a clear COI, and should act as you would with any COI. It isn't about the dollar amount, the COI is about the influence it might have on your editing. If you do edit solely to benefit yourself, expect to get blocked; it doesn't matter how much you own. We can't verify your holdings, we can only judge your edits and most people have enough common sense to know a COI when they see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with what the other commenters seem to be saying here, that the percentage of someone's portfolio or net-worth is more important that the percentage of the company. If you knowingly own a single share Berkshire Hathaway, but your whole ability to retire depends on its success or failure, I think it is going to impact your editing a lot more than if you owned 25% of Microsoft but that were only tiny fraction 0.1% of your total investments (although if you're so wealthy that you own that much of a major company, and it's only a tiny percentage of your portfolio, there's probably an article about yourself that you need to avoid the temptation to edit). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you and the other editors on this, what matters is percent of your own portfolio not the percent of the company you own with the exception of the truly stupendously wealthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio

    [edit]

    A new editor has made three quality edited connected articles: Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio, and constantly removes all UPE/COI tags from them. I strongly suspect that this editor is connected with these subjects and they are all promotional to the work of Mark Kotter. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Damjana12 (talk · contribs) has created a total of three articles here, all related to Mark Kotter, which strongly suggests a COI. I recommend that Damjana12 declare this COI if they haven’t already. However, based on their tp, it appears they have repeatedly refused to disclose it when asked. I also found that Damjana12 has reversed the draftification of these articles to bypass the AFC route and has consistently removed the COI/UPE tags, which they should refrain from doing in the future. I’m sure that it’s not Mark himself writing these articles, but likely someone connected to him, such as an employee or a paid editor. For example, this Babraham Institute based IP 193.34.186.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently edited the bios for both Mark and Bit.bio and given Bit.bio is also headquartered at the Babraham Institute, it wouldn’t be surprising if Damjana12 is an employee from Bit.bio. Just my 2cents! Anyway, we’ll get to the bottom of this soon! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Saqib. I saw this partolling a while back and tagged it. I suspect that the skill-level of the editing strongly hints to a UPE (i.e. beyond the editing level of an employee trying to get their company on WP). thanks again for your attention. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aszx5000, You might be right but the reason I mentioned it could be an employee of Bit.bio is that Damjana12 also created an article Spondyloarthritis (SpA) (redirected) that a typical paid editor usually wouldn’t be able to create because they aren't not an expert on the topic. You see my point, right? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, but when you patrol a lot of B-rated articles, you come across the tradecraft of advanced UPEs (i.e. who make very high quality articles), and one of their actions is to take a make a cut-out of an existing Wikipedia unrelated technical article (or import one from another WP-language) which they do in a single edit to create a more diverse editing history. Regardless, all things are possible and I have - unfortunately - seen all permutations :) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The UPE has returned and removed all COI tags (again, for the third time now). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User just needs to be blocked surely? Axad12 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to say that off-wiki evidence indicates very clearly that the user has an obvious conflict of interest in relation to these subjects.
    Therefore it is reasonable to assume that talkpage statements such as the following are false:
    I chose to create the page on Mark after I watched this series on BBC where he is performing the operation
    I have not receive any payment for creating pages
    I have not made money by making any of my contributions on Wikipedia
    The user may not have been specifically paid for their edits, but they are certainly an undisclosed paid editor with a strong conflict of interest in relation to bit.bio and Mark Kotter.
    It never ceases to amaze me that users don't just admit their conflict of interest, make the relevant disclosure and follow the COI edit process, rather than making constant misrepresentations, wasting volunteers' time and taking themselves to the brink of an indefinite block. This is all the more the case when they provide details that make the reality clear in about 5 seconds to anyone wanting to investigate further. Axad12 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will not remove the tags until this is resolved.
    However, there needs to be a fair discussion. On the topic of notability, Wikipedia guidelines propose the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[ secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. In addition,
    This applies to Mark Kotter as follows:
    There are multiple published secondary sources that cover his achievements. These range from state media (e.g. Austrian Broadcasting Company), to commercial media, e.g. Forbes, and also include articles in scientific journal articles that summarise his achievements. Recently, Mark features in a 45 minute documentary on his life and contributions from the Austrian Broadcasting Company. I believe that very few people can claim this.
    In addition, any biography where the person has received a well-known and significant award or honorary/ been nominated several times.
    This is the case, Mark Kotter has won several national and international biotech and entrepreneurship awards. I am happy to update the list and find the links to the primary source.
    These include: Great British Entrepreneur Awards, Mediscience Awards, Cambridge Independent Business Awards etc.
    In addition, the following applies to academics - many scientists are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being subject of secondary sources. A good metrics is therefore their h-index based on their publication record. Further evidence is the establishment of guidelines, including international clinical guidelines, NIHR James Lind Alliance Research Priority Partnerships, OMERACT minimal data sets etc. Mark Kotter has and continues to lead a number of such initiatives. 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to address the recent claims made against my contributions to the articles on Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, and Bit.bio, as well as the suggestion that these pages be deleted on the grounds of undisclosed paid editing (UPE) or conflict of interest (COI). I believe these claims are unfair and do not accurately reflect the situation. Please allow me to explain why:
    Quality of Contributions: The articles I have contributed to, including Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, and Bit.bio, are all well-researched and adhere to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, notability, and reliability. These articles cover important topics in biotechnology and medicine, which are of genuine public interest. The quality of an article should not be equated with promotional intent. These subjects meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and have been crafted to provide valuable, verifiable information.
    Without wanting to go into my personal medical history, the reason I wrote something about Spondyloarthritis is because I suffer from the condition. And while I do not have a medical background, as a person affected for more than 10 years I do have a perspective.
    Lack of Evidence for UPE/COI: While I understand that suspicions may arise when an editor creates multiple articles related to the same subject, I assure you that there is no undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest involved. I have already clarified that my involvement with these topics stems from my professional experience and personal interest. I did intern at Bit.bio in 2020, which is openly disclosed, but I have not been paid or asked to create any of the pages. These contributions were made voluntarily out of a desire to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of notable subjects. There is no hidden financial motivation.
    Reason for Removing Tags: I removed the COI/UPE tags from the articles because I genuinely believe they were unjustified. In the absence of any direct evidence of paid editing, such tags could mislead readers and create an unwarranted sense of distrust in the articles’ content. My removal of these tags was done transparently and in good faith, not as an attempt to obscure anything.
    Professional Expertise Does Not Equal COI: It is important to recognize that editors who have expertise in a particular field, or connections to a subject, are not automatically disqualified from contributing to Wikipedia. Expertise often leads to high-quality contributions, and the Wikipedia community benefits from such knowledge. My professional background allows me to write accurately about these subjects, but this should not be conflated with promotional editing.
    Notability and Relevance: The subjects I have contributed to, particularly Mark Kotter and bit.bio, are notable and have gained significant recognition within their respective fields. bit.bio is a leading UK biotech company, and Mark Kotter is a well-known figure in the medical community. These are not fringe or obscure topics but ones that deserve a presence on Wikipedia. Deleting these articles would deprive the platform of valuable, factual content.
    Anyone who knows anything about the European biotech scene will undoubtedly know that bit.bio is one of most visible companies in this area. This is well demonstrated by independent journal articles, including from Forbes, Endpoints etc., press releases, mentions by government; bit.bio has been twice visited by the Minister for Science (both from the conservative and the labour parties). Third party press releases, e.g. from BlueRock Therapeutics mention their collaboration with bit.bio. (BlueRock has been all over the news recently for their Parkinson’s transplant).
    Moreover, the board and SAB comprises some of the most visible and important people, and includes Hermann Hauser, Nobel Laureate Sir Greg Winter, SAB member Thore Graepel etc. I find it very strange that these people have been removed from the respective articles - it seems like there is an agenda in trying to actively undermine my contributions.
    On the other hand, if the error is on my side and if I have failed to link the right sources to back this up, I apologise and am committed to work on this further.
    Mark himself is a highly visible neurosurgeon and scientist. He is world renowned for his work on myelopathy; the charity is the only and largest charity that exists and has over 4000 patient members. If you look at his Google Scholar page, you will find very few other neurosurgeons in his field with a h-score approaching 50. He is the chief investigator of several international trials, leads the international RECODE Project, etc. It is just not right to mark this as ‘unimportant’.
    Further evidence comes from independent press outlets: recently the Austrian Broadcasting Company (ORF) created an independent 45 minute documentary on his work: https://tv.orf.at/program/orf3/treffpunkt1796.html - this alone speaks to his notability; I am sure that you will struggle to find anything along these lines for 99% of the scientists who have Wiki pages.
    Open to Discussion: I am committed to ensuring that my contributions meet Wikipedia’s guidelines, and I am more than willing to engage in constructive dialogue about any concerns raised. However, I believe that calling for the deletion of these pages without sufficient evidence or justification is premature and unfair. If there are remaining questions about the neutrality or accuracy of the articles, these should be addressed through discussion rather than through punitive measures like deletion. 86.139.243.27 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed Mark Kotter because I've been reviewing articles near the 90-day cutoff, but Bit Bio is actually on the list of articles I was planning to review for NPP. I have mostly completed my BEFORE now, so expect to nominate it for deletion shortly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD for Bit.bio here: [30]. Axad12 (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, [Cut and paste copy of IP's previous post removed] 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you will agree that there is nothing wrong with my articles and I have removed the tags again. 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following on from my earlier comments, there is abundant off-wiki evidence to indicate very clearly that you currently have a long running conflict of interest in relation to bit.bio.
    The reasons for suggested deletion are not punitive based on COI/UPE but relate to a basic failure to fulfil notability criteria (WP:NCORP). There is also a marked lack of independent sources and an over-reliance on press releases, which is clearly highly inappropriate for articles in the medical area.
    Also your response above is 100% AI generated according to gptzero.me, so you really cannot expect readers to believe that it represents genuinely expressed sentiments or truth. In actual fact the response demonstrates a very faulty understanding of notability guidelines and the deletion process, and the material in relation to your conflict of interest is transparently untrue.
    I will shortly replace the tags and would ask you (as other editors have done previously) not to remove them again. Axad12 (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The explanations provided are simply not credible and I have therefore blocked the account. SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am late to the party here as I did not see the COIN thread until after reviewing the bit.bio deletion discussion. I heavily trimmed Meatable and unless WP:NPROF can be shown, I do not believe Kotter would be notable. AfD will figure that out though. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Amberton University‎

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    WatsonCrafted was blocked. No further action required! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WatsonCrafted has disclosed in an edit that they work for Amberton University‎. They were then warned that they need to abide by our conflict-of-interest policies and expectations, including WP:PAID. Today, they added a tremendous amount of detailed, unsourced, and promotional material to their employer's article. Unless they can communicate to us that they understand our policies and assure us that they will begin abiding by them, I'm afraid that a stronger warning and perhaps a block of some kind may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ElKevbo, First, please replace the username Kovcszaln6 with WatsonCrafted (talk · contribs). You mentioned the wrong editor. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I want to clarify that I do not work for Amberton University, nor am I being paid for my contributions. I'm just a local resident who was doing some research on various colleges and noticed that Amberton's page seemed quite bare in comparison. I thought I could help by adding more information based on what I found publicly available.
    I understand Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policies and certainly didn’t mean to come across as promotional. I apologize if any of the content seemed that way—I will review it carefully to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. I’m happy to make corrections or remove anything that doesn’t meet the standards.
    Thanks again, and I appreciate your guidance! WatsonCrafted (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WatsonCrafted, Thanks for responding! You mentioned that you don’t work for this university, but why does your edit says otherwise?

    Also, I don’t think every COI editor needs to be reported immediately. In this case, WatsonCrafted just started editing the university page today and I haven’t seen any discussion or correspondence on their tp or the university's tp, which should happen first before considering a report here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have overlooked the large warning at the very top of their User Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The material was so promotional, and written to directly address the reader as 'you', that I felt there must surely be some copyvio in there (although Google suggests not). It looks to me like very obvious advertising copy and not something that a passer by would just come up with.
    I was wondering why the user would have stated that they worked for the school and then said that they didn't work for the school. Surprisingly it turns out that "Watson Crafted" is the name of a marketing and communications company located not a million miles from the university.
    So that explains that then... Axad12 (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked indefinitely by Cabayi for advertising, promotion and username violation. Axad12 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Akif Tanzeel and Punjab Colleges

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    Akif Tanzeel was blocked for WP:SOCKING. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Akif Tanzeel (talk · contribs) has been on WP since 2012 and focuses on editing articles related to Punjab Colleges such as University of Central Punjab, Mian Amer Mahmood, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah University. They have declared COI on their user page that they are an employee of Punjab Colleges. But recently, they have been attempting to whitewash and censor well-sourced critical information from the Punjab Colleges article which is WP:DE. I don’t think they will stop removing it, so I suggest they should be blocked. Clearly WP:NOTHERE! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have page-blocked Akif Tanzeel indefinitely from Punjab Colleges. Saqib, I have removed the part of your post above that was outing. Thank you for reporting, but please be careful not to publish information that the user has not themselves provided on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    PCHS-NJROTC

    [edit]

    I am self-reporting based on a threat by User:Horse Eye's Back to report this edit. I am alumnus of Liberty University (as stated on my user page) and acknowledge the possibility of bias. That said, I am not a paid employee if Liberty University or even a current student or applicant to the university. He also has opined about my username (I already have submitted a request to change it as I wanted to do that anyway; I think my username may have been grandfathered from a time when the rules were not as strict, but that's neither here nor there as I am changing it) and editing of my alma mater high school's article, which to date has not generated any concern by any other member of the community (even the trolls haven't complained about that!). I wish no misdeed to the other user, but I think the (s)he has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COIEDIT, however I desire an independent opinion to settle this matter and be done with it. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 18:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be unnecessarily aggressive and is what I wanted to avoid by going to you directly about the issue (and I'm glad that I got through to you on your username being a clear bright line violation these days). So be it though, I will be reviewing your copious edits to Liberty University, Port Charlotte High School, etc (I have not yet done a comb through your edit history, I've just seen what is clearly and obviously in front of my face). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COI is pretty open-ended, but I don't think being a graduate makes someone have a COI, unless they actually work for the school. However, you still need to be neutral in your edits. I have not read through them, so I am not providing an opinion on that. TFD (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. I strive to be neutral with all edits, and fully disclose anything that might be a COI. I have been contributing to the Port Charlotte High School article since 2008 and it was assessed as a good article as a result of my improvements, something that would not have happened if my contributions to the article were outside of policy. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sort of ancient history is why I wanted to avoid digging, I understand that it may have been different in 2008 but today an account named PCHS-NJROTC controlled by an active member of the PCHS-NJROTC making promotional edits to Port Charlotte High School especially concerning its NJROTC wouldn't be kosher. I don't think you should be sanctioned over ancient history though, thats just silly. You don't ever seem to have stopped making those edits though, this one here is from 4 January 2024 [31] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Replacing the award trophies image (that I had uploaded and lated removed but someone else readded) with an illustration demonstrating something in action is hardly promotional. I would say, if anything, the trophies were promotional, that's why I had taken it out of the article. We could take COI to the point of ridiculousness and say that no one American can edit the United States article for example, but no one in their right mind is going to get behind that idea. Years ago I was probably a little less neutral, but I was also a minor with a lot less experience with the encyclopedia, and somehow still a reviewer felt that my contributions were worthy of good article status. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that your most recent edit was not promotional because it removed promotional content which you added? I'm having a hard time following this (largely why I didn't want to open something here yet) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't intend to do it, you should not have threatened to do it, period. Threatening to escalate something you have no intentions of escalating is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I was trying very nicely, from personal experience on this encyclopedia, that you were out of line and I was taking your commentary abrasively, but you didn't listen. So now we are here. It's okay, I have thick skin (you have to in order to work with middle schoolers). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seems to represent my comment which was "The edit you made at Liberty University[32] I might actually bring to COIN, it seems like you added undue background which skews the paragraph in the University's favor. That is exactly the sort of edit that we don't want to be made." and you do not have a thick skin[33]. You are apparently extremely quick to anger and overreaction, which is why you blasted me on my talk page and opened this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have never seen me angry. Maybe just slightly annoyed, but not angry. If I was angry I would step away from the computer to prevent myself from saying something I would later regret. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I appreciate your restraint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Drop the username argument, please. WP:USERNAME#Exceptions indicates that there's nothing particularly wrong with the use of the old username, and it's been changed anyway. As far as COI goes, it's pretty well established that attending a school, or being a rank-and-file member of an organization, does not bring up COI issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we are on this topic, I have never worked for Charlotte County Public Schools, however I do work for Sarasota County Schools, though not in any capacity that would amount to paid editing if I edit an article about one of our schools (I don't work in public relations or administration). I am curious if there would be any issue in creating an article about North Port High, something I kind of started work on years ago in my user space before I was an employee. One of the things I intend to include in the article is a scandal that received significant attention (which should help bring the school to meet GNG), so I can't see how the contribution could be seen as promotional in any way. I had intended to do this under WP:BOLD because I can't see any policy violation with this, since I'm already at COIN I'm interested in the community's opinion. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COIEDIT says "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Politely, I am not asking you, I am asking people more experience than either one of us. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am less experienced than either of you, but I concur with Horse Eye's Back. It is a simple matter of published policy and any editor with even a passing knowledge of COI issues would offer the same advice. Axad12 (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not true that your edits to your alma matter have "not generated any concern by any other member of the community" as this edit [34] was reverted and then you whittled it down to this [35] when challenged on the talk page you responded "Good job updating that. I think they literally restarted that right after I wrote the section, likely to avoid being seen as anti-LGBT. (I kinda wish I wouldn't have written the section... Although I never laughed at any of them as that would be mean, I was one of the students that was against the club, and that position hasn't changed. But just so this doesn't go into an off-topic mess as to why, I don't hate anybody, I'm not afraid of anybody, and I certainly do NOT advocate being cruel to anybody. I'm part of the religious right (specifically, I am an Independent Baptist), a group misunderstood by much of the outside world, increasingly so thanks to idiotic groups like Westboro)."[36] which while commendable for its openness seems to open a whole can of worms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to have been followed with more "By the way, I know this is off-topic but I'm almost certain Fred Phelps is in hell, and those losers have no business calling themselves "baptist." People may believe what they wish, but I believe he is there alongside Hitler and a lot of Ku Klux Klan members, miserably burning for eternity." At Independent Baptist PCHS scrubbed controversial content[37] and then bludgeoned the resulting talk page discussion Talk:Independent Baptist#WP:3O request: WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK issue on sex scandals Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am not understanding is why you are continuing to beat the WP:DEADHORSE (no pun intended) when two people have already said there appears to be no COI. I think you are confusing COI and bias. Everybody has bias, and people are unlikely to contribute to articles (other than to revert vandalism) about subjects they have no opinions on. Also, "strongly discouraged" =/= "don't do it or we will block you," so even if I were a paid editor, for example, it wouldn't be an actionable offense in itself as long as I complied with the required disclosures per WP:PAID. It would just be a really bad idea (I've been offered money twice to edit articles about subjects other than those in question here, I declined it both times). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this your church that you added three pictures[38][39][40] and then a sermon [41] from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It used to be, so? I've never been a paid member of staff there, it just seemed like something relevant to the article and an improvement of the encyclopedia. The images have since been replaced with better quality ones, and that's okay. If any of that was some flavor of promotion, I'm horrible at it because no one ever showed up at that tiny little church saying "hey, I'm here because I saw a picture of your church on Wikipedia." Sometimes in life I see things that I think would be useful to the Wikimedia Commons (and sometimes Wikipedia) and I take pictures. Sometimes I have an association with it, sometimes I don't. I took a picture of Venice High School long before I was a district employee, for example. I took a picture of a Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services inspector at a gas pump in another example. As a Wikipedian, I have seen where COI has truly been a problem. I've seen violations of WP:ELNO for example, where people have tried to promote companies and organizations (somebody from RationalWiki's Board of Directors was doing that). That's the kind of stuff you need to watch for if you want to be a benefit to the encyclopedia. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you do not feel that promoting your pastor is a COI concern? I just don't see how the pictures or the sermon are due there, they seem to be there because of their relationship with you not their importance to the topic at hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am saying is I don't understand how it is promotional. It was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons (and then subsequently added to the Independent Baptist article) because I thought it was of educational value, as a demonstration of Independent Baptist beliefs, not to draw followers or anything of the like. Do you see any kind of a URL that says "hey, follow us for more awesome stuff like this!"? That's what promotion looks like. I had rights to the video because I helped (with no pay or anything) with some of the computer stuff, and there was no formal agreement over copyrights or the like and the pastor was okay with me uploading it to Wikimedia and releasing under a copyleft license. If I wanted to promote the church on the Commons or Wikipedia, I would have uploaded every sermon I helped with, that particular one I thought was useful. Now I will ask, do you think every image uploaded to the Commons or to Wikipedia are uploaded by people with no connection at all (paid or unpaid) to the subject? All I can say is I am not using Wikipedia to promote anything, and no one else is taking your side on this so I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is clearly using wikipedia to promote your church/pastor... It given them coverage, visability, and authority that otherwise would not be theirs, that is promotion... And when you do it for your associated organizations, friends, or acquaintances thats a COI issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)I am backing away from this discussion per WP:BLUDGEON. If someone else has any questions for me, I will respond, but we're not continuing this endless back and forth. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I agree with Horse Eye's Back. Just because something is not an overt form of promotion (equivalent, say, to an advert) doesn't mean that it isn't promotion. COI editors will sometimes try to change (or remove) just a single word in an article, and sometimes that can be promotion.
    Promotion is a subtle art, as anyone working in PR would tell you. Ditto for anyone who deals with handling COI edit requests on Wikipedia (where at least 20% of requests are solely promotional and a much higher proportion are promotional in intent to some degree).
    If the bar for promotion where where you have placed it, this encyclopaedia would be completely discredited as an adman's paradise.
    I'd also advise you against wikilawyering on the exact meaning of 'strongly discouraged'. 'Strongly discouraged' should be interpreted something along the lines of as follows: 'In most cases, other than very basic minor factual edits, COI editors should not edit articles directly. And if they do, non-conflicted editors are at liberty to revert all such edits on sight - which should certainly leave the COI editor feeling strongly discouraged'. Axad12 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the insight, but for 17 years, have always took that as advice vs. it's not allowed. If it weren't allowed, the privacy aspect of WP:SOCKLEGIT wouldn't exist; there's no wikilawyering about it, I just think it is being misinterpreted. Other than that, I don't see much disagreement here except to what extent is a true COI editor. So far it's four to two (I am counting the opinion of another person in a previous case in which I used the talk page of an organization I am a "rank and file" member of and was told that is not necessary). I would have always considered, say, someone in PR, marketing, high level administration, etc or otherwise acting as a representative for a firm to have COI, as would someone who is notable enough to have their own article. In any of those cases, I would not edit such articles as it just would not be good optics for someone in that capacity and could be seen as manipulating an article even if it wasn't. On the other hand, we could take things to the point of ridiculousness and say citizens of a nation have COI in editing articles about their country, or Wikipedians having COI on Wikipedia. To say someone Independent Baptist can't edit the Independent Baptist article, to me, is no different than saying someone who lives in Russia cannot edit articles about Russia. To be frank, the encyclopedia would be trash if we took things to that extreme, and I (probably along with a lot of other people) would leave the encyclopedia if we went in that direction (I'm almost certain Wikipedia would collapse and probably be replaced with something new at that point). Imagine if we required our articles on political parties to be written by people with no interest in politics? How primitive would these articles be if people with opinions of these parties were not allowed to edit them? Heck, I've been told that as an (unpaid) elected Precinct Committeeman for the Republican Party (a low level representative, but involved in promotion) I am not required to identify as a COI editor (which brings that previous number to 5 to 2), and there was no consensus to sanction a member of the RationalWiki board of directors for inserting WP:ELNO violations into articles, which in my opinion was blatant promotion (if you really want to see potential COI in action, go look at RationalWiki where there are TEN editors with declared connections on the talk page and look at the AfDs where people connected to RationalWiki smothered the discussion on three occasions).


    In any case, I don't see how adding pictures from an athletic event at Port Charlotte High School, my alma mater, is any different from adding pictures from an athletic event at Lemon Bay High School and Charlotte High School (Punta Gorda, Florida), which I have no connection to, or how adding a picture of a "Small Independent Baptist church in Port Charlotte, Florida" which I did not even name is different than adding a picture of the Crowne Center at PCC which I have no connection to, or for that matter adding illustrations of the Pecanland Mall, South Sumter High School, a banana vendor in Villa El Salvador, Eagle Ridge Mall, AdventHealth, or ShorePoint Health Venice, all of which I have no connection to whatsoever. Therefore, I have no intentions of changing anything unless I see some kind of clear consensus that alumni of an educational institution or followers of a religious faith should not edit related articles (a widespread change in consensus that would affect many users), or something I'm doing is against policy or problematic enough to warrant a topic ban, and I'll bet my 17 year old user account the latter isn't going to happen. Furthermore, if Horse carries on with disruption after nothing comes of this COIN (which he has a history of on his old account), I will push for an I-ban because I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not engage in drama. In the past, if there has been a question about any edit I've made (and we all encounter it), the matter has been civilly discussed and settled on the relevant talk pages, and I see no reason to change that. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand Socklegit... The purpose isn't to allow you to make edits about your family or social/professional circles its to allow you make edits that would be controversial within your family or social/professional circles (for example a Saudi woman who wants to edit Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Saudi anti male-guardianship campaign without her husband and father knowing and they monitor her main account). It says "A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity," I would also ask you to visit User:CaradhrasAiguo before you misrepresent my edit history any more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your comment that I would have always considered, say, someone in PR, marketing, high level administration, etc or otherwise acting as a representative for a firm to have COI, as would someone who is notable enough to have their own article...
    Apologies but again you are placing the bar too high.
    Please see the relevant policy WP:COI, where it states that Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.
    Also an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.
    These sort of issues are resolved by reference to policy, not by a tally count of interactions you have had in the past.
    Being an employee comes under WP:PAID and the user is required to use the COI edit request process (except for very minor factual edits).
    With regard to at what point these issues become problematic to the degree that sanctions would result, inevitably there is a degree of interplay with issues such as to what extent the edits were considered promotional or otherwise disruptive, if the editor continued after receiving multiple notices and reversions, etc. etc. Those issues will trump the level of seniority of the employee.
    Similarly, when it comes to editing around membership organisations, etc., that is not prohibited but conflicted editors will need to be very wary of issues around WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NPOV, etc. where problems can sometimes be seen to occur.
    Hopefully these notes are of some assistance, happy to end the conversation here if you are. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12, other than part of the paid policy I had overlooked (that's probably been added over the years), your points are nothing that I am unfamiliar with or in disagreement about. We as editors have to be cautious about our own biases when editing any article, regardless of connection to the subject, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, and when dispute arises, it's talk page time. So there's no further debate on that end. Horse, with all due respect, the intent on my user talk page where I told you to take the matter to COIN if you weren't content was to say I don't care what you think, I only care about consensus, or maybe what an administrator has to say. Now I am saying I want nothing further to do with you, or anyone else I perceive to be involved in pot stirring (on Wikipedia or otherwise). I am sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I don't say things I don't mean so it is what it is. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement is not true: "Being an employee comes under WP:PAID and the user is required to use the COI edit request process (except for very minor factual edits)." Making an edit request is not required; the policy actually says: "Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles..." ElKevbo (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for very minor factual edits it does more or less appear to be required. Remember that across the board "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia." The actual guideline also says "may" not "should" so its not actually guidance to go to the talk page, we prefer that they make no edits whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And to me, all of this falls under WP:IAR. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia longer than anywhere I have worked, and even longer than I have been Independent Baptist. If I make a contribution to Wikipedia, it is to improve the encyclopedia, not get points or kudos from anyone outside of the project (I'd actually be more concerned about employers being mad over something I write they don't like than doing anything that would harm the encyclopedia) or advance a point of view. So for example, the article I want to write about North Port High School, which has no article at the moment, I intend to be DYK worthy, not to promote North Port High (the DYK part is going to be a scandal...) or because I'm expecting anything at work over it (other than possibly a hard time), but because I want the encyclopedia to have quality content on subjects that meet GNG. It's for the same reason I created the article on West Franklin High School years ago, a school in a state I've never been to, a community I've never known anybody from, which I only even knew about because its IP address went to WP:ABUSE because of someone repeatedly adding the names of the cheerleaders to random articles. By the way, I work in transportation, which is a completely different cost center than any of the schools, it's almost like an employee of Toys R Us editing the article on Dollar General back when they were both owned by KKR, or someone in the US military editing an article about the Federal Trade Commission, however I have disclosed who I work for on my user page now, which I think is overkill and invites the countless trolls to try to cause trouble, but it's there now. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Meenaneelesh

    [edit]

    I want to request a investigation to this user User:Meenaneelash that they create a article Santosh Meena, it seems this user is the behind of the article was this Facebook account that connected to his wikipedia article <link removed>, it maybe this is have a WP:COI. And I nominate for speedy deletion a upload of file File:Santoshmeena.jpg that are deleted now due to copyright violation.

    Note: It maybe Meenaneelash and Santosh Meena was the same and created his own article here. Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 13:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Royiswariii, Meenaneelesh (talk · contribs) is stale and has been inactive since 2016, so I don’t see the purpose of filing this report. Please avoid reporting users who are no longer active. I don’t see any action that can be taken here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Saqib!
    Even it's inactive, they can still re-create that article Santosh Meena. I'm just concerned:) Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 13:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Mayo (Indigenous Australian)

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    ThomasMayo11 was blocked. No further action needed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor and article have same name. Editor has extensively revised the article to make it more positive and include an advertisement for a recent book, despite being asked not to on talk page. I have tagged the article with a {{coi}} hatnote. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:1491:FB06:1B9C:FB14 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP- I suggest you first remove the unwanted content from the BLP. If they revert your edits and restore the unwanted content, then action can be taken against this account. Just because they edited their bio doesn’t mean they should be blocked. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point out where I said I wanted them blocked (or indeed sanctioned in any way) and I will strike that immediately because it was a very inappropriate thing for me to say. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:1491:FB06:1B9C:FB14 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK so what exactly were you hoping to achieve with this report? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a really weird question. I'm using this board as everybody always has – to point out a potential COI issue and get further eyes on the situation (or be told I'm wrong). If you, speaking for this board as a whole, prefer that I don't report COI problems – perhaps because I'm an unregistered editor and thus exempt from WP:AGF? – then so be it. Weird unilateral decision by you, but I accept it. Good day to you. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:1491:FB06:1B9C:FB14 (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC
    I think scolding an IP for posting here like this is a bit WP:BITEy because they're probably not versed in policy enough to carry on a conversation about COI editing, that said I hope IP editor understands the frustration experienced contributors deal with as a result of nonsense being brought to boards like this on a regular basis. I'm not saying this was nonsense (there's clearly a COI issue here), but there's also a lot of shoot first, think later people on here working on building up a body count. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ThomasMayo11 has been blocked for WP:IMPERSONATE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lark & Berry

    [edit]

    Undisclosed paid editing.

    User's history of editing whereby their edit #1 was Lark & Berry-related, and then they made exactly nine additional perfunctory edits to WP:PGAME the ability to create an article directly (#2: wikilinked "England", #3: cosmetic edit + wlinked "England" again, #4: wlinked "UAE", #5: ... "Bahrain", #6: ... "Qatar", #7: ... "Kuwait", #8: italicized a word, #9 italicized a neighboring word in a separate edit, #10: changed one letter to introduce a spelling error) is evidence.

    Following this, they created a promotionaly-worded aticle about the company Lark & Berry that relies on sponsored content, press releases, and is overall refbombed. I draftified the article as a COI creation.

    User received Uw-paid1. User moved the article back, removed {{Undisclosed paid}}, and denied being paid. —Alalch E. 13:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi,
    I agree that elements of this matter are problematic. However, I see no off-wiki evidence of a connection between the account name and the subject, and no element of lifting material from the company website, as would be expected of a low-grade UPE job. Indeed the article text is entirely different from how the company promotes itself on its own website. I'm usually not slow to suggest UPE, but here I'm not seeing anything specific to support the idea except a feeling that the text is to some extent promotional and the user is an SPA who gamed the system. (The fact that the gaming was achieved in a 6 minute spree, mostly by turning individual words into wikilinks, strongly suggests that this is not the user's first account here).
    However, all of that said...
    The sentence commencing The brand name Lark & Berry was coined by Chavez is copyvio/closely paraphrased from an online pdf, here [42], page 4.
    And source 9 ('The Week') appears to be non-independent and sponsored content, but it doesn't seem clear that any of the current article content is derived solely from that source. Other sources may also be of similar derivation.
    What is best here, re-draftify? The text isn't so bad as to justify speedy deletion under G11 for unambiguous promotion. Maybe strip out the non-independent sourcing and the copyvio, see how much of the article is left and then make a decision based on how the article looks at that point?
    Regards, Axad12 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know why you are reporting me here.
    It is now that I hear the word Gaming the system. Yeah, I made 9 edits to enable me create an article, because when I read how to create an article the guideline says 10 edits and 4 days. I just followed that. If I am not doing that how do it be 10? And the edits are not unconstructive.
    When I come to the page, immediately an hour later I created the page, as you can see from history, an editor called 'Chaotic Enby'' tagged it for promotional tone. 7 hours latter editor called ''Nikkimaria'' removed sources he considered unreliable. 9 hours later an editor who has an administrators right  called Discospinster removed a content which he considered promotional and even removed the tag that claims ''promotional tone'', after this all, you came and just , moved the page with a false claim that I am paid which is totally wrong. My question is, if someone with an authority superior to you claiming the article as non promotional, how do you dare to say it is promotional? The other unclear thing, on one hand you moved the page with the accusation of of more sources needed, on the other hand you accuse me of ref bombing, I could not get you at all. Pomisolomon (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, decision making on Wikipedia is based on consensus, not on authority. Administrators do not have greater authority, they just have a variety of tools that they can use to perform administrative tasks.
    The issue is that you have created an article in the way that duplicates, pretty much entirely, the way that an undisclosed paid editor (UPE) would do, and like the typical UPE you appear to be a single purpose account. Furthermore the article, as created, was promotional and contained WP:COPYVIO and non WP:RS compliant sources. This is again typical of how a promotionally minded editor would create an article. Similarly there is an arguably undue emphasis on awards and recognition.
    Please note, I make no allegations here, I only wish to clarify why the article has resulted in this thread being opened. I suspect that at the very least there will now be an amount of tidy up to bring the article into line with policies and guidelines.
    Hopefully these notes are of assistance.
    Regards, Axad12 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though Pomisolomon has refused to acknowledge a COI, this is a SPA focused on Draft:Lark & Berry. I’ve draftified the article for now and I hope they will submit it for a proper AFC review. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your dedication to protect Wikipedia, but I would be happy if you guys do not rush into claims of COI, single purpose account and the likes, as I published another article today and will keep doing so in the future. I hope this message won't be offending as I want to write in a nice environment with you guys a head in the future. Pomisolomon (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ganbatte_Convention

    [edit]

    Based on the name and promotional edits, this user has a COI. Other editors have advised them of the COI policy, but they have not disclosed their COI as per Wikimedia's requirements and continue to edit the article. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They already mentioned on their tp that the organization is their friend's. Given that they created the draft and considering it was reviewed and declined twice, their unilateral decision to move it to the main namespace to bypass the AfC review process is concerning. I suggest they cease editing to this article, as they are not adhering to P&Gs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the article back into draft space. Melcous (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Manisha Ganguly

    [edit]
    Closing this discussion started by a block evading IP. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happyaroundyoubabes. TarnishedPathtalk 00:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    * Manisha Ganguly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    On the Manisha Ganguly page, it appears that the user Fml22 may be the subject of the article itself, as suggested by their actions and the content of their edits. However, they have not disclosed any Conflict of Interest (COI) as required by Wikipedia’s guidelines. Furthermore, they continue to make edits to the article and upload images of themselves, which raises concerns regarding transparency and the potential violation of Wikipedia’s COI policy. 2.97.125.4 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]

    This SPA has been contributing here since 2022 and has only contributed to this BLP. However, it doesn't seem they were ever asked to declare their COI but it’s important that @Fml657: disclose their COI moving forward. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Saqib. After some research, I found this photo, which was edited on her page by another user. Interestingly, it was uploaded on Commons by an SPA account named Fml22. The same user uploaded another photo of Ganguly here, which is labelled as their own work as well. Right below the photo, it states that it is Ganguly's own work! It's worth noting that Fml22 and Fml657 seem rather similar, don't they? Additionally, there are eight distinct accounts in total, all SPAs, that have been created to exclusively edit this page and upload photos of her without giving proper attribution or claiming their contributions as original work: Lorde23, Sjjmaddocks, Amaa1987, Janedoe31, Gamma325, Wmph23 and Fml657. In some cases, these accounts have been indefinitely banned for using similar rhetoric. They have also reverted the same person - identical edits here and here, particularly for "making attacks on women of colour". Same things applies to Lorde23 - claiming the exact same things about women of colour, every time a revert took place. These are the only accounts to have contributed/added information to the Manisha Ganguly article and all of them are SPAs. Don't you think that this suggests a clear pattern that the article is being edited exclusively by individuals either directly linked to the subject or with some affiliation to them? It’s unclear what further evidence would be required to demonstrate this connection, especially as those involved are unlikely to ever admit their involvement in these accounts. 2.96.196.75 (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
    But the other accounts are stale, so they don't matter unless they become active again. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:AKS.9955 and regional airline articles in India and Kyrgyzstan

    [edit]

    I am making a very unorthodox decision to bypass talkpage warnings and communication in favour of a COIN discussion. Normally, I would view this report as inappropriate without at least some warning, but AKS.9955 holds the autopatrolled right and the new page reviewer right. They should know the COI rules by now - and yet have, on multiple occasions, failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest. This issue first came to my attention in the second AfD for IndiaOne Air, when @Ratnahastin: commented that they suspected a COI. For the sake of this discussion, AKS.9955 has posted a picture of themself to Wikipedia, their full name (Arun Kumar Singh), and links to several of their social media accounts. I will only be posting links to social media accounts and news stories they have linked to on-Wiki, or webpages they very publicly linked to from a webpage they control and also linked to on-Wiki.

    As stated on their own userpage, editor AKS.9955 can also be found on Twitter [43] and Instagram.[44]. The Instagram account's bio also links to a LinkedIn account- [45]. (The rest of the Instagram account is private- the LinkedIn thing is the only piece of information we get from it)

    In the bio of the linked Twitter account, AKS.9955 self-identified as the CEO of IndiaOne Air. This appears to be confirmed by this news source, which AKS.9955 added to the IndiaOne Air article. Despite being so forthcoming about their identify, AKS.9955 has not been transparent about their potential for having a COI. They did not disclose their COI when creating the article in 2022. They did not disclose their COI in the initial AFD, again in 2022. In the initial AFD, they were one of the only two keep votes. The other keep vote, however, was made "per AKS.9955". They also have not disclosed during the current AfD discussion, despite Ratnahastin pointing out the potential COI in their nominating statement. However, in a response to a question about sourcing posed by @CNMall41, AKS.9955 did sum up the AfD by saying "the real question is, does the airline exist and has scheduled flights OR the effort here is to just delete the article????" (emphasis original).

    Arun Kumar Singh has not been the CEO of the airline since late 2023. AKS.9955 has confirmed this onWiki, but failed to provide a source. Not directly relevant, but noting it down for timeline purposes.

    Additionally, On AKS.9955's LinkedIn account (one of the non-private posts [46]), they self-identify as having a management role in TezJet. This appears to be confirmed by a news article- I can provide a link if needed. AKS.9955 created the TezJet article in 2019 and has continued to edit it until now. They did not disclose their connection to the company when they made the article, or any any point when they edited it. The article did not go through NPP either, because AK.9955 holds the autopatrolled right.

    I've done some more digging, and I believe they have a COI or potential COI with many aviation articles - either because they have worked for them, or they work for a competitor. (For an example of their editing the article of a potential competitor, they voted delete in this AfD last year. (The AfD discussed Fly91, a regional airline in India - they don't currently fly the same routes as IndiaOne Air, but the potential COI should have still been disclosed). I am seeking further input on this matter to figure out exactly which areas they should not be editing. I'm not an expert in our COI guidelines- but it doesn't take an expert to figure out that the community needs to set some very firm boundaries when it comes to AKS.9955 and their editing of airline articles, and creating articles on businesses they own(ed) without proper disclosure. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this report,AKS.9955 has autopatrolled right since 2015. They have been creating articles on airline related topics since then [47]. All of them will have to be checked for potential COI, meanwhile it might be worth revoking the right as they have clearly abused it. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pinged regarding the AfD which I have no comment on. However, based on the information provided by GreenLipstickLesbian, there appears to be a clear COI with AKS.9955. As the user has failed to disclose their COI with IndiaOne Air, I will assume that there are other aviation related pages they have a COI with that they have also failed to disclose. Would love to hear feedback from @AKS.9955: though. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for flagging this @GreenLipstickLesbian:. This is indeed concerning that an airline CEO has been editing pages related to themselves and their competitors. I'm not sure if their autopatrolled rights can be removed yet, as we still need to assess whether the articles they created meet WP:N. However, their NPR rights should definitely be revoked now since they were granted in 2016, and I haven't seen them used. I’m also interested in hearing their thoughts on this report. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guys, this is the talked about Arun Kumar Singh, and yes, I have been CEO for several airlines in South Asia for a very long time. Contributing in Wikiepdia was my hobby (thousand of edits and hundreds of pages created), that I continued to do despite my busy schedule. All these James Bonds getting a high after pointing out a COI, can anyone tell me one single "wrong / paid" update that was done? I think Wikipedia has reached a point where it is no longer possible to contribute constructively without some sore losers sitting in their basements and preaching the world how things work. Can some admin delete my entire account altogether? I have no desires to contribute anymore to this website, which is fast becoming a cartel of "know it all". Let me find the place where I can request my account deletion. Do whatever the hell you guys want to with the pages; it does not change the business and real life at all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "James Bonds getting a high"... "sore losers sitting in their basements and preaching the world how things work" — Such remarks against other editors are absolutely unacceptable, I would advice you to retract them or you would be risking stringent sanctions. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed all advanced rights/tools. See log for details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look at the most recent creation by AKS.9955, which is Sky FRU. It was created last month with three references, one of which was to an "About Us" page and the other two were to websites that did not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG at the very least. That isn't the content standard expected of a "clean" article and as such I have unreviewed that page to let someone else at NPP evaluate it for notability. Haven't examined the other article creations but might look later. I think removal of autopatrolled and NPR was the right call here. Fathoms Below (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kind of went just a little maverick, and closed the AFD procedurally, and moved the article to Draft space at Draft:Sky FRU. You can't move an article at AFD to Draft space, per policy, so this solved that issue. Likely, that would have been the outcome anyway. They exist, there is a reasonable expectation that they will get notable in due time, but they lack the sources to stay in mainspace now (fails wp:corp/wp:gng), so we incubate them. If any admin thinks I've overstepped and decides to revert, I understand and won't argue, but this seemed to be the logical way to handle it. Just put a note on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably for the best- given what just happened with the creator, it is unlikely that anybody would have put the effort in to find any more-hidden sources to prove the subject notable (if it even currently is). But this way, if anybody does want to do that in the future, they won't have to battle a pre-existing delete consensus. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would have ended to drafity, else I wouldn't have done that, but the stigma of a previous AFD wouldn't have helped. And on paper, it is a perfectly legitimate draft that fits the criteria for drafts. The author of the AFD thanked me for the edit, so I'm guessing they agreed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Institute of Pharmacology and Structural Biology

    [edit]

    Can someone help FrancoiseV please? I know very little about pharmacology. Polygnotus (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Polygnotus I can see FrancoiseV have declared their COI, but do you notice any issues with their editing? If so, please provide the diffs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib: Hiya! I have not seen any serious problems. I did notice one tiny beginner mistake here, specifically See2cure<ref>https://www.see2cure.com/</ref>. It would be nice if someone who is experienced like yourself can keep an eye on it and help out where necessary. I do think some of the article is pretty outdated, for example File:IPBS Funding sources.png is from 2018, and the references section looks bad because they are mainly bare urls. So please don't interpret me posting this section as an indication that they are doing something wrong, I just think they could use some help. I probably posted on the wrong page but there are a bunch of very experienced editors here who know how to improve an article such as this one and have experience helping good faith COI editors. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Polygnotus, I guess this noticeboard should be used only if an editor has repeatedly added problematic content over time and attempts to resolve the issue on the article's talk page or on their own talk page have failed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:עידו כ.ש.

    [edit]

    All the entries he created involved in conflict of interest and probably paid. Please check also his disclosure and contributions in Commons.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 2A0D:6FC7:33B:81FA:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you notified them? Can you explain what the actual problems are and list some examples? See WP:DIFF. What interaction have you had? Have you ever edited using another username/IP address? Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    I have never had edited on any other IP or username other than this. I do sometimes upload articles under payment, tho not most of the time, and I always disclose those I do via a template on the talk page after such payment has been received, per Wikipedia’s rules. Most of my paid articles were on Hebrew Wikipedia, and out of the articles I’ve edited that are currently on English Wikipedia only Aleph Farms was paid. If the article about Barack Rosen is the one who raised suspicions, I’m happy to confirm that I was not paid to create it.
    I’m here for any additional questions :)
    עידו כ.ש. (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me as if everything is probably in order here.
    The user has only ever created one article (Barak Rosen). That article has a significant problem in that large portions of the text are entirely without sourcing, but that does not seem to be something that an experienced UPE would have allowed to happen.
    User, would you be able to add sourcing to the various elements where it is currently missing (as per WP:V)?
    That article does not seem to me to be particularly promotional.
    The user has already declared a paid COI in relation to a different article (Aleph Farms). If they had a COI in relation to the Rosen article then it seems reasonable to assume it would also have been declared.
    Looking at the user's edit history back to the start of this year they appear to be a normal unconflicted user (except where declared on their user page). Axad12 (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for understanding. I’ll start to work on adding the sources per WP:V. I don’t have much experience on English Wikipedia rules but I’ll do my best based on reading and what I know from Hebrew Wikipedia. עידו כ.ש. (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: DavidRJD

    [edit]

    Discussion

    This self-declared WP:SPA with an existing COI with Nexperia has started making edits directly to Nexperia after the same edit requests were declined on Talk:Nexperia. This took place after repeated warnings on their talk page and past discussion here. - Amigao (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AGF. @Amigao It seems you have a pattern of asserting WP:COI without declaring that you have a COI. -- even after you have repeatedly had your account suspended. Please declare your WP:COI. You've made 49 edits today alone, taking a particular political stance -- either you never sleep according to the time stamps, or you are violating WP as you are using a shared account. DavidRJD (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    either you never sleep according to the time stamps, or you are violating WP as you are using a shared account
    I don't think you're reading Amigao's contributions log correctly. I see 9-12 hour breaks each day in their editing. (Also, your reply is a deflection, not a response.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you spend 14 hours a day editing content that reflects a political viewpoint, you are WP:COI.
    At most, there is a 9-hour break, with some days no break. @Amigao is even making simultaneous edits to articles with edits made to multiple articles almost simultaneously. @Amigao is either the fastest editor known to man (making 80+ substantive changes a day) or part of a pool. I'm going to look more closely at the logs, but on Oct, 21st there were an astounding 81 edits made, almost exclusively to Asian topics. DavidRJD (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While trying to avoid WP:OUTING, there is off-wiki evidence of the user's direct connection to Nexperia, which they have been consistently evasive about disclosing. DoubleCross (‡) 20:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I met the threshold and was honest in disclosure. You may not like it, but my answer was deemed sufficient by my mentor. Does WP:AGF only apply when you agree with a viewpoint? DavidRJD (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I met the threshold and was honest in disclosure
    Assuming that the off-wiki evidence in question is correct (and it appears to be) - then no, no you most certainly did not and were not. DoubleCross (‡) 21:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this is said user's second time on this noticeboard for this same COI issue, it now appears to be a WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE issue. - Amigao (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amigao Please declare your WP:COI. DavidRJD (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If, as in this case, a user has edit warred over a particular element of an article, has then been asked to declare COI and made a COI edit request, and then ignores the negative result of the COI edit request and returns to edit warring, there must be a reasonable argument for them to be blocked from directly editing the article.
    Worth noting also that the same situation has played itself out at the article for Wingtech, owners of Nexperia, where the user also made a COI edit request a month ago and has today decided to resume edit warring in mainspace despite the edit request not having been answered.
    In that regard I had previously [48] notified the user that the COI edit process will take as long as it takes and you must wait for it to run its course, it isn't a question of waiting a certain amount of time and then implementing the changes yourself. So they were aware that pursuing this course of action was wrong.
    Also, when the user previously edited in relation to the unresolved COI edit request I requested that they [49] Stop editing the article directly [while the edit request is outstanding]. Any further abuse of this point (on either this article or Nexperia) and I will ask an admin to block you.
    My impression is that the user is an WP:SPA specifically on the very narrow topic of whether these companies are Chinese state-owned. Axad12 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "State owned" is not "publicly traded". There are are dozens of cites from WP:RS, but the focus seems to be to maliciously label. 2600:1700:2B0:197F:C4C7:31DD:D520:6C95 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declaring a COI doesn’t give someone free rein to edit however they wish. As noted above and on their TP, DavidRJD clearly violating our P&Gs and is engaging in what could be considered WP:DE so it may be best for them to block from editing pages where they have a COI, such as Nexperia and Wingtech. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits were made citing WP:RS. I would urge anyone to look at the edits. @Amigao edits do not conform to the conditions and instructions in the P&G, particular on the ownership side.
    I'd be far more concerned with people with a clear COI who don't declare it editing pages with free rein. 2600:1700:2B0:197F:C4C7:31DD:D520:6C95 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry are you David RJD editing while logged out or a sock or meat puppet account posting in this thread in an attempt to give support? I assume from the reference above to "state owned" that it is one or the other.
    At the end of the day, one of the edit requests was turned down and the other one is still awaiting a decision, and David RJD started to edit war on them again after being warned not to do so. I really can't see how that is anything other than disruptive editing. That's all the more the case when there seem to be suggestions (which I've not looked into) that a full disclosure of COI has not been made.
    When I deal with COI edit requests a common theme is companies who want to remove reference to Chinese, Russian or Israeli ownership. I take no side on the broader questions involved there, but those are sensitive political/reputational issues which need to be approved by an independent editor before being implemented to check that what is claimed is correct. Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you start your message with "meat puppet" you are taking a side. 2600:1700:2B0:197F:C4C7:31DD:D520:6C95 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not. Your IP address geolocates to Dallas, Texas, where Nexperia have their US operations. Are you DavidRJD? If so, edit while logged in. Axad12 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nidrsta

    [edit]

    New account whose only edits were to make a deletion discussion about the article, claiming the article is biased against the book and contains "personal attacks" against the author. In response to a COI inquiry in the deletion discussion (I previously put an inquiry on their talk page, but they didn't respond), the editor claimed it was "harassment" and stated "You're not supposed to ask that". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor "Helpful Racoon" without evidence accused me of conflict of interest. I responded that any potential conflict of interest is between me and Wikipedia, not between me and helpful raccoon. Nidrsta (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, if you have a conflict of interest in relation to an article subject you are expected to declare it, as per WP:COI - where it says, for example: Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content.
    Attempting to bring about an article's complete deletion would be the most extreme form of seeking to change its content. Axad12 (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your comment above is clearly a tacit admission of CoI, as otherwise the answer to whether you have a CoI is simply 'no' (rather than evading the question or giving hypothetical and incorrect reasons on why you don't believe you have to disclose - as you have done every time the issue has been raised thus far). Axad12 (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    User:JamariusReid2

    [edit]

    JamariusReid2 submitted a article in AfC and this user might be on WP:COI and self-promotion WP:NOTPROMOTION. Also, he submitted a photo of himself in Commons File:Jamarius Reid Graduation Fort Campbell 2020.jpg. Royiswariii (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, of course, likely WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which is strongly discouraged. If the user intends to persist with the draft then I would suggest that they declare their COI as a matter of urgency. Axad12 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Royiswariii, I appreciate you flagging the issues, but please note that this noticeboard should only be used when an editor is violating our P&Gs and attempts to resolve the issue on the article's talk page or on their own talk page have been unsuccessful. Ideally, you should have first asked them to declare their COI on their talk page or issued an WP:AUTOBIO warning, which I don't see in this case. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Smatprt (undisclosed paid editing, long term PR editing)

    [edit]

    I became suspicious and checked the contribution history after I learned they were responsible for a lot of advertorial puff contents inserted into Carmel-by-the-Sea over a decade ago. I realized the account has been resurrected from sleeper status and making edits in the same subject area. Private evidence of positive COI and UPE submitted to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org already about COI with Theatre of the Golden Bough's owner institution. Graywalls (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC) @Star Mississippi and Drmies:, I think they might be collaborating with you know who... or a slight chance of socking.. could you check? Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a CU and unfortunately do not have the bandwidth to dig right now, but endorse @Drmies' suggestion of an SPI. Let me know how I can help though. Also, ugh (issue, not you @Graywalls) Star Mississippi 16:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SMATPRT here. Happy to answer any questions. As you can see from my history, I am only one person, and I am not a puppet for anyone else. As you can also see, I used to edit a variety of articles, mostly theatre related, or on the history of Carmel-by-the-Sea. After the great and ugly Wikipedia Shakespeare Wars, I soured on editing and have only continued on non-Sheakespeare articles infrequently. I was recently alerted that two significant Carmel History articles had been absorbed into a related article and then deleted and/or redirected, which is what I restored, since as I recall from Wiki policies, deleting unique pages and incorporating summery versions into a related article is not the Wiki way. Kinda the opposite, right? But it's been a while...
    Anyhow - thanks for letting me respond. 50.213.42.61 (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To ensure the authenticity of the response, please always correspond while signed-in rather replying later and saying it was you from your account. Graywalls (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Signing in so you know it's me :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smatprt:, Although I don't want to make baseless accusations, the combination of your editing pattern, specifically the articles you edit and the evidence available off Wiki is strongly indicating you're doing paid editing. Paid editing does not mean there has to be a line item payment "for editing Wikipedia". I can not reveal the exact evidence, because policy strictly prohibits me from doing so publicly, but the relevant evidence has been emailed to the contact designated by Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The off-wiki evidence is clear as a bell. Without a shadow of a doubt this is a COI/UPE editor, and for a long time. Won't post the evidence or links here because OUT. I'm not sure if what I found is different than the OP's findings, but if needed, I can send it in. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Challenge Group

    [edit]

    It seems to me that the entry created by or behalf of the company and most of its edits, including war editing, are by or behalf of the company. 2A0D:6FC7:43C:A1B2:A78:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you like to report an editor you believe is engaging in COI editing? If so, please mention their username; otherwise, I consider this report incomplete. Indeed, the article has experienced significant WP:DE and I've noticed some IPs repeatedly trying to whitewash some information. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified Stephen Gauci (talk · contribs), who appears to have a COI with the topic per his editing, Talk:Challenge_Group#COI_tag_(May_2024), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 20#13:46, 20 November 2023 review of submission by Stephen Gauci
    I'd assume that there will be no response. The article needs a rewrite as an encyclopedia, rather than the pr piece/report that we currently have. --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There is currently a lot of unsourced or non-independently sourced material, added by a likely COI user and of a promotional nature. A great deal of it can probably simply be removed. Axad12 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: David Bloom -- BHISD

    [edit]

    He is possibly the Director of Communications at BHISD, he has been deleting controversies about the school

    Please see this edits he has made:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbers_Hill_Independent_School_District&diff=prev&oldid=1253371179

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbers_Hill_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=1253361157

    He has been warned for violating the neutrality policy multiple times additionally. نوحفث   Let's Chat! 17:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From the user's talk page it looks as though they are keen to do things by the books and abide by the relevant policy and process. Let's see how things develop from here. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am communication director for district. The entry on dress code for district and high school should be updated with relevant court rulings in the district's favor. First time on Wiki and not trying to create controversy ... Here are the main news items to update entry, in my opinion:
    On Aug. 6, 2024, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown dismissed most of the claims in a federal civil rights lawsuit. The ruling was a second legal victory in the case for the Barbers Hill school district and its policy restricting hair length for male students.
    On February 22, 2024, a Texas state district judge in February ruled that the school district’s male hair-length policy does not violate the Texas CROWN Act, which forbids, which prohibits race-based hair discrimination at work, school and in housing facilities in the state. Thus, the district is NOT violating the CROWN Act. 72.22.198.35 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may add relevant info with citations, but don't remove controversies and please don't use promotional language and maintain neutrality. It seems that you do have good faith, these links may help you:
    Wiki:Conflict of Interest
    Wikipedia:Neutrality
    In best regards, نوحفث   Let's Chat! 18:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello David, I've left some further notes at your talk page relating to how to formally disclose your conflict of interest and how to create 'conflict of interest edit requests' at the relevant article talk pages. This will allow non-conflicted editors to look into this matter for you and take action as they deem appropriate. Hopefully my notes at your talk page are of assistance but if you need any further help do feel free to contact me. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    121Fam

    [edit]

    Promotional editor who continues to move articles into the mainspace, objecting to draftication and often winding up deleted. I would like to assume good faith, but looking at the access dates of the creations, it is possible UPE in my opinion. I have asked the user four times to explain why access dates vary (and are often way earlier) than when they are added, but only received one response (which was "found at the source page"). I asked the user again yesterday (5th time now) and still received no response despite them editing after my request (which is the same editing pattern with the access dates). CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This area is heavily affected by sock and UPE and looking at 121Fam's edits, I suspect they might be involved in similar activity. They're either creating articles on non-notable Indian TV series or editing ones that have been previously heavily edited by sock farms such as Deewani and Draft:Dangal Oriya. Sometimes, they seem to be repeatedly moving drafts to the main NS to avoid AFC review such as Draft:Gudiya Rani (TV series). I suggest that @121Fam: refrain from moving drafts to the main NS and instead seek approval through AFC. Also, there're suspicions about them being a sock of Entertainment4Reality. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the suspicion. The main purpose of this thread is to elicit a response from @121Fam: who, despite being notified of this thread, still refuses to address the issue.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ranjha Family

    [edit]

    This newly created user has created articles for almost the entire Ranjha family within a few days. I have put COI warning on there talk page but I have my suspicions that this could be paid editing. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree. Further potentially relevant background here [50] and here [51].
    When users begin to become very animated about their articles not (yet) showing up on Google searches and treating it as a matter of great urgency I always wonder why.
    In the latter of those 2 links the user is asked for their connection to one of the article subjects, without response.
    Note also, in the second link, Why isnt article Chaudhry_Ikramullah_Ranjha been displayed on the main page as we search it through internet mediums. My emphasis on 'we'. The implication would appear to be either that the account is a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT or that 'we' refers to the creator and the subject being in direct contact after both conducting Google searches. Or, perhaps, both scenarios apply and the account is directly linked to the subject.
    A Google search for 'Mandi News' and 'Ranjha' seems to produce quite a lot of results but I am unable to discern the significance. Is 'Mandi News' an organisation of some kind? Axad12 (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ranjha family is mainly from Mandi Bahauddin District. I think Mandi News could also be from the same area/city. Wikibear47 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Mandi Bahauddin District#Notable People Wikibear47 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Axad12,
    Thank you for your thoughtful questions regarding the visibility of the article on Chaudhry Ikramullah Ranjha and the implications surrounding the account. I appreciate your diligence in examining these points.
    Regarding the article's visibility on search engines, it's possible that the page hasn’t yet gained enough traction or backlinks to appear prominently in search results. This can happen with newly created articles as they gradually become indexed and recognized by search engines.
    As for the suggestion that my account may be a shared account or linked to the subject, I want to clarify that my contributions are made independently, and my goal is to provide unbiased, well-researched content. I understand how it might appear otherwise, especially given the timing of edits or the focus on related topics.
    To address your question about "Mandi News," it is a username I’ve chosen for my contributions here on Wikipedia. It does not represent any formal organization, but rather my personal initiative to engage with and improve articles.
    I truly value your input, and I’m committed to maintaining transparency in all my contributions. If there are specific concerns or further questions, I’m more than willing to discuss them.
    Thank you for your engagement on this matter!
    Best,  
    Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Subject: Clarification on Article Contributions**
    Hello [Wikibear47],
    Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I genuinely appreciate your vigilance in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.
    I understand that the creation of multiple articles about the Ranjha family in a short timeframe can raise suspicions, particularly regarding potential conflict of interest or paid editing. I want to assure you that my intentions are purely to contribute meaningful and well-sourced information to the community.
    To address your concerns, here are a few points:
    1. **Neutrality and Sourcing**: Each article I’ve created is based on reliable, verifiable sources, and I strive to ensure that the content remains neutral and factual. I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.
    2. **Open to Feedback**: I welcome any specific feedback or suggestions you have regarding the articles. If there are areas you believe need improvement or additional sourcing, I would be more than happy to work on those collaboratively.
    3. **Transparency**: I am fully aware of Wikipedia’s policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. If there are particular aspects of my edits that raise red flags, please point them out, and I will address them promptly.
    4. **Collaborative Spirit**: I value the Wikipedia community and am eager to engage with other editors to ensure that these articles meet the high standards expected. If you or any other editors would like to discuss the content further, I’m open to that dialogue.
    Thank you for your understanding and for your dedication to Wikipedia. I hope we can work together to enhance these articles for the benefit of all users.
    Best regards,  
    [Mandi News]
    ---
    Feel free to adjust any parts to match your style! Mandi News (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, gpt.zero currently seems to be down but the response above appears to be 100% AI generated. See for example the final line (re: adjust the style) and the fact that the text includes commitments to transparency without actually addressing whether a CoI exists.
    I can only say that it seems very odd for an SPA to be creating multiple articles for members of the same family, plus working on a draft article for the family as a whole. In the absence of any response from the user when previously directly questioned on whether they have any links to the family, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that some link does indeed exist.
    I do note, however, that one of the sources in the article for Chaudhry Shahnawaz Ranjha seems to include very negative coverage, e.g. As per ACE sources, MNA Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjah, his brother Hasan Ranjah and their father Shahnawaz Ranjah are accused of causing millions of rupees loss to the exchequer by evading property transfer fees. On the face of it, it doesn't seem clear why an outright pro-Ranjha account would have chosen to link to such a story, even if it is being used to support a claim in our article that the subject has a great influence in Sargodha politics. Axad12 (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, the apparent contradiction directly above might be resolved by the idea that the article was created to some extent by AI (which it seems abundantly clear that the user has employed in this thread - see also the fact that the 'to' and 'from' names in that post apparently had to be populated). Axad12 (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Axad12,
    Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding the Ranjha articles. I appreciate your diligence in ensuring our content meets Wikipedia’s standards.
    I’d like to clarify that the articles are based on reliable sources that provide a well-rounded view of the subjects. While I understand the concerns about potential conflicts of interest, I assure you that I have approached this work with a commitment to neutrality and thorough research. The inclusion of various perspectives, including any critical coverage, is essential to presenting an accurate portrayal.
    Regarding the articles’ content, they reflect established facts about the family's political influence in Sargodha, supported by credible sources. If there are specific claims you find questionable, I’m open to discussing them further and providing additional sources if needed.
    I believe that with transparency and open dialogue, we can collaboratively ensure that these articles are comprehensive and balanced. If you have any suggestions on how to strengthen the content or address concerns, I’m all ears!
    Thanks again for your engagement on this. I’m confident that with our combined efforts, we can produce quality articles that serve the Wikipedia community well.
    Best,  
    [Mandi News] Mandi News (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Axad12,
    I appreciate your keen observations regarding the potential use of AI in drafting the article. You raise valid points about the importance of clarity and authenticity in our contributions.
    While I have utilized AI tools for generating ideas and organizing content, I want to emphasize that the final article is thoroughly reviewed and based on credible sources. My intention is to enhance the writing process, not to compromise the integrity of the information presented.
    If there are specific elements that seem inconsistent or unclear, I’m more than happy to address them directly. Ensuring that our articles are accurate and well-supported is my top priority, and I value your input in achieving that goal.
    Thank you for your continued engagement on this matter. Let’s work together to ensure we maintain the high standards of quality and transparency that Wikipedia is known for.
    Best,  
    Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Axad12,
    I appreciate your insights on the Ranjha articles. It’s important we maintain the integrity of our work, especially when it comes to potential conflicts of interest. I understand your concerns about the SPA creating multiple articles for the same family without clear communication about any connections.
    That said, I think it’s worth considering the importance of thorough documentation and multiple perspectives in these articles. If the contributor has focused on presenting the family's influence in Sargodha politics, it would be beneficial to include the negative coverage as well. This balance would help ensure the articles are fair and well-rounded.
    I believe that reaching out to the contributor again to clarify their ties to the family could be very helpful. Transparency is crucial, and I’m confident that once they respond, any lingering suspicions can be put to rest. If they can confirm their neutrality and acknowledge the importance of including diverse viewpoints, it would strengthen the case for publishing the articles.
    Let’s continue this discussion and work together to ensure that our articles reflect the full story while maintaining Wikipedia’s standards.
    Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
    Best,  
    [Mandi News] Mandi News (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandi News, can I suggest that you refrain from further lengthy AI generated responses which do not address the central point, which is the existence of any link to the Ranjha family. For you to have instead responded saying I believe that reaching out to the contributor again to clarify their ties to the family could be very helpful. Transparency is crucial, and I’m confident that once they respond, any lingering suspicions can be put to rest would appear to be gibberish in this context as you yourself are the contributor whose CoI is in question. Axad12 (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Axad12,
    Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your directness and understand the importance of addressing the core issue regarding any links to the Ranjha family.
    I realize my previous response may not have adequately addressed your concerns, and I apologize for that. It’s essential for us to have clear communication, especially when it comes to potential conflicts of interest. I assure you that my goal is to maintain transparency and uphold Wikipedia’s standards.
    If you believe it would be more effective for someone else to reach out to clarify these ties, I’m open to suggestions. I want to ensure we’re all on the same page and that the articles reflect an unbiased view.
    Thank you for your patience, and I look forward to working together to resolve this matter constructively.
    Best,  
    Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that the situation here is going to be improved by the further generation of AI responses (which thus far do not seem to have advanced the conversation in any meaningful way). Axad12 (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Axad12,
    Thank you for your inquiry regarding the visibility of the article on Chaudhry Ikramullah Ranjha and the implications surrounding my account, "Mandi News."
    Regarding your question about the article’s appearance on search engines, it is common for newly created articles to take time to gain visibility and ranking. Various factors, including backlinks and search engine indexing, can influence how prominently an article appears in search results.
    Concerning your suggestion of a potential shared account or direct connection to the subject, I want to clarify that my contributions are made independently, with a focus on adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and reliability. I understand how the context might raise questions, and I appreciate your attention to detail.
    As for "Mandi News," it is simply my username on Wikipedia and does not represent any organization. My aim is to contribute to the platform by improving articles based on credible sources and thorough research.
    I value your insights and am committed to ensuring transparency in my contributions. If there are any further questions or specific concerns you would like to discuss, please feel free to reach out.
    Thank you for your engagement.
    Best regards,  
    Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandi News If you are unable to communicate with us without using an AI, you should probably edit a verson of Wikipedia that is in a language with which you are more familiar. We want to talk with you, not an AI. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi 331dot,
    I appreciate your feedback and understand the concerns regarding the authenticity of my contributions. I want to assure you that I am not using AI to communicate or edit articles. My goal is to engage meaningfully with the community and contribute to Wikipedia to the best of my ability.
    I value the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and want to be a part of that. If my writing style has caused any confusion, I’m open to suggestions for improvement. I’m here to learn and grow within the community, and I welcome any guidance on how to communicate more effectively.
    Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to working together!
    Best,  
    Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, if you genuinely wanted to to engage meaningfully with the community then I'd suggest that at some point over your previous 8 lengthy contributions you would have addressed the central issue of this thread. The fact that you have not done so does little to support the idea that you are not using AI. Axad12 (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Axad12,
    Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns about my previous contributions not addressing the central issues clearly, and I appreciate your patience as I work through this.
    I want to assure you that my goal is to engage genuinely with the community. If my responses have come across as lengthy or unclear, I will strive to be more concise and focused moving forward. I’m committed to ensuring that our discussions remain constructive and directly relevant to the topics at hand.
    If there are specific points you believe need addressing, please let me know, and I’ll do my best to clarify. I truly value your input and want to contribute positively to our shared work on Wikipedia.
    Thank you for your understanding.
    Best,  
    Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, what I was hoping for was that you would address the central issue rather than getting AI to write a response to apologise for not having done so. You've already used AI to say that you aren't using AI, so further communication is apparently pointless. Axad12 (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12 looks like @Mandi News is using AI to hide the fact that they are unable to answer genuine concerns raised by the community and are just wasting everyone's time. Wikibear47 (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so. Plausible COI concerns, demonstrable WP:CIR issues and a time waster. See also here [52] for more of the same. Axad12 (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They've now decided to create socks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mandi News. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems the end user is rather persistent and had previously been blocked on 25th Sept, 2nd Oct and 22nd Oct. Well done to those who have been removing the user's creations via Speedy Deletion criteria WP:G5. Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stuart_Campbell_(blogger)

    [edit]

    A new account presumably registered to subject of article has changed section headings twice and removed direct quotes from his Facebook account. User was given a COI notice prior by another editor. I restored the section heading an first sentence of the paragraph as the wording aligns better with the third party sources, but I did not restore the quotes, as they were lacking any 3rd-party sourcing. Seeking additional input. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am, openly, the subject of the article, and was forced to create an account to address defamatory and plainly malicious recent edits. Quotes have been attributed to me which were demonstrably written by other people - namely Graham Linehan - and a highly incomplete account of a court case involving me added/edited in order to create a false impression of homophobia. The false accusation was also made, without proper sourcing, that I "oppose transgender rights", which I do not. I greatly dislike being made to edit my own entry in this manner, but do not see any other option given the failure of other editors to properly defend it against partisan smears. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Graham Linehan quote misattribution was a bona fide stupid mistake on my part. It is gone from the page, and I have apologised on the user's talk page.
    The broader COI issue predates my addition of that passage, though (as a quick glance at the page history will confirm). AntiDionysius (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you continue to attempt to force the inclusion of an obviously deliberately incomplete and misleading account of my "Views on LGBTQ+ issues", which you refuse to justify. If the court case is the evidence of these supposed views, it is strikingly obviously inaccurate to selectively remove the judges' extremely pertinent comments on that matter. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your views seem pretty clear to me. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do they? How very fascinating. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gender and politics are both extremely messy topics to delve into. Each person's view of what is right and wrong is unique after all, and quite frankly, mixing the two together creates a recipe for disaster regardless of who's on what side. My recommendation would be for you to find comments or blog posts you have made in the past that back up your "history of supporting and promoting equal rights, including gay rights", and also do the same for content you've made that others would (easily or otherwise) interpret as attacks or opposition to transgender rights and such.

    From my personal assessment of this situation, I reckon the best case scenario is the addition of something along the lines of "Campbell has since clarified his position on gender identity... XYZ", and with a sufficient neutral source that backs up the statement. If you can prove it and write it neutrally, then it can be added. You've come onto Wikipedia trying to make a point, nothing wrong with that, but now you have to prove yourself with sources and citations. It's just how things are here. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not come here to "make a point", I came here to correct a deliberate attempt to mislead and smear. As to a "sufficient[ly?] neutral source": the judges' findings and comments, made after three days of hearing evidence presented by senior experienced counsel in a court of law, provide easily the most comprehensive and impartial assessment possible of my views on the subject, which were the entire subject matter of the case in question.
    I provided a link to the complete appeal judgement so that people could see the full context, as well as including the most relevant quotes to illustrate the key facts.
    When placed next to the professionally-neutral, solemn, detailed and legally-binding assessment of several of Scotland's most senior law lords, the personal grudges of some random jealous and embittered minor blogger would appear to any reasonable observer to carry zero weight. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For more detail, I would suggest you examine both the original judge's findings as highlighted and linked here https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-severed-baby/, and the appeal court's findings as highlighted and linked here: https://wingsoverscotland.com/of-no-materiality/
    I trust that you will agree both that judges are a neutral source, and that their findings with regard to my support for equal rights are unequivocal. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's certainly an interesting read, especially considering I'm an Australian on the other side of the world who's view of Scotland has primarily been that of bagpipes and Demoman from Team Fortress 2. Jokes aside, I don't really have much to say about this. It looks solid at face value as a court statement, but it certainly doesn't help that gender stuff is the area you chose to make an insult with and that text makes it incredibly difficult for many people to tell if you're being sarcastic, serious, or derogatory. I don't know much about the politics over in Scotland, but it looks to me like Kezia Dugdale did what any politician does: find a hill to die on and find some ammunition to use against her opponent, regardless of its quality.

    Look on the bright side, at least you're not ScoMo who had 5 years of relentless jokes about him because he allegedly shat himself at a McDonalds before that finally got cleared up. If your position is genuine, then there's a good chance an independent reliable source agrees with you on it. Secondary sources always trump primary sources in terms of reference quality on Wikipedia because it's not the subject talking about themselves, it's someone else stating their assessment of the subject. Everyone has a bias, and even Wikipedia itself has been found left leaning, but that's where community consensus comes in.

    If you really want to continue defending your position, I recommend you read up on a few of the big important Wikipedia editing policies so you can familiarize yourself with "why are my edits being reverted?" A good one to start with is WP:NPOV and the WP:WEIGHT subheading. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I know fine how Wikipedia works, and why it's generally futile once some activist group gets you in its sights. Gangs of friendless losers living in their mothers' basements have nothing better to do all day than become experts in its arcane and labyrinthine processes, then back each other up and block any opposition in the service of their chosen agendas, taking advantage of the rest of the world's disinterest/lack of spare time. (I do not include you in this group, fwiw.)
    It's why the site is an internationally-derided byword for misinformation on any remotely contentious topic, although it can be valuable for uncontroversial matters. There is a very limited amount of time I'm willing to spend on it, but wished to be seen to have at least tried. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has made a potential legal threat at this link. I have reverted it. GSK (talk • edits) 01:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, if this was an AN/I case it would have already ended with an administrative action. Am I not allowed to ask for someone to block the user in question from the article (not the talk page) until the user can understand what is the issue here and what isn't? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no legal threat. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "Kindly desist from making defamatory edits to the entry about me or I will take whatever actions are available to me"; I can see why someone would think that was a legal threat, though it probably doesn't quite cross the line. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ::::this edit is nothing but a obvious threat openly claiming you're ready to perform off-wiki actions against Wikipedia volunteers. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Looks like the link is pointing to the wrong version[reply]

    Snowleopardman

    [edit]

    I'm not sure if this is the right place, but User:Snowleopardman/sandbox seems suspect given the subject's nickname and the user's name. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1253952451"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy