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:AvePoint Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Fitch Ratings Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Grammarly Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Brian Hamilton (businessman) Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Infillion Talk:JLL (company) Talk:Daymond John Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association Talk:Operation Santa Claus Talk:Alain Pellegrini Talk:Philip Morris International Talk:Sittingbourne Talk:Surgical Care Affiliates

User:Marginataen

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

---

• Mikkel Bjørn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and related pages
• Marginataen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor Marginataen extensively edits and creates pages related to the Danish politician Mikkel Bjørn and his former and present party (New Right (Denmark) and Danish People's Party, respectively), seemingly following a conscious strategy of getting Bjørn mentioned in as many articles as possible, apparently violating Wikipedia:NPOV, in particular the principles of due weight and balance, as well as WP:COI. The article of Bjørn has a clearly positive bias, omitting criticism and serving effectively as a platform of Bjørn's views. The editor also tries to mention Bjørn prominently in other articles like here and here, even creating articles of the village in which Bjørn was born (Rårup) and local Danish schools which Bjørn has attended like Horsens Statsskole and Jelling Seminarium. The editor's personal connection to Bjørn seems to go beyond mere sympathy, as witnessed e.g. by the personal details not publicly known that the editor has formerly been able to write when originally creating the page of da:Mikkel Bjørn Sørensen, and by the personal photos uploaded by the editor, portraying Bjørn over several years from political conferences to his own private office.

The editor has formerly received several warnings and blocks at the Danish Wikipedia site, chiefly for related problems, in particular ignoring warnings about editing too closely connected pages. The editor has evaded answering a talk page request to make a full disclosure of the editor's relations to Mikkel Bjørn and Bjørn's present and former affiliated organisations. Økonom (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I am interested in writing about Mikkel Bjørn and have in that regard, quite naturally, created pages about things associated with him. If Økonom wants to frame that as a deliberate strategy, that's his choice.

Økonom's examples: In Lars Boje Mathiesen. Økonom was on the edge of Assume good faith by attributing me the false motive of "advertisement for fellow politicians". Who do you think I am, Økonom? The fact that 1 in 5 MPs (20% of the group) leaves the party specifically due to Lars Boje becoming new leader must be a significant and notable event concerning his leadership. Since I pointed this out to Økonom here, he stopped trying to remove it.

In the Denmark in 2023 article, I just thought an MP changing party would, almost per definition, be a notable event. As a politically interested person, this I would have done no matter which MP it was, but the fact of the matter was that Mikkel Bjørn was the first MP to switch party this year. After Økonom pointed this out to me, which was completely fine, I considered its notability and didn't try to put it back in again.

I don't think I need to comment much on why it is objectively justified to mention Mikkel Bjørn, a member of the Danish Parliament, on a list of notable people from the little village of Rårup and why the same applies for the schools he went to. The articles about the schools, Årsskriftet Critique and Rindalism (the latter having nothing with Bjørn to do) are all translations from Danish Wikipedia, where I to varying degrees have tried to add additional information. They are not of high quality, as the articles in Danish they stem from are not of high quality. Therefore, Onel5969 notified me that Årsskriftet Critique had been moved to the draftspace, for which I thanked him minutes before Økonom notified me about this discussion.

Ad hominem arguments: Økonom says I added details not publicly known to Bjørn's article. I just briefly tried to look back, but I don't want to spend a lot of time and think it would be more honorable just to state what it was, so I can react to it. Regardless, I, as I have publicly stated on my user page, isn't my time on Danish Wikipedia something I'm proud of.

No matter Økonom's reason for doing this, I can't help feeling a little "haunted" by him as seen right now in his attempt to judge me for wrongdoings from 7 months ago after I have faithfully served a 6-month block on Danish Wikipedia – in the meantime having edited English Wikipedia with little to no issues. If I for instance added Bjørn's name to the Danish article about Rårup under the list of notable people from that village, I think I'm well-reasoned to believe that Økonom would instantly delete it simply because it's me and he would accuse me of "conscious strategy". Please tell me if this is wrong, Økonom.

On Mikkel Bjørn's talk page on the Danish Wikipedia Økonom wrote that articles shouldn't be an "exhibition place for the statements and views of the biographied person". This I find to be a totally wrong attitude. A big part of a biographical article about a politician is to describe his or her views objectively without the article itself taking a stand. Why else would so many articles about politicians have a heading titled "Political views" or "Political positions"? Just see a much more established article like Bernie Sanders.

Also, I would really like to positively improve Danish Wikipedia by translating, among others, the articles Mikkel Bjørn, Nye Borgerlige and Murder of Emilie Meng into Danish of which I have been a main editor. However, I'm afraid that Økonom will remove my translation just because it's me. If this is true, I find it greatly regrettable that improvemts can't be made simply due Økonom judging my track record and not the quality of the articles. My shortcomings are after all not the fault of the articles. I don't say that the English articles are perfect, but they would be a much better starting points for improvements than the current Danish articles.

Be the change: Økonom expresses that the article about Mikkel Bjørn has a "positive bias, omitting criticism and serving effectively as a platform of Bjørn's views". As stated, it is disariable that a good article objectively represents the opinions of the depicted when reliable sources exist. Politicians will always be criticised for their views by people on the other side. This does not make it encyclopaedic relevant per se. If Økonom are thinking about his expulsion from the KU, I actually greatly expanded on that and wrote in the edit summary, "I've tried to lay out the facts about his expulsion as soberly as possible. Feel free to improve upon it". If Økonom is aware of some encyclopaedic relevant criticism that is not yet mentioned, "omitted" in his words, I think there is nothing in the way of adding it. The same is true if he finds something in the article to have a positive bias. All that we can have a discussion about with anyone else who might want to contribute and, if needed, solve disagreements on the talk page. Just note that positive bias is not merely mentioning his views, as they have been reported by reliable sources.--Marginataen (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen, you avoid addressing the central issue, which is your apparent violation of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: The guidelines requires you to disclose fully your relation in any such case, and generally strongly discourages any direct editing in cases with a COI. As you know, this has been pointed out to you several times before, on both the Danish and later English Wikipedia sites, but you keep ignoring these guidelines. Økonom (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Økonom You don't address my point about translating articles into Danish or anything else I wrote. I can write the translations in the my sandbox on Danish Wikipedia and then send them to review. I will comment on your inquiry but please also react to what I write.--Marginataen (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have removed Marginataen's subheaders and replaced them with bold phrases and adjusted the indentation, hope that is all right. Please don't bloat up the page's table of contents in such a way, Marginataen. Bishonen | tålk 11:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC).

Oh, that's much better. Thank you, Bishonen! Marginataen (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Marginataen, the role of this noticeboard is to discuss the problem of COI, and most of your former response does not address this issue at all. It is inappropriate to start discussing e.g. hypothetical future translations into Danish here; in any case, that question would be a matter to discuss at the Danish Wikipedia site. Økonom (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Marginataen so far has kept refraining from responding to the question of his undisclosed COI. His clear interest in Mikkel Bjørn's extensive biography and advancing Bjørn's name and position in several other articles, his knowledge of unsourced and not publicly known details about Bjørn's career and the personal photos taken of Bjørn in his private office and at political conferences uploaded by the editor, all indicate a close personal connection, though. As can be seen at his talk page, Marginataen has formerly written three articles on subjects personally connected to Bjørn, which have been deleted due to a UPE or COI conflict. I would like to learn the opinion of other editors to the present apparent conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Økonom (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Økonom Make a decision. Do you want to ban me from only Mikkel Bjørn or also Nye Borgerlige and Dansk Folkeparti? As I am interested in writing about Mikkel Bjørn, I have quite naturally created pages about things associated with him. As I have already said, I don't know which "unsourced and not publicly known details" you are talking about. Yes, I have been taking pictures of him when I've been in Copenhagen and once when we were at the same political conference in Finland. The same I've done with File:Henrik Dahl, Deadline.jpg, File:Sólbjørg Jakobsen, 2023.jpg, File:Christian Holst Vigilius, 2022 beskåret.jpg in addition to the minister from the Social Democrats Kaare Dybvad (File:Kaare Dybvad Bek hos Årsskriftet Critique.jpg). It is, however, true that I've been writing more about Mikkel Bjørn and Nye Borgerlige. This, I can say for a fact, is largely due to you unrightfully trying to prevent me from doing so, making me even more keen on doing it as well as me knowing about it. You said that the article about Bjørn "has a clearly positive bias, omitting criticism". You are still more than welcome to say what you mean by that. I invited you to edit the article on your talk page, which you declined. Marginataen (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the "three articles on subjects personally connected to Bjørn," that were moved to the draftspace are: Christian Egander Skov (does not mention Bjørn), Christian Holst Vigilius (does not mention Bjørn) and Årsskriftet Critique (which is purely a translation from da:wp with the addition of "Notable contributors," where I, among others, listed Bjørn). I don't know whether your abuse of power on da:wp and your attempts to stop improvements to pages about right-wing politics are politically motivated or due to the long history of personal controversy we two have had in the past. The fact that it is not based on my content is clear, as you haven’t deleted anything on Mikkel Bjørn or Nye Borgerlige because you do know that what I write is good, whereas you on the Danish Wikipedia would have deleted everything and threatened me with blocks. It is certainly not because you have anything against editing en:wp and were, as soon as I committed a misstep just today, quick to delete it (see history on Mette Frederiksen). You have also openly told me on my Danish user page that it is not about the content but the fact that I write it, repeatedly making claims that I have a COI. Marginataen (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I repeat that the sole focus of this thread is your apparent undisclosed COI, violating WP:COI, so I shall disregard the allegations of abuse, etc. that you make. I find your edits to give the relevant articles a bias as well, but that question is not crucial to the present thread. You keep evading directly answering the question of your COI, but I think the evidence as presented above speaks for itself, as does your frequent uploading of Bjørn pictures and, until his change of party allegiance, of other pictures related to his former party. --Økonom (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using the term abuse of power. I just think it's fair to assert that you are harsher towards me than other Wikipedians, which may be quite understandable looking at our history from back when I did bad editing on da:wp. I have stated that I've taken some pictures of him and, before February this year, also of others from the NB (in addition to plenty of politicians from other parties), mostly when I’ve been to Copenhagen.

Yes, I was a member of the party. The things I did on da:wp It was not something anybody except myself knew about; it was just sort of my way to help. Today, I don't have contact with anyone in the NB. My main motivation for writing the NB article is to tell the story of what happened. I think I have done this faithfully to Wikipedia's principles without controversy with any other editors. As I don’t consider myself to have a COI, I don’t "avoid" addressing it.

I must admit that my main reason for putting effort into the Bjørn article is largely due to you, in my opinion unjustly, trying to avoid me from it.

For the sake of the noticeboard, you still need to answer whether you want to ban me from only Mikkel Bjørn or other pages, too. Marginataen (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think nearly all the relevant information and sources there are to be found about the subject currently have now been added. Therefore, I now see the task as a matter of how that information is laid out for the reader in the most encyclopaedic way. When this is hopefully resolved through the peer review process, I will consider my job editing the article virtually done.

How the facts are laid out is not a topic for this noticeboard. As a general consideration, I'll just say that historical facts are easier to deal with than political positions and refer to the policy {{WP:PUBLICFIGURE}}

What the noticeboard chooses to do is out of my hands, and I'll accept any ruling. I would like to request "Mikkel Bjørn and related pages" to be either specified or just changed to Mikkel Bjørn as that article is obviously the primary course of concern for Økonom.

Thanks, Marginataen (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen, @Økonom

Conflict resolution: As I want this dispute resolved as civilly as possible, I would like to put forward a proposal. I am aware that I mentioned solving it through peer reviewing but have since realised the waiting time may be several months and other solution are possible. My suggestion is:

Økonom makes a comment on the talk page in which he states all his considerations about the article like he's kind of already done (could be wording, specific text proposals to change, add or delete text etc.) Following that, I'll similarly make a comment with my considerations. Thereafter, we both agree to mutual non-interference and let the remaining Wikipedia community discuss the article. Here, I would make invites to join in on the discussion at the common forum of Danish Wikipedia, Portal:Denmark, Portal:Biography and Portal:Politics. When consensus is close to be reached, we are both allowed to give our "closing statements". This requires that the focus of the discussion is the text itself and not the author’s motives etc., which is a topic for this noticeboard. What do both of you think? Marginataen (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Not realistic, I'm afraid, Marginataen. You two sitting back and "let[ting] the remaining Wikipedia community discuss the article", here at the English Wikipedia, is unlikely to suddenly awaken an interest in Danish politicians which has hitherto been lacking. Did you notice how nobody but the two of you (and, slightly, myself) have edited this very thread? There's a reason, and I highly doubt there's enough interest in Danish politics on the English Wikipedia for the method you suggest. As for Portal:Denmark and the other portals you mention: portals, as such, frankly don't seem to be of interest to many. Look at the history of Portal Denmark: the last edit was a year ago. Last edit but one was three years ago! This is not a special problem for Denmark; it's more that nobody likes portals, or is interested in them. (I frankly don't understand why all the portals aren't marked historical and put out of their misery.)

There's an unspoken assumption in our rules for dealing with conflict that there's plenty of interest in everything, but that's sadly not the case. The lack of enwiki interest in the politician at issue here, Mikkel Bjørn, should not mean that an obvious supporter of Bjørn, such as Marginataen (because I have to agree with Økonom above that Marginataen edits Bjørn's article like a supporter), gets to have a field day with the English article after being blocked from the Danish one. Marginataen's editing is painfully detailed; there seems to be little Bjørn has ever said that is not quoted by Marginataen, who by contrast does not include the slightest criticism from anybody, that I can see. On the contrary, Marginataen also seems keen to quote admiring things said about Bjørn. (Here's one: "Mikkel Bjørn is an excellent and conservatively nationally rooted politician who has God, king and fatherland tattooed right into his heart"). The idea of ending - ending - a political biography with the sentence "Asked at the same occasion what it would be if he could change one thing in Danish society, Bjørn replied, "Mitigate the consequences of the liberal immigration law of 1983. Many bad things have happened in the wake of that law. Terror, parallel societies, social control, cultural disintegration tendencies, relatively heightened crime and so on" is particularly egregious in my opinion. Biography articles here aren't supposed to be showpieces for a politician's views. The way you have presented those views is really not a lot like what happens in the article Bernie Sanders which you mention, Marginataen.

I conclude that this article needs some admin action. I for my part have slightly edited it, but I don't believe anybody could say I'm involved, so minor and neutral as my edits have been. I have page-blocked Marginataen from editing Mikkel Bjørn for six months, while leaving the talkpage open for him to discuss and make suggestions. If I should be made aware of similarly promotional editing at other articles, especially from now on, Marginataen, there may be further blocks. Bishonen | tålk 14:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC).

Thank you for taking the time to write such an elaborate rationale, @Bishonen. On Friday, I'll write down my considerations about the article. After that, I'll have hands off and let it be up to others and only maybe give a closing statement near the discussion's conclusion. I would like to invite people from the Danish Wikipedia since many of them speak great English, can read the sources in Danish and might have an interest in the article as it is a Danish person and because I plan to translate however it ends out into Danish. I totally respect your decision which makes sense and I've never claimed not to be a supporter. Feel free to start editing it already before Friday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Marginataen, as an answer to your question, your conflict of interest is relevant to all the pages in which you have mentioned Mikkel Bjørn and the controversies connected with him and the late conflicts in New Right. Presently, these include New Right (Denmark), Nye Borgerliges Ungdom and Lars Boje Mathiesen. --Økonom (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not you who decide what I can or can not edit. I was blocked for promotional editing, not COI as far as I understand. Marginataen (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Tommythenodd

• London Irish Amateur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tommythenodd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe Tommythenod has a COI relating to London Irish Amateur. On his userpage, he states he is an executive of London Irish Amateur and has been editing that page with the intent to "improve our page" according to his userpage. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems clear that he is an executive. Left a message to disclose on the article and use WP:ER. Seems to have dissapeared on the 5th, but if he comes back I'll take another look. scope_creep^Talk 08:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Armando Huerta

• Draft:Armando Huerta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Darklordofpinup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't normally escalate things but this COI editor refuses to stop arguing with me on my talk page after I declined her draft at AfC. see here. The lack of notability and unsourced claims about living people are enough reason alone to decline it. She thinks that being someone's manager doesn't count as a conflict of interest (and believes that Madonna's manager edits her page?) and is insisting that there are 120 in-depth articles about Armando Huerta. I can't find these and she refuses to add them as refs. The draft just clearly is not ready for publishing and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything and yet she just. will. not. stop. messaging me about how it should be approved. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. I'm not sure why you keep on saying that. I'm merely pointing out your and Wikipedia's hypocrisy. That's a little different than "arguing". I've asked you multiple times to point out where I'm promoting Huerta on my page and you are unable to do so. I also keep asking you why every other pin-up artist in the world has a page and yet, the top pin-up artist in the world doesn't. All of these other artists on Wikipedia have WRITTEN THEIR PAGE THEMSELVES and are linking to their site to make sales and you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this. Why? Isn't that a COI?

None of these other artists have over "120 in-depth articles". Actually, they don't even have one yet you refuse to approve my page. At this point it is obvious that your refusal to approve my page must have something to do with a personal problem you have with me. I've included a list of over 120 publications that Huerta has been in. No, not all of them have "in-depth articles" written about him and mainly feature galleries of his art. Others *HAVE* in-depth interviews and tutorials. You will.not.stop telling me to quote from these magazines but how am I supposed to do that if I don't own any of them? Why do I have to anyway if what these magazines say about him is the same thing that I've already written on my page? (facts that can be found in other magazines that I DO own). It's the same information, just stated in a different way. Are you asking me to repeat the same facts over and over? Compare the quality of my page to all the other pin-up artists on Wikipedia and tell me why poorly written pages >> WITH A COI << and a few bad sources get approved, yet mine doesn't. And don't dodge my questions this time.

"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships."

I don't see the words "dead people" in that paragraph.

"Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest."

How many people do you know who have external relationships with corpses?

Nothing "financial" either. If you disagree, point out the parts on my page that link to sites that sell products. I've asked you to do this before and you won't. Why? Darklordofpinup (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darklordofpinup: Yes, being someone's manager and the beneficiary of their will is a conflict of interest. It doesn't matter if you think other people edited their own pages, they also should not have done that. If you name these pages, I'm sure I or someone else will check them out for any issues.

• Accusing others of stealing his work is something that has to be sourced with references, no matter how true you assert it to be. Claiming that someone is the greatest of all time also has to be sourced, otherwise everyone would go on Wikipedia and claim that. This is why the draft is deemed to be promotional and why its statements need to cite sources. The fact that you claim to know all this personally doesn't help us verify it.
• OK so there are supposedly 120 articles that have either used his illustrations or written about him. Merely being credited as illustrator doesn't count towards notability, so the specific articles about him need to be found. It's not enough to say you can't access them. If he's the greatest pin-up artist in the world you should be able to get your hands on even 1 article in a reliable publication that calls him that. I can't find them, you can't access them, so there's no way to prove they exist or even assess whether they're reliable.
• This is not personal, I have nothing against either you or Armando Huerta. The purpose of this discussion is so third parties can weigh in on this. It's basically a second opinion since you are worried that I'm being unfair. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Accusing others of stealing his work is something that has to be sourced with references, no matter how true you assert it to be."

I already sourced it. Did you read what I wrote on my page? The Comics Journal wrote several pages about the entire Armando Huerta/Ricky Carralero art theft story. Check reference number 6 (article written by Michael Dean). Plus, it doesn't matter whether I assert it to be true. The entire pin-up art and comics industry knows about the fraud. The story is huge.

The table of contents for the TCJ mag you referenced doesn't mention Michael Dean or Armando Huerta. Citing an interview with Huerta on a non-notable website also doesn't count and neither does the interview with John Ulloa that doesn't mention Huerta at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Look at the text in the bottom right corner of the magazine. There you'll see "Michael Dean". If you buy the issue you will see the full article. "Screwed creators, identity theft". This is the massive Huerta/Carralero art theft story. It isn't an interview either. If The Comics Journal isn't notable, then why do they have a Wikipedia page? Take out the John Ulloa reference then. I just linked to that so people can see who he is. Darklordofpinup (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Merely being credited as illustrator doesn't count towards notability, so the specific articles about him need to be found. It's not enough to say you can't access them."

Why? They all say the same thing that other magazines I've sourced on the page say. Again, same facts but stated in a different way. And I'm going to ask you again, are you asking me to repeat the same facts over and over?

Then take out the unreliable sources and replace them with the best sources. That way it won't be repetitive. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What sources do you think are unreliable? Darklordofpinup (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"If he's the greatest pin-up artist in the world you should be able to get your hands on even 1 article in a reliable publication that calls him that."

I already did. The third last paragraph under Biography states:

"Airbrush Action Magazine featured Huerta in their May/June 2009 issue and labeled him the "leading pin-up artist.""

You said: "It doesn't matter if you think other people edited their own pages, they also should not have done that. If you name these pages, I'm sure I or someone else will check them out for any issues."

I already did that as well. Look at all the pin-up artists here. Why do I have to keep repeating myself and why do you keep on dodging my questions?

OK, well that's just the list of pin-up artist pages on Wikipedia, I'm not going through every page. Also just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that you don't have a COI or Wikipedia doesn't have standards. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer this: Where are the links on my page that are promotional and point to sites where products are sold? Not that it should be an issue anyway. Every single artist on Wikipedia has links on their page that point to their official merchandise site. Why am I being targeted? Darklordofpinup (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said there were product links on the draft. Your COI is the root of the problem and I also think it's why you aren't able to address the issues. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The COI is irrelevant if the page is written in a neutral way and all statements have been sourced. I know another pin-up artist who has stated that he was the best in his field. Should I add that as well? (since you think I'm just "promoting" him because I own his art).

What other issues are you talking about now? I've done everything you've asked me to. Darklordofpinup (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"The COI is irrelevant" implies you now accept there is a COI but don't consider it relevant. Nonetheless, there is a process for when you have a COI and other editors will consider it relevant, so please follow the procedure at WP:DISCLOSE in order to let other editors know about it. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You're ignoring the key point here, which is that you obviously have a COI per WP:EXTERNALREL. Being someone's former manager and beneficiary of their estate is an incredibly clear example of this.

"All of these other artists on Wikipedia have WRITTEN THEIR PAGE THEMSELVES" simply isn't true, and even if it was would not be relevant to whether you have a COI or not. If you have evidence that a specific editor with a COI has edited a page, you should raise that separately but it's not relevant to this discussion. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious they've written the pages because 1) The artists are not notable like Armando Huerta, 2) The sources are crappy and 3) You can clearly see that they're promoting themselves. Darklordofpinup (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If you don't believe the artists meet WP:BIO then you're free to nominate them for deletion per the process at WP:AFD. If the sources aren't up the correct standard then WP:VERIFY has guidance on what to do. Similarly, WP:NPOVHOW has guidance for what to do if you believe content is promotional and not NPOV.

Articles being in your opinion poorly sourced, not notable, or promotional isn't evidence that the editors who created them have a COI. WP:COICOIN has guidance on what to do if you believe there is a COI, which isn't casting WP:ASPERSIONS. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Does knowing musicians who have written their own Wiki pages count as evidence? Also, if an artist is not notable yet they have a Wiki page then it is obvious they have written it themselves, e.g. the recently deleted Nicole Brune page. Darklordofpinup (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Does knowing musicians who have written their own Wiki pages count as evidence? No, knowing that other musicians have written their own wiki pages is not evidence that the same has happened in this case.

if an artist is not notable yet they have a Wiki page then it is obvious they have written it themselves No, that's just one possibility. It is also possible that it was written by someone else who mistakenly thinks the artist is notable. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Triantares at Elive

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

Lourdes directed me here from ANI. I'm looking for independent confirmation of WP:COI, though Triantares denies it. I feel they should declare more than a vague general COI, and request and discuss proposed edits, other than the most trivial, at Elive. Meat partners users TheTechRobo3641 and Thanatermesis have declared COI.

WP:SPA with WP:NOTHERE, WP:MEAT, for Elive, since June 2020. Earlier draft histories seem missing, because of a history merge mentioned at May 2023 AfD, and changed article names. Another effort was Draft:EliveLinux. AfDs were:

No consensus, 26 May 2023

delete, December 10, 2019

delete, March 22, 2016

User page shows no particular difference for Elive versus several other topics listed, and claims to "take care to avoid such bias." Knows about COI: At recent AfD asks if others have COI: "Could it be that you have a 'conflict of interest' (COI) here?" Recently at Triantares User talk: Responding to "Managing a conflict of interest", says "This Elive community is so small that I am considered the 'go to' entity when it comes to writing (or correcting) English prose, that's all." Reality: Is one of a few "Trusted Users" at Elive forums. At Triantares Talk, I suggested more explicit declaration for Elive, and quoted them at Elive Forum, "Be carefull [sic] about going around and adding [deleted] all over the place. Although it might feel like "as it should be", it will send WP moderators in a flurry if they get the impression you're abusing WP for PR (which in fact you are :shocked: )." Triantares deflected: "Deeming any connection or collaboration as 'close' is actually over the edge IMO, merely feeding distrust and a condescending attitude." At Elive 3rd AfD: "Now the term 'assuming bad faith' has fallen: That was the reason I stopped wanting to have anything to do with WP for the last few years." [Had they done anything other than Elive?] At their Talk in June 2020: when warned about puppetry with user Thanatermesis, by EditQwerty. deflected with: "Others did help me out (in true FOSS manner) on my other submission (Elive), which we saw as a joint effort..." Anyway, I tried to be as polite and vague about off-wiki activity as I could, but got no traction, and received accusations and insults. I only looked off-wiki because the COI editing was so glaringly obvious to me, and I was curious about why. Thanks for looking at it. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Depends. I have no idea what status "trusted user" grants, but this feels like the equivalent of trying to write an article on your favorite YouTuber; it should probably be discouraged, but that isn't really COI.

Think of it this way. If administrators were the equivalent of the "trusted user" group in Elive (which, by the way, I would guess trusted user is not a moderating role, but who knows), all Wikipedia administrators would have a COI with Administrators on Wikipedia, and also just in general all editors would have a COI with Wikipedia. Should those be considered COI? Probably not, but if "trusted user" isn't a moderator-level role, I don't think you can say there's COI from Triantares. If you're worried about PROMO content sneaking in, keep an eye on the article (or the user) for a while. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify (as I am an administrator on the forum), while "Trusted Elive User" is not an admin role (in reality it's just a badge), Triantares is an admin. TheTechRobo (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Notabotin

• Burdwan Medical College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Notabotin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I stumbled across Notabotin a couple days ago, and the edit pattern immediately struck me as COI. They had just created Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay, which I nominated for BLPPROD as it had no sources; two have since been added to the article, though they're external links, but at least one of them seems strong enough to prevent BLPPROD from taking effect (I'm likely going to nominate it at AFD assuming I didn't do something extremely dumb and trout-worthy here and completely misunderstand the situation). Either way, I stumbled across their contributions to Burdwan Medical College afterwards, and the edits there looked extremely COI (here's a diff of their major contributions to it).

After seeing all that, I left a COI notice on their talk page, which was promptly removed at the same time they removed the BLPPROD notice. They also then created their user page, which reads weirdly... along with blanking mine for some reason. At this point, I don't think I can get them to have a talk page discussion (I really doubt they'll interact with me after blanking my user page...), so I've come here instead. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The editor has since blanked this COIN section, has removed the AFD notice on Mukhopadhyay's article, and has self-rated the Burdwan Medical College article as FA-class, all without engaging in any discussion. Is this grounds for a block? I think this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE, though they were never actually warned (outside of a {{uw-coi}} given by me) before a recent stretch of three level-4 warnings after their latest spree of edits. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

They have again declared the college article is a Featured Article. I think it's time for a block. Can an admin please oblige? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Darius Saint-Robinson

• Darius Saint-Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Drobceo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article contains POV-pushing language. The edit summary for the creation of the page suggests that the user either has a COI or could be an undisclosed paid creation. User has only made contributions to this page. I am unsure as to whether I should notify the user in question. Willbb234 16:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like the user had a conflict, but they haven't edited in over six months, so I'm not sure anything needs to be done. I don't find the article content that concerning. It can certainly be improved upon, but I don't think this is the place for that issue. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the language certainly seems to have a POV. Willbb234 18:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The place to address that issue is Talk:Darius Saint-Robinson -- Pemilligan (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:YangGang2024

Aside from having a username that suggests a political motivation, this editor has been primarily involved (over the course of their fewer-than-two-dozen lifetime edits) in trying to push the virtually unknown Perry Johnson as a "major candidate" at 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries.

Of particular interest, this editor uploaded File:Perry-Johnson-Photo.png to Commons with the assertion that they were the author of the image. However, that image appears to be from website of "The Perry Johnson Foundation", where this photo has resided at least since March of this year. Either the uploader is misrepresenting their authorship/authority to post this image, or they do have such authority, which would necessarily stem from an undisclosed COI.

I believe at least a topic-ban is in order here. BD2412 T 02:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

UNESCO issues (again)

• School violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TomRichomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not for the first time (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196#Continuing UNESCO COI issues, we have someone at UNESCO adding UNESCO's POV to an article - e.g. here, where "it is crucial that questions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity are handled with utmost care" has been added in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution of the POV. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this unobjectionable statement, coupled with a lack of discussion with the editor who added it or discussion in the article's Talk page, rises to the level of this noticeboard. If you feel so strongly about adding attribution then you're welcome to do so. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Because this happens every time a new UNESCO paid editor starts editing Wikipedia - they fail to attribute POV when adding UNESCO's opinions to articles, then when the issue is raised, we get promises that better guidance will be provided to UNESCO employees and interns, but nothing changes. Please have a read of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196#Continuing UNESCO COI issues if you're not convinced this is a major issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A UNESCO report is a reliable source for something like this, no? And in this case there's not really another side saying sexual orientation and gender identity shouldn't be handled with care/sensitively, right? In fact, it's something so straightforward it could be verified in a range of reliable sources. So why would we need to attribute them? I think the issue that may be raising red flags for you is the writing style. Language like "crucial that [X is] handled with utmost care" is a little prescriptive rather than descriptive, but that can be handled with editing. Yes, there is a COI; no, this isn't evidence of that COI doing harm, but perhaps someone could help TomRichomme with some WP:TONE pointers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, another perspective would be that LGBT+ people are normal and we shouldn't tip-toe around issues of sexuality. In any case, I'm not blaming TomRichomme here. The issue is with the training that UNESCO say they're providing, but clearly aren't delivering on. It's alright to say that I should fix the attribution problems (I've tried to in this case), but this problem exists across hundreds of articles and each time a new UNESCO editor pops up, more unattributed UNESCO POV gets added. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

LGBT+ people are normal is most definitely not a different perspective. we shouldn't tip-toe around issues of sexuality - In an enlightened world where some people aren't bullied, harassed, assaulted, shunned, and otherwise stigmatized by peers, parents, and lawmakers just for being who they are, you might find some reliable sources which support the idea that "handling with care and sensitivity" = unnecessary "tip-toeing around", but for now, no, that's not remotely the consensus view. Regarding the training that UNESCO say they're providing, but clearly aren't delivering on - WP:TONE is something that is often missing from new user training, and also something that clicks more quickly for some people than others. That's not an excuse, but any widescale training exercise that follows best practices for training still nonetheless produces some newbies who still make newbie mistakes. This particular diff isn't IMO all that worrying, but if there were lots of other diffs from this person and other people showing a pattern (sorry if those are in the other thread -- I haven't looked at it yet), that's certainly worth talking about. Is John Cummings still heading up their Wikipedia program? Probably worth a ping here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, no training will work perfectly and I'm not expecting that. Here, though, the training is failing at the first hurdle. The issue we encounter every time in this case (as documented in previous threads) is that UNESCO editors fail to make the mandatory paid-editing disclosure (in this instance, TomRichomme was apparently unaware of it and it was left to me to explain it - again, no blame on TomRichomme but why wasn't this explained to them by UNESCO?) and persist in adding UNESCO's prescriptions and broader POV to articles without sufficient attribution of that. Repeated reassurances have been made that these issues will be addressed, but the same keeps happening again and again.

More fundamentally, I don't think people working for UNESCO should be adding large chunks of UNESCO material to Wikipedia articles. It's at odds with the best practice set out at WP:COIEDIT. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This particular diff isn't IMO all that worrying, but if there were lots of other diffs from this person and other people showing a pattern.... It was perhaps not the best example. For others, see this, which added "Looking to the future, adult learning needs to extend beyond labor market needs, connecting career change and reskilling to broader educational reforms. Lifelong learning should be reconceptualized as transformative and responsive to societal changes. It is crucial to address the participation and inclusion of vulnerable groups, appreciate informal learning, embrace digital means of participation, and promote scientific literacy while combating misinformation"; or this, which added "It is thus important that education takes a humanistic approach, especially when considering the rise of digital technologies". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That kind of material shouldn't be sourced to a UNESCO report AT ALL. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that kind of material isn't appropriate for an article, or do you mean [it] shouldn't be sourced to a UNESCO report (i.e. some other source for the same content would be better)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry for missing this before, I'm taking a very long break from Wikipedia work save for a few personal interests due to long covid. I've asked a few other people to take a look UNESCO's new interns work and offer some support. If anyone has any suggestions for improving documentation especially the tone section on Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia I can integrate it, it should help in this case and for anyone else wanting to add open license text to Wikipedia (this should help avoid some of these issues happening multiple times). Please don't feel offended by a delayed replying. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Nick.deligtisch

• Nick.deligtisch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been warned about disruptive edits, after which they disclosed that they were a paid editor for the company on their User talk:Nick.deligtisch page, but have not been following WP:COIEDIT policy of making edit requests and instead making broad direct modifications including removal of sourced content such as diff here. Raladic (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• This user is disruptive both from COI and from poor-quality edits; I can't see them being a productive editor even if they follow COI rules. Their attempts to whitewash corporate histories are clumsy to the point of CIR; see this edit where they removed mention of a 170-year-old disaster. It's nigh time for a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I really tried to reason with him, leaving him a long talk page message, but no matter what he keeps removing things; as Pi mentioned, trying to whitewash the P&W article by removing all mention of an 1853 collision (from an FA, to boot!) is just laughable. I initially directed him to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure so he can't claim ignorance. I've reviewed a wide range of his edits. Much of what he's done has been to remove things that are encyclopedic and sourced because apparently G&W doesn't want them public, including information on primary commodities carried (because listing this will apparently make potential customers think the railroads only carry those things???), abandonments of lines, and in general anything that makes G&W look bad. Norfolk Southern Railway's PR guy is perfectly capable of properly following our rules about PAID, so I don't see why Nick cannot other than he is unwilling or incapable of understanding. Either way I think a block is needed here to protect the encyclopedia; us volunteers are having a hard time keeping up with someone who's job is to edit Wikipedia (poorly). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Now a day later, they filed a COI-editrequest for removal of that content. So they now know the process. But the request to remove that content is ridiculous in at least four policy/guideline and basic-logic ways. I left a sharply worded decline and a sharply-worded comment on their talkpage. I do not object to an indef as CIR. I don't care whether it's willful COI as part of their internship with the company or simply inability to understand and follow our content standards. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really COIN, but still relevant to nick. [1] The amount of usage of the word ‘we’, especially on his fourth point, is ringing alarm bells in my head that best fit WP:HACKED. Multiple users of the account, but named to not have WP:SHAREDACCOUNT trouble.

Am I overthinking this? MM (Communicate?) ^(Operations) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I took that as the intern speaking on behalf of the company as instructed by the intern's boss. DMacks (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Justyna Zander

• Justyna Zander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Justynazander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Autobiography created by a WP:SPA. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:124:52C2:4E4B:4AD1 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no redeeming features in that article. I've moved it to draft. It looks a like an agency effort. Its massively promotional and completly non-encyclopeadic. scope_creep^Talk 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspected COI by User:Yae4 on Article:Libreboot

I suspect the user Yae4 has a strong conflict of interest, that the user did *not* declare while working on the Libreboot recently.

There has recently been a massive content dispute at the Libreboot article, and it boils down to: should libreboot.org (original and ongoing project, with good sourcing for wikipedia) or libreboot.at (proposed fork, currently defunct and with poor sourcing) be the main topic of the article? Editor consensus reached the verdict that, at this time, only Libreboot.org should be present in the article. What's important is that the Libreboot.AT domain name is owned by the FSF (see whois and host command, host command reveals same IPv4 subnet as gnu.org).

It is on this basis that I believe user "Yae4" had a conflict of interest, while working on very aggressive and disruptive edits on the article, seemingly in bias favouring the .AT domain.

I also wrote this on the ANI entry, where Yae4 has been reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Yae4 - i believe it's useful on the talk page too, since the ANI entry will disappear at some point.

I've accused Yae4 of being biased in favour of libreboot.at, but I now believe he may in fact have a Conflict of Interest; I believe Yae4 is actually working on behalf of the FSF, without having disclosed such fact.

My evidence is thus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4/Hundred_Rabbits&oldid=1161284056 - draft article by Yae4. Hundred Rabbits isn't well-known, but put into context: Hundred Rabbits was the keynote speaker at FSF's "LibrePlanet" conference of 2022. This on its own doesn't mean anything, but consider Yae4's aggressive editing in favour of libreboot.at on Libreboot, edits that have now been largely removed per editor consensus

Now, more items:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - on its own, a trivial change, just adding info to the FSF page

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1158799817 - more FSF edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159762149 - again

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - ditto

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=FSF_Free_Software_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1158988792 - pertaining to FSF Free Software Awards which are held at LibrePlanet conference.

LibrePlanet is a relatively obscure conference. It only has a couple hundred people who view it and doesn't really reach much news online, very much an internal FSF thing that members get involved in. FSF relies a lot upon intern/volunteer labour, and, well:

Yae4 has been editing the Libreboot article since about 26 May 2023, almost a month now, and has warred with multiple people (his actions qualify as edit warring, he was constantly reverting people's changes often without giving any reason).

Even if Yae4 isn't in league with the FSF, these diffs show a pattern of preference towards the FSF, and thus it could be argued that Yae4 had bias (non-neutral point of view) while editing the Libreboot article. Yae4 has also made numerous edits on articles like GNU Taler and GNU LibreJS, all positive edits.

(GNU is closely associated with the FSF, who provides hosting infrastructure and funding for it)

Here is the talk that Hundred Rabbits gave at LibrePlanet 2022, hosted by the FSF: https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/software-doldrums/

one part i forgot to mention earlier, look at this diff from Yae4: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALibreboot&diff=1161276868&oldid=1161273531 - regardless of the merit behind the argument (merit rejected by other editors on that talk page, per consensus agreement:

pay attention: Yae4 refers to "distroboot". distroboot.org was only online for about *2 hours*, and not widely publicized, I mainly only mentioned it on Libreboot IRC (private chat room); i used another name instead (osboot) that same day, and it stuck for a while. distroboot.org is owned by me.

this, combined with the recent crusade by Yae4 against Libreboot, suggests that Yae4 is definitely someone inclined to watch closely what the Libreboot project gets up to, far closer than most people would inspect it; it could suggest that Yae had a vendetta on behalf of the FSF. I think Yae4 works for the FSF.

the last, and arguably most damning bit of evidence against Yae4, is in diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157433496 <-- yae4 makes reference to links that are *not public* - how would Yae4 know about these, unless he was intimately involved with the project? I sense that Yae4 likely had an undisclosed conflict of interest the entire time while working on the Libreboot article

Now, FSF relies a lot on intern/volunteer labour. Whether or not Yae4 is a *paid* editor is unknown to me, though Yae4 *did* spend almost a solid month editing the article sometimes all day, which would imply that he might be paid, but I don't have enough evidence of *paid* editing on his part. Besides the above diffs used as evidence, there may be more that I missed, and the overall pattern of Yae4's edits do at least suggest bias, if not conflict of interest.

PS: I myself also have a COI for the article in question, *but* I've declared this in my user page, and admin ToBeFree expressed satisfaction with this on the linked ANI thread.

Libreleah (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)