Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Continuing UNESCO COI issues

• John Cummings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lisa Rechelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A.mart82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• C.recalde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of you will likely recall past discussions about UNESCO employees adding large amounts of verbatim text from open-licence UNESCO publications to articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Children in emergencies and conflicts and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 156#UNESCO content), linked to projects such as meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020. Despite numerous promises to resolve this issue, I'm still encountering UNESCO editors who don't seem to have made the required paid-editing declaration, such as Lisa Rechelle, A.mart82 and C.recalde (unless the statements on their user pages are sufficient?). See also the discussion at meta:Grants talk:Project/John Cummings/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2017-2018/Final. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe we're also still waiting for the list of articles created/edited by Besalgado, promised here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: To me, their userpage statements seem too vague for WP:PAID to be adequately satisfied. They're supposed to state who is paying them and list which articles they are editing on behalf of their employer. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at just one of these articles Global Education Monitoring Report and the bulk of the content was blatantly copied from their websites. Not acceptable, nor is the lack of specific disclosures under WP:PAID. Melcous (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be two separate issues: one is the disclosure on user pages that needs to be completely transparent. The other one is that text written by UNESCO is - I assume - unsuitable for an encyclopedic content if it's blindly copied in big chunks and might not be written in a language that our target audience can easily understand. Overall, I have nothing against utilising materials from UNESCO that is under a compatible licence but it has to be done properly, i.e. be encyclopedic, summary-style and easy to understand, no jargon. Do we have examples for good and bad cases that we can examine? What needs to be done exactly to address your concerns, Cordless Larry? EMsmile (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all! I am in contact with some of the UNESCO employees pinged above. They want to do everything correctly and I and trying to convey best practices and what they should do specifically to fulfill the guidelines of the community. Like EMsmile I think it would be interesting and helpful to understand what you think should be done (except than editing user page in line with WP:PAID and providing list of edited articles) to properly adress your concerns. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions, EMsmile and Eric Luth (WMSE). Most of the problematic articles can be found in Category:Free content from UNESCO, and it's the articles there that have been created from scratch by copying content from UNESCO documents that are the most problematic. Take this revision of an article I subsequently gave a significant trim as an example - most of the middle section wasn't about the initiative that's the subject of the article but was rather an essay full of UNECSO POV presented in Wikipedia's voice.

In the past, John Cummings's response to complaints about these problems has been to expand on the instructions at Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia to highlight the need for editors, including those from UNESCO, to declare paid editing and list the articles they've contributed to on their user pages, and to adapt the imported text to be compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and in particular to attribute POV within the text. However, it's clear that these clarifications haven't had an effect. UNESCO editors continue to edit without making the required declarations, and we still have articles that are essentially essays presenting UNESCO's POV as fact.

Cleaning up existing articles has largely been left to volunteer editors such as me and Drmies; I've not seen much evidence of UNESCO editors trying to fix their previous mistakes. What would be appreciated in this regard is a contribution to that clean-up effort.

I also think that any future WMF/UNESCO collaborations should drop the aim of adding open license text to Wikipedia. Other aspects of the collaboration may well have been highly successful, but this aspect simply isn't working - the WMF is essentially funding the creation of a mess that volunteer editors are left to clear up. I also object to the apparent characterisation of these clean-up efforts in the grant report as "Wikimedia community members complaining or actively stopping our work, including harassing people we were working with, deleting their work, their user page etc.".

Finally, we need to get UNESCO editors to comply with the paid-editing disclosure requirements (no more empty promises on this). Many other editors in similar situations would have been blocked by now. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I just want to add that I, personally, am not at all interested in this free content donation etc. I see no good reason why we ("we", whoever we are) should be happy to have access to free documents from inside an organization. What concerns me, and I've said this many times before including in deletion discussions, is that the bulk of these articles, and I mean both "many of these articles" and "much of their content" is just completely organizational, directory-style, etc. information. It's not encyclopedic material. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree Drmies, if donation of free content simply means that we end up with an encyclopedia article that is a duplicate of an organisation's website, then what is the point (no matter who the organisation is)? Melcous (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the previous statements. Overall, the topic of this discussion is not so much about conflict of interest (I think that is a minor issue and would be easy to rectify on the user pages). The issue is more of "poor editing practices" / editing that is not in line with Wikipedia editing and manual of style policies. Perhaps this is better discussed elsewhere (where?). One gripe or concern I have is how the open access sources are mentioned under "sources" - disconnected from the added text - versus adding them more clearly as in-line citations. I've written about it here on the talk page of "Adding open license text to Wikipedia": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Adding_open_license_text_to_Wikipedia#Suggestion_to_change_the_guideline_about_the_sources. EMsmile (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"I think that is a minor issue and would be easy to rectify on the user pages". You'd think so, EMsmile, but even where we've previously been reassured that this is being rectified, there are cases where the declaration was never made properly. E.g. at User talk:Besalgado#March 2020, John Cummings wrote "User:Besalgado has now added the disclosure to their page", but if you look at User:Besalgado, you'll see that's not the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I am reading and taking note, and will no matter what work as well as I can with them so that they comply with WP:PAID. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Begsalgado will add the list of articles she edited and/or created to her user page. We thought it was enough to add them to the table on the project page, this is why we did not do this until now. Thank you for your patience. C.recalde (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have given further information about my work on my user page along with the list of edited and created articles. Thank you. Besalgado (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have given further information about my work on my user page along with the list of edited and created articles. Thank you. Besalgado (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that editors involved with this project, or these projects, simply are not really seasoned Wikipedia editors, or en-Wikipedia editors. That's evident in the recent history of Futures of Education, and here we have another COI creation, International Bureau of Education, with a promotional tone and not a single independent secondary source: that is not in keeping with practice. Eric Luth (WMSE), I appreciate the addition to Among Gnomes and Trolls, but I hope you understand that the lack of editing experience of some here (not John Cummings, obviously) makes me wonder how much practical knowledge is available among the editors and overseers of this and other projects. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, thanks for sending appreciation. Just to clarify – I haven't been involved in or overseen this specific project previously, but as they reached out and asked what to do to follow the rules and fulfill the requirements from the community, I am trying to support the best I can. The specific edit you are referring to was made from the wrong account, I am not editing Wikipedia articles from my staff account (due to internal rules). You can in all transparency see my private account (used in my free time) linked on my talk page, but I don't think it is that relevant for this conversation perhaps. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Eric Luth (WMSE), that makes me feel a little better; I see that you have some experience on en-Wikipedia as well. Sorry, but I do think that's relevant, since COI problems often involve different kinds of entanglements, from sourcing to tone. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I see what you mean. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Eric Luth (WMSE), can I check whether you're in contact with the UNESCO editors as you suggested you would be above? I'm just wary of this discussion being closed but the issue drifting on unresolved - as has been the case when it's been raised in the past. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for slow reply, @Cordless Larry. Yes I am (and as you can see below they are also aware of the conversation). Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

C.recalde has now updated their user page. Is this sufficient to meet WP:DISCLOSEPAY? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Could you please share the list of problematic articles according to you? We will do our best to re-edit them to fit the community standards. Thank you very much. C.recalde (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Your engagement is appreciated C.recalde, but with respect, your request here seems to me a bit backwards: the onus should not be on Cordless Larry to list articles for you. Under WP:PAID, paid editors are required to disclose employer and client with respect to any such contributions. I would understand this to mean the onus is on those who are working for UNESCO to clearly list which connected articles they have contributed to. I would also note that both paid and conflict of interest editors are asked not to directly edit affected articles but rather use talk pages to request changes, so saying you will "re-edit them to fit the community standards" does not seem to demonstrate an understanding of this. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A good starting point for identifying problematic articles would be to look through Category:Free content from UNESCO for those that have maintenance templates at the top of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be an overhaul in rules regarding "donating contents" to introduce contents that can not be directly introduced into Wikipedia article by posting it somewhere else as CC-BY-SA contents, attributing to it and introducing it. That happened with this one family member memorializing guy. @Melcous:, I think you're familiar with that particular one. Graywalls (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Great point Graywalls and yes I am familiar with that example! The category Cordless Larry pointed to above gives a really interesting set of articles that can be divided for purposes of this discussion into two different kinds:

1. Articles about a broad topic, e.g. Education in Colombia, where the UNESCO free content provides data to give insight into the topic. That to me seems good and exactly what this kind of 'donation of content' is designed for.
2. Articles about UNESCO reports/groups themselves, e.g. Global Reports on Adult Learning and Education, and so the free content essentially is the article and it becomes self-promoting. This to me is problematic. Melcous (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Northern League (Independent Minor League)

• Northern League (Independent Minor League) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dwbork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has edited the page several times and renamed it three times. The edit summaries used include "The owner is asking me to do this. Maybe he can contact directly." and "The owner Don Poparvak says this should be labeled as such." The quality of the edits seems more promotional than accurate, appearing to be an attempt to remove the league's history as Midwest Collegiate League and create a false history connecting it with Northern League (baseball, 1902–71) and Northern League (baseball, 1993–2010). -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The user has also added incorrect COI notices to that page in their edits, yet continue to make edits, while clearly knowing they aren't supposed to. The user has also made many disruptive page moves related to that article, which is currently located at Northern League (collegiate summer baseball). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Following up, the page was moved back to Northern League (collegiate summer baseball) and all changes were rolled back. The user has taken no action with regard to his apparent conflict of interest. He sent me unrequested contact information for the league owner who apparently directed his actions, which seems to me to be just more indication that he doesn't get the point. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Paid editing on multiple pages by user Fu-Lank

• Christel Loetzsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Simon Wallfisch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Joanna Wallfisch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Raphael Wallfisch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tim Thorpe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Patrick Vogel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fu-Lank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possible paid editing by user Fu-Lank. All these articles were listed as proof of work to promote paid writing. Articles in the German and French Wikipedia are also listed. OrestesLebt (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Note, user has been blocked by Blablubbs for undisclosed paid editing and articles tagged, so now in need of clean up. OrestesLebt has made some good starts and has some experience in the area, but perhaps could do with other eyes more generally? Melcous (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Melcous. Simon Wallfisch is cleaned up. It might take me a while, but I will get it done eventually. OrestesLebt (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks OrestesLebt - great work! Melcous (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Christel Loetzsch is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Vogel is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Tim Thorpe is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Joanna Wallfisch is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Raphael Wallfisch reverted to last version without COI edits and copyright violations. OrestesLebt (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Jian Wang Refspam

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

This user only seems to be here to add references to one researcher's works. They were warned about refspamming in 2018 but carried on regardless. Unless they promise to stop, I think we need to block them. There is a lot of clean up required. SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

ok, we promise to stop adding new references, thanks for notifying us about this rule. Mrbigtoe (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mrbigtoe: Who is "we"? Does more than one person have access to your account? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:安狄

安狄 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); I was recommended to post her by an admin.

There have been four reverts of concern by the user across two days. Day 1:

(1) The first was my adding of the inaugural logo to the 2021–22 T1 League regular season article. It was removed without explanation.

(2) The second was my clean-up of the T1 League article's lede of redundancies, adding contextual information (by cross-referencing related Wikipedia pages, and more-established pages like NBA), and changing some table headers to better English conventions. This too was reverted without explanation.

Based on the user's edit history, they seem to exclusively revolve around the T1 League and very likely has a WP:COI. There might be WP:COI#Templates that should be added to their account pages. Nonetheless, the account is clearly engaging in disruptive editing and should be warned. Wikipedia isn't an advertisement or WP:SOAPBOX.

Then, Day 2:

(3) The logo was removed again, this time with the explanation: "Logo was not representing 2021–22 T1 League regular season."

(4) The T1 League article was reverted again, this time with the explanation: "Align the writing style as Chinese page."

The user's claim in (3) is blatantly false. See example footage <Game 3> and <Game 53>. The user's claim in (4) is more WP:SOAPBOX. There are many basketball and sports related articles on English Wikipedia for us to compare to, which I've read for well over a decade. Wikipedia pages across languages shouldn't be held back by the shortcomings of the other, and it certainly isn't a valid reason to disrupt productive editing. –DA1 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Compper

• Marvin Compper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marcom146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My Wikipedia site is not up to date . In the personal life rubric is written that I have two sons with my Wife Cathrin. We're separated for more than a year and the divorce is filed. I have a Video ready with verification of my identity, but i can't upload it. If someone could attend to this information, it would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcom146 (talk • contribs)

Info on how to get this resolved is here. Short version, you'll likely need to (a) verify your identity by emailing wikipedia (email address is on the previously-linked page) with your real name and Wikipedia userid - they'll inform you how to prove that you're you, and then (b) requesting an edit on the article's talk page. 38.125.21.249 (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Until that is done, please do not edit the article directly anymore. You do not own or control its contents, and you cannot post content without a reliable source to verify it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Howaydaa

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

The user Howaydaa has made edits that are brazenly promotional in nature. The identification given by the editor[1] corresponds to a digital marketing employee in the UAE, which is where Masdar is located. If the person works at a company where staff edits Wikipedia for pay, it may be worthwhile to track the IP addresses of this user to identify other suspicious editors. Thenightaway (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a sustainable development enthusiast, and I cover topics related to climatic change. Under which I review different brands that are working in the field of renewable energy in order to protect the climate from drastic climatic changes. The current changes that I have made on MASDAR is a part of my regular activity, where I update information with respect to latest development in the field of renewable energy and project that are actually making a change and helping in building a sustainable future. All of my recent additions in the content on MASDAR page is strictly informational and backed by references from authentic sources. I am well aware of the Wikipedia policies with respect to promotional content and strictly abide by these policies.

Lastly, I would like Wikipedia Editor’s team to look into this issue as Thenightaway, has been performing malicious activity constantly, and Thenightaway has also been removing information from multiple editors with zero proof. I would recommend to take serious legal action against Thenightaway, as the account is actually discouraging editors from active participation. Howayda Alame (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Howaydaa: Do not use language implying a legal threat. This is taken very seriously on Wikipedia, and your account can be blocked outright for it. You are also required to assume good faith of other editors unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Raidermike116

• Raidermike116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1014:A104:6F91:746C:9386:9D56:14AD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1014:A104:6F91:CDE9:7E10:E67F:444E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Most likely this account is Mike Walker himself or an account to promote him. This is a clear conflict of interest. - Imcdc Contact 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Behgjet Pacolli / various Kosovan politicians

• Behgjet Pacolli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Freedomday2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atifete Jahjaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Granittemaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fatmir Sejdiu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bimbashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Freedomday2022, a declared COI editor, is directly editing Behgjet Pacolli's page without using the edit request system, going as far as deleting a scandal involving Pacolli. I understand the rule regarding COI editors to be as such:

• The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits.

That being said, I'd like to request that the user be prohibited from editing the main page & instead be directed through the Talk page.

Granittemaj appears to be a SPA (editing Atifete Jahjaga's page) with no declared COI. The only other edits I saw were deleted due to copyright violations.

Bimbashi is another SPA having made edits to Fatmir Sejdiu's page in 2012, 2020, and 2021.

While it may not be surprising that politicians want their Wikipedia pages to look as good as possible, I believe there to be some concerns regarding COI editing and UPE (albeit more difficult to pinpoint) surrounding Kosovan officials. 30Four (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Dániel Mészáros

• Daniel Meszaros (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Dániel Mészáros (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Mészáros Dániel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dániel Mészáros (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anonymus0823 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kingey08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TingleJR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are two editors, User:Anonymus0823 and User:Kingey08 who are trying to create an article about a Hungarian swimmer, "Dániel Mészáros". Drafts were created under Draft:Dániel Mészáros (2003) (moved to Draft:Dániel Mészáros (swimmer)) as well as Draft:Mészáros Dániel. They were created in the mainspace under Mészáros Dániel and Dániel Mészáros (swimmer) as well, the latter which now exists as an article, a direct copy of the drafts. Kingey08 had admitted to being Dániel Mészáros (see talk page), and is clearly aware of WP:AUTOB per messages on their talk page. Before this, Anonymus0823 posted on the Teahouse (permalink), making me suspect that one of the accounts is either a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet. I'd appreciate some others looking into this as well, as the whole situation is a mess. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Do note this appears to be a different subject than Dániel Mészáros, another Hungarian swimmer born a year later. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The first account has been attempting to remove valid maintenance templates from the article. And we now have another new account, TingleJR, editing the article, removing the same templates. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Why am I keep getting this error messages? I work for the hungarian swimming associaton and I'm trying to create a page for Dániel Mészáros (2003) to differntiate him for the other one (2004) TingleJR (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@TingleJR, please stop. You have a conflict of interest (COI) and should not be editing the article directly, especially not to remove maintenance templates which point out all the other COI editors there. Read WP:PAID and disclose appropriately. You also uploaded an image which will likely be removed as a copyright violation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry. In the future I will pay more attention. Can you please delete all pages related to Dániel Mészáros (2003)? TingleJR (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@TingleJR, the article has been moved to main space, and there's some evidence of notability, so deletion may not be an option. Maybe someone will move it back to draft space for you, maybe not. There are many related drafts floating around now; they will be automatically deleted after six months of inactivity. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is an evidence of notability then how can I fix the page? To make it look like an actual wikipedia page? Thank you TingleJR (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@TingleJR, it is an actual Wikipedia article. It simply has a lot of problems because it was created by folks unfamiliar with our rules, and in violation of some of those rules. For instance, Kingey08 just attempted to nominate it for speedy deletion. It is not eligible for speedy deletion and Kingey08 needs to step back from editing it at all, since they claim to be the subject. If you want to try to work on the article, I recommend reading WP:PAID, declaring as required, and then coming to the Teahouse (where I normally hang out) to ask for further guidance. There is a lot to learn about editing here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. There was also Daniel Meszaros (swimmer). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Added userlinks for User:TingleJR, another user from the swimming association, which makes their editing a major COI. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added page links and tagged each of the talk pages with the {{Connected contributor}} template to identify Kingey08 as the subject per their disclosure. I will also add {{Connected contributor (paid)}} for TingleJR. I wish that Anonymus0823 would provide more information about whether they are connected to the subject, as their editing pattern strongly suggests.

I've tagged Draft:Dániel Mészáros (swimmer) for deletion. Daniel Meszaros (swimmer) was already speedied. As for the remaining two, there is a request to merge their histories. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Dániel Mészáros (swimmer) was just deleted because Dániel Mészáros exists, but they do appear to be different people. I've asked for it to be restored. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

... it was restored, then JBW deleted it again...I give up. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Likely from TingleJR saying "Can you please delete all pages related to Dániel Mészáros (2003)", which I forgot about. Don't think further actions really need to be taken, but feel free to ping me on Discord and we can talk about if we want to request further actions. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I have serious doubts that there was actually sigcov to be found, so this was probably inevitable one way or another. But this is all likely to happen again in the future if both Dániel Mészároses continue their nigh-identical careers. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I was planning on taking it to AfD if restored. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Nigh-identical careers"... Maybe he (I assume he) is a quantum human, existing in two closely related states of existence... until someone tries to measure him or pin him down (or write about him). It is weird to have two swimmers with the same name, born a year apart, although this name might be common in Hungary, like John Smith in the US. David10244 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Even worse when they're competing in the same events, sometimes on the same relay team, sometimes against each other. Keeping Dániel Mészáros correct seems to be a battle that Tanis Coralee Leonhardi has waged in the past (thank you, Tanis Coralee Leonhardi, and good luck going forward!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

All related accounts and pages have been deleted (except for Draft:Dániel Mészáros (2003) which was a redirect, but I've requested speedy for that). Edit: already deleted ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussions between wiki editors and corporations

When an organization sends paid editors to the article about themselves, and if someone from the wiki community wishes to talk with the organization, then I think the best venue for the discussion is on the talk page of that organization.

In response to my trying this, Thinker78 correctly remarked that WP:TALK#TOPIC says that article talk pages are for no purpose other than development of the text of the article. I agree. Still, I wanted to ask for other comment.

• User_talk:Thinker78#Happy_to_develop_any_paid_editing_policy_with_you

The case is at Talk:World_Vision_International#Edit_request. User:CharlieDaveyPowell is the paid editor there. I appreciate their engagement; they may or may not wish to react to this wiki policy discussion, as they are a new editor here for another purpose. I am sure they did not imagine that they would be the subject of discussion and for the general concept of communication between wiki and orgs. They have no obligation to react here.

I think that World Vision is a fair target for discussion here because it is an organization with spending of over US$1 billion a year. Because that is a lot of money, the organization can reasonably expect to be the target of discussion and scrutiny in all things they do.

There are two things about this situation which make me want to talk to the org directly - one is that the organization has sent low quality content for inclusion to Wikipedia. They have made three edit requests failed fact-checking in the cited source. Journalists can fact-check; undergraduate students can fact-check; Wikipedians can fact-check; I think organizations with a billion dollars can fact-check. Wikipedia is a public forum where I expect organizations showcase their best public image. For whatever reason, this organization has not done this, and I do not think they realize that Wikipedia is a community platform. Wikipedia is not a neutral place for corporations to have transactions with other corporations; when paid editors come here, they are asking for community labor to process their request and also to fix any shortcomings. When an individual human comes up short then I like seeing wiki volunteers support them freely. For some organizations, perhaps at the billion dollar mark or perhaps earlier, I think it is reasonable for the Wikipedia community to expect that the organization propose a well-formed edit of the sort that happens here daily 100s of 1000s of times. I think that communication teams should treat Wikipedia engagement with all the care that is routine for such organizations to give when interacting with any other major media outlet. I often feel that Wikipedia has tolerated the absence of respect, and when anyone wants to allow that then fine. However, if any Wikipedia editor ever feels like requesting more, then I think that it is okay to request high-quality submissions from paid editors from big organizations, and that this can happen on the talk page, and the wiki editor can request that the paid editor escalate the request to the comms team at the organization.

Another issue - I know World Vision and their expertise. It is a nonprofit humanitarian organization which produces knowledge and media of the sort that is an excellent fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. When any such organization comes to Wikipedia to edit the Wikipedia article for their brand, then I think that is an fair opportunity for any Wikipedia editors to send public messages to their CEO and communication team that Wikipedia editors would like for them to support the development of Wikipedia articles in their field, which are related to their expertise. I want to request World Vision's images and data. I want them to check out traffic to Wikipedia articles in their field of expertise, in which case I think they would see that Wikipedia is the single most consulted source of information on topics for which they are already making major communication investments. I recognize that it is a bit confrontational - the organization comes to Wikipedia to promote its brand, and in response they get hit with requests to support Wikipedia development in their field - but again, I think World Vision is an organization that can handle such a request because of its size and mission alignment with Wikipedia. If they want to say no, then fine, but I like the idea of the record of the request being on the Wikipedia talk page of the article, presented to their paid editor representative. Transparency is a Wikipedia community value and having the request anywhere else is less helpful for advancing the conversation.

Two questions:

1. Is the Wikipedia talk page for an organization an appropriate place for the Wikipedia community to either direct questions at an organization, or to note that they have made off-wiki communication with an organization?
2. What objections does anyone have to Wikipedia editors asking for more meaningful engagement from paid editors, such as in the case when they represent organizations with attractive content and expertise that someone feels could improve Wikipedia?

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

UPE editor on Menē Inc

• Menē Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Moops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been a concern raised on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menē Inc. Afd that indicate a UPE('s) may have created the article, suspicions which supplant my own suspicions. On 24 February 2023, the Menē Inc. article was created in a highly-promotional manner. It was essentially a brochure brochure. I had a chat with the editor who dismissed me. They stated they were not a COI editor. I sent the article to draft, it was cleaned up somewhat but still promo, and then mainspaced. I sent it to Afd. The tag teaming on the Afd has been such an extreme case of WP:BLUDGEONing almost as though two UPE are working together and have a financial stake it to ensure it stays on Wikipedia. There is problems with the original article that needs other eyes looking at it as well. scope_creep^Talk 19:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've participated in the AfD, and I hope that no one thinks that I have bludgeoned anyone – and I sure hope that no one thinks I'm a UPE. I do not believe that Moops is a UPE either, just someone who created what they thought was an interesting article and has been overly prone to WP:The Last Word in arguing for keeping it – not an unusual situation at AfDs. Unfortunately, the AfD has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND in both "directions", and this COIN filing is not helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have no proof that User:Moops is an undeclared paid editor, but the article as created was total puffery. A glance at the edit summaries in the page history demonstrates many different editors have found aspects of the article to be wildly promotional. On Moops's talk page several editors including User:scope creep raised the issue of overly promotional tone. With the help of User:Atsme, this article is much improved. However I see several red flags I often encounter about UPEs, and because I don't necessarily wish to give lessons to other budding paid editors I'd rather not share all my evidence in public. I'd be glad to share this with any admin via email; it consists of a single url in wikispace, and the logical question the url raises. I'm aware my reluctance to be forthcoming is non-standard for this situation. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I think this can probably be closed. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: Please submit that evidence, whatever it is, to an administrator of your choosing, and ask them to post their thoughts about it here. If there is substance to it, it should be addressed, and not just left hanging as an insinuation. I have significant worries that Moops has unfairly been the recipient of WP:BITE, and I don't want to see that happen if it is undeserved. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

One admin did apply and did reply to me privately. I would let them speak for themself. My offer stands to any admin requesting. BusterD (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, why is accusing a fellow Wikipedian of this okay without supplying full evidence, names, dates, and bank transfers? Full disclosure, both Mary and Joseph have approached me to bump up their pages a bit, offering pieces of the true cross and ten free weeks off of purgatory to, in their words, "garnish our rep". Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Jason Maza

• Jason Maza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Omranduk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject of article, Jason Maza, was involved in the controversy around sexual assault allegations of their business partner (Noel Clarke). The article been subject to repeated attempts from various accounts and IP addresses, most recently Omranduk, to remove the section on the page relating to this and/or minimise Maza's direct role in the allegations (which is sourced from The Guardian and directly quoted).

A previous edit attempt by a different user contained a thinly-veiled legal threat and is obviously from someone linked to the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:F4D3:BB00:F479:FA7A:E375:CF06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chichickov (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome, brand-new editor whose only edits are to push for including contentious material about a living person.

I wonder if you could consider ways to re-write that section that are both truthful and clearer. For example, the current quotations feel rather sensationalistic, which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do. Maybe instead of alleging that if the allegations were published, then "that's me for the short term done", it would be clearer to write something like "Maza privately expressed concerns that the publicity would ruin the business he and Clarke were running". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - this seems fair and this incorporated language is now in the article.

However, I still think there are continuing attempts to edit the article in the subject's favour. The most recent edit said "[the allegations] had nothing to do with Maza" (which is plainly untrue, as the sourced Guardian article clearly sets out how he was involved", and that "[the police] found no evidence of wrongdoing", which is misleasing (they said they would not launch a formal investigation). Chichickov (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Chichickov. The articles about controversial people and events are often edited back and forth, as new information emerges and editors try to sort out what to say that's reasonably accurate and reasonably fair. It looks like only you and one other editor have touched it since New Year's, though, so it's possible that this one is calming down.

The goal isn't to be either in his favor or against him, but to plainly explain what happened. In particular, in this case, it appears that the "involvement" was talking to victims after the fact, and it really must be clear that Maza did not commit any of the alleged crimes themselves (e.g., groping women, filming them naked without their consent, etc.). In that sense, it is plainly true that "the allegations had nothing to do with Maza"; it was Clarke whom the women accuse of committing crimes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

\

Max Geller (artist)

• Template:Max Geller (artist)
• Template:Samsonthetruest

Hello. The article for Max Geller (artist) was largely written by user "Samsonthetruest". I believe this is Max's brother, Sam Geller. Sam goes by "Samson the Truest" as a stage name, and has the social media handle @samsonthetruest (where he has many photos of Max), and he owns http://samsonthetruest.com. The two brothers host a podcast together — which, incidentally, is cited as a source at least 11 times in the article's Reference section (with no other sources to back up the information). The article on Max is currently flagged for seeming like an advertisement, and I think this is why. Another editor on the page commented that "This article is definately problematic. User Samsonthetruest might be Geller or someone connected to him" (this is what inspired me to google "Samsonthetruest"). The article has been cleaned up since Samsonthetruest's first wrote it (which had been flagged for being "written like a résumé"), but still the vast majority of the article was penned by that user alone. If they are indeed Max's brother, then that seems like a clear COI, compromising the neutrality of the article. I brought this up on the user page for Samsonthetruest, and have had no response in weeks. I also started conversation about it on the article's talk page, but similarly have had no response. Let me know if there's any more information I can provide for this. Thank you.