Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:13, 8 February 2024

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan 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:David Lalloo 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:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Paid editing agency

I found a page on the website of a paid editing agency, which lists the following articles as created by them:

The pages should be checked for policy violations. It should also be checked whether authors have declared being paid. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vishen Lakhiani: Created by Taniasafuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account, unsuccessfully nominated for AfD, suspected sock: Princesstowarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Janhrach (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are already a known and globally banned entity, see Wikipedia:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Wikibusiness. It's not unusual for such agencies to list articles they did not actually have a hand in creating, none-the-less it is a good idea to check them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will check them one-by-one. Even if they aren't created by Wikibusines, the circumstances of the creation of this one are very suspicious. I have nominated it for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Umland: created by Stonepillar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), large edits by Миша историк (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Inkitrinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), COI edits by Andreumland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This article is ambiguous, I am leaving this to other editors. Janhrach (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Sent Qonto (neobank) and Adjarabet to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qonto (neobank) was created by Pcheetpcheet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single-purpose account, clearly gamed the system to get the article out of userspace. Janhrach (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user has edits to other Wikimedia wikis, I will review this later. Janhrach (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified other wikis of this user. Janhrach (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adjarabet was created by Hubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – a single-purpose account, gaming the system. Notable edits by Lemonisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is unlikely to be paid. The former has edits to Wikidata and kawiki (over 2000!). kawiki should be notified of this. Janhrach (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kawiki notified of Hubble. Wikidata edits look good-faith, though most are related to interwiki links to kawiki or labels in Georgian, so I am not sure. Janhrach (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coi Editor user:Andreumland who is clearly Andreas Umland is editing at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Umland Afd. scope_creep^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported the IP who commented on several of the AfDs to ANI – they had no other contribs, though they demonstrated too much knowledge for a newcomer. It looks like we indeed found several articles that were paid for. Janhrach (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radmila Lolly was created by Darthvader2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), notable contributions by Octopuspresents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is possible that the former one is paid. They have nearly 40,000 contributions to eswiki, but were banned on Commons for sockpuppetry. Needs more investigation. We should, however, AGF of the editor until it is proven otherwise. Janhrach (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I don't see any other evidence of Darthvader2 being paid, which means they probably aren't. The article itself is okay and shouldn't be deleted. Janhrach (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous, deleted version of Radmila Lolly, which was substantially different from the current one. This means that the current one was probably not created by Wikibusines. Janhrach (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lege Kale – probable COI edits by Malikkeith96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Legekale1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Edits by User858985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be noted. Janhrach (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maineywhiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also appears to have a COI. Janhrach (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udokan Copper: created by several IPs. Nominating for PROD based on logs. Janhrach (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking their supposed client list is pointless, since these are generally fake. This agency is well known (SPI, WP:PAIDLIST#Wikibusiness, meta). MarioGom (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: I am not that convinced that this is fake, but I of course know that some claims of the agency might be false. What leads me to continue this is investigation is this:
- Discovery of several single-purpose accounts and instances of gaming the system
- Sudden appearance of Andreumland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Udokan Copper being listed on the meta link you mentioned.
Janhrach (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles might have COI edits, like many articles about companies and people, but it seems the accounts you are linking (like Andreumland) are completely unrelated to this sockfarm. MarioGom (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that Andreumland is probably not somebody from Wikibusines, but the fact that a non-wikipedian learned so quickly about an AfD nomination of the article about them might indicate that he paid somebody to "watch" the article, most probably a paid editing company. Janhrach (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depositphotos: notable edits by Миша историк (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created by Mallboro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From the edits of the latter, it is evident that they wanted to promote the company. The article itself is okay. Janhrach (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Crush Saga: history full of vandalism, investigating paid edits is not worth it. Janhrach (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxair – I didn't find anything suspicious, except minor edits by a user named Gregori-luxair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, there were many anonymous edits. Of course, I didn't check them all. Janhrach (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Rossi – important edits by Josephine1915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Magnovvig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 109.255.90.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). From the first look, none of these seem to be from Wikibusines. Who I am more concerned about is the creator of the article, Granolalover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edits should be checked. Janhrach (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two links were added to the Wikibusines website: Nuvei and Cabify. Janhrach (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvei was created by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is extremely unlikely to be a paid editor. Notable contributions by LinesAlongACoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single-purpose account. Unusually high number of editors blocked for sockpuppetry have made edits to the article. Janhrach (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cabify was created by a single purpose account S5J57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fonsify (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited this article and disclosed COI. The former has been active cross-wiki and followed the same pattern as many accounts listed above. Janhrach (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Миша историк (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a Bodiadub sock. Confirmed Wikibusines articles: Depositphotos and Oleksandra Masiuk (deleted G5). MER-C 18:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: This is very surprising, considering the age of the account and its edit count. Is there further evidence? How did you come to know about the latter article being created by Wikibusines? Why isn't the account globally locked? Janhrach (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a specific historical behavioral indication on both of those articles I linked. MER-C 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: Thanks. I was also suspicious when I saw this user, who has just over 1000 edits, two times in the history of the above articles, but I let that be, because the creators (or substatial contributors) of the other articles listed above disappeared after creating their first article, unlike this user. I tried to assume good faith and (falsely) convinced myself they aren't paid.

Sorry for asking again, but my question still hasn't been answered. Should a global lock be requested, as the user has many contributions to other Wikipedias? Or was a global lock declined? Janhrach (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it's harder to get an account locked blocking without an SPI. You're free to request one. MER-C 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and wikibusiness are known for the attempts to buy accounts. so Миша историк account could be not theirs from the start but we prob never know for sure Anntinomy (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of clients differs for the site version in Ukrainian. Adding English versions of those articles for closer look

Alina Pash
Chernobyl (miniseries)
Glovo
Silpo
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Bolt (company)
Nova Poshta
Gulliver (building)
Zhan Beleniuk
Nick Bilogorskiy (connects to Nova Ukraine, Ostap Korkuna)

--Anntinomy (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anntinomy: Thanks! I will check them later, I didn't have much time recently and I won't have in the close future. Have you notified ukwiki? Janhrach (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If to speak about this list, topics are notable, with contributions from many editors, promotional edits in ukwiki were mostly reverted. Generally, Ukrainian community is aware about WB. It seems they've been oriented to work more in non-Ukrainian wikis in recent years. Anntinomy (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Pash – nothing suspicious. Janhrach (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl (miniseries) has a large number of revisions (over 1500), I am not going to check this unless the other articles show a high level of paid editing. Janhrach (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Logs indicate that Radmila Lolly was deleted previously. Please check if the current article isn't a re-creation of the deleted one. Thank you. Janhrach (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the deleted revisions. The old version and the new version look pretty different to me. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Janhrach (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atakhanli, a sysops from Az.Wikipedia

Innovative Technologies in Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Asiman Hasanov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Aynur Safiyeva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rafael Bayramov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gulnaz Dadashova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ulvi Mirzoyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Atakhanli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Atakhanli's self-described name on their Az.Wikipedia userpage matches that of a "Marketing And Public Relations Specialist" employed by Innovative Technologies in Education. The user created the article for Innovative Technologies in Education, some kind of education company or consultancy in Azerbaijan. The user has egregiously spammed English Wikipedia with article creations for lots of clearly non-notable Azerbaijani academics, which may be related to their paid position. Thenightaway (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thenightaway! I came here with the intention of reporting this myself.

There is currently a group of Azerbaijani COI/SPA authors translating pages from az-wiki about mostly non-notable Azerbaijani people and organizations. There are currently 48 such articles in AfD, and many more that have recently been deleted. In addition to Atakhanli, the list of authors includes:

Older accounts with a similar editing pattern include:

Ordlock (talk · contribs)
Turkishturan (talk · contribs)
Lifekey23 (talk · contribs)
Musifq.mehdiyev (talk · contribs)
Fiusupport (talk · contribs) - currently blocked
UHasanova (talk · contribs) - banned for undisclosed paid editing

I'm not convinced everyone on this list is necessarily a paid editor, but the pattern certainly suggests undisclosed COI for these SPAs. As a minimum, I would suggest a temporary topic ban, or at least enjoining these editors from creating new Azerbaijani related pages until the situation is clearer. Owen× ☎ 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those already mentioned, the following editors have a track record of importing very poorly sourced (solely sourced to state communications), often poorly written and often very pro-government articles from Azerbaijani Wikipedia into English Wikipedia:

* Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Active 2007–)

* Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008–2012)

* Cekli829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2009–2019)

* Daydreamer2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2016–2019)

* Coneyislandqueentobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2022)

* Selen578 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2020)

* LadymooN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017) (blocked)

* Investigation11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2021)

* Acdc88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2022)

* Jeyjey444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2019)

* Leila1717 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2019–)

* LeilaGva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2020)

It's hard to conclusively tell if they are COI or sockpuppet accounts, but their editing all follows the same pattern. Thenightaway (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are questioning your own account by tagging so many people, are you aware of this?

Tagging so many people and making serious accusations is vandalism in itself. The remaining paid articles etc. I am ready for any inspection regarding this. And I advise you to learn about Azerbaijan, because in the official article I added the institution mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Azerbaijan and the references are the website of the president of the country and the website of the ministry. itself, but you call it secondary or something, of course it's just your option to withdraw from the Negotiations.

I hope the admins will investigate the issue and make the most appropriate decision on the issue and take into consideration that you have tagged so many people and accused them of such a topic.

good luck. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johsgun Aliyev: if you believe listing your name here amounts to vandalism, you are welcome to report it on WP:AIV. And if you'd like to bring this to the attention of additional admins, you can report it on WP:ANI. Please let me know if you need any help. Owen× ☎ 22:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much because this person is making a very big accusation. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article of that educational institution is the first article I created on English Wikipedia. Yes, I worked in that educational center. For the reasons I mentioned in the discussion, I considered that educational institution notable. If this violates the rules, I apologize for that. I just created it because I thought it was noteworthy. I have no other interests. As I mentioned, the discussion should be deleted if it is not noteworthy. I respect the opinions of administrators. Any article can be deleted directly. I have no interest.

Other articles are completely unrelated. If you find any article not noteworthy, delete it directly. I am not interested in any case. I have also created articles for the minister, deputy minister and other persons. That doesn't mean I'm interested.

I have also created an article about medicine in Azerbaijan Wikipedia.

Sklerodermiya, Emil Qabrielyan, İrəvan Dövlət Tibb Universiteti, Emili Barringer, Tofiq Kənan, Qızılca peyvəndi, Asim Hüseyn, Şəmsəddin Əhməd

Medicine is my field of interest. There are many sources about those people in the Azerbaijani media. I can justify why those articles deserve notable. But I don't want to be misunderstood. Delete whichever you want.

Thanks. Atakhanli (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX and Thenightaway your baseless accusations in sockpuppetry or paid editing and any other accusations based on our country of origin or our interests seems to be a sign of vandalism and xenophobia. The discussion you started here is a good example for WP:APF, if not stated there yet :).--Wertuose (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither vandalism nor xenophobia. It's concerning that an admin (in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia) is so quick to make such WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is or is not wrong with the reported edits, or the report itself, none of it is vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVANDAL, and don't send people to the vandalism noticeboard for issues not related to vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I hope I'm not too blunt here, here goes; Wasn't there an news article in Wikipedia some (many?) years ago that stated something like the government of Azerbaijan was interested in investing in people to edit in Wikipedia? I'll try to find it (EDIT: Here it is [1]), but here's a similar one meanwhile [2], written by political scientists. If the listed users are indeed connected to the Azerbaijani government, this is extremely concerning considering the long history of history falsification/negationism/revisionism and irredentism by the both the past and present governments of Azerbaijan [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Non-notable articles like this [9] (linking the revision before I removed some POV) filled with poor quality irredentist and pro-government sources reek of such stuff. Looking at the edits of the listed users (which is probably incomplete, I've see non-listed users with extremely similar editing patterns) as, these are clearly not a traditional starting journey in Wikipedia [10]. There was a similar case like this just a few months ago (though the users were not paid as far is known) [11], which Wertuose was also involved in [12]. Let's also not forget this mess regarding the admins in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia some years ago [13], I don't think that changed much. And before I also get a cheap "you're just racist/xenophobic" card thrown at me, let me emphasize that I am talking about the government of Azerbaijan here, not it's people. If it helps, Iranian government = bad, though that's no secret. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two more users I've noticed with similar editing patterns of translating articles to the English Wikipedia at an irregularly high rate.

Qızılbaş (talk · contribs)
Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk · contribs)

Qızılbaş in particular shares the behavior of creating articles for non-notable Azerbaijani academics (Zarifa Budagova, Rafig Gasimov, Huseyn Hasanov (neurophysiologist), etc.) and seems to intentionally be filling "People from Yerevan" categories with as many Azeri articles as they possibly can. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that the cat is out of the bag, those two were among the users I was thinking about when I said when I've see non-listed users with extremely similar editing patterns. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Mackay

Lake Mackay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LloydGraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday, editor ThaddeusSholto deleted a paragraph that I contributed long ago to Lake Mackay on the basis that it constitutes “self-promotion;” see diff [14]. I believe that my contribution is in full compliance with WP:SELFCITE as it merely mentions the key findings from the only peer-reviewed paper dedicated to the mythology of Lake Mackay. But since I am the author of this journal article, ThaddeusSholto insists that I have violated the WP:COI policy, and accordingly he has unilaterally deleted the paragraph and its supporting citation. Do such good-faith edits by specialist contributors invariably require COI disclosures on the Talk page, as I am being told? For transparency, my Username is my real name, which makes clear my connection to any citation that carries the same name. The deleting editor has – on the same basis – removed contributions of mine from seven other WP entries, but WP:COIN says that I must tackle each dispute in isolation, so I will start with this one. For context and my reason for seeking independent mediation, see the tone of the conversation at [15]. LloydGraham (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The part of WP:SELFCITE you are quoting continues to say "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." That last part is very very relevant. You have spent years adding yourself to articles ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) not to mention your undeclared COI in authoring Danny Malboeuf with DannyMalboeuf. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As directed by [[WP:COIN]] I will confine my responses solely to the WP entry named in the section heading. To this entry I added ONE reference; if there had been other academic papers or books equally relevant to the mythology of Lake Mackay I would have cited them too, but (to the best of my knowledge) there were/are none. I have since published another paper (again in a peer-reviewed journal, https://doi.org/10.1093/litthe/frx015) which contains additional material of relevance to the the WP entry, but I did not ever add (or attempt to add) it, whereas a self-promoting spammer would no doubt have done so. LloydGraham (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how "I could have spammed harder" is an excuse. I pointed out your years of self-promotion because you attempted to act as though my reverting it just came out of the clear blue sky but you were warned in August 2022 and later you readded your own paper to Tripedalism after another editor removed it. You added it again a week later after it had been removed once more. These are not the actions of someone who desires to collaborate with others. You seem to think that the conflict of interest guidelines simply don't apply to you because your work is so important to Wikipedia. That is simply not true. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to comply with the WP:COIN instruction to address one single issue at a time, but ThaddeusSholto seems unable to do this. Unfortunately, I cannot let his version of the events at Tron: Legacy and Tripedalism go unchallenged. Contrary to his persistent allegations, I suggest that my actions (detailed below) are those of someone who very much desires to collaborate with other editors and who always refers disputes to impartial third-parties for adjudication, as indeed I am doing now.

An edit of mine to Tron: Legacy raised the only suggestion of COI ever made against me in 16 years, prior to the current campaign mounted by ThaddeusSholto. I resolved the COI problem in the standard manner by posting the proposed edit on the article’s Talk page with a tag for Wikipedia:Edit requests [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tron:_Legacy&diff=prev&oldid=1106287337]. After a delay of 6 months, the matter was resolved in my favour by an independent editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tron:_Legacy&diff=prev&oldid=1106287337]. ThaddeusSholto has now unilaterally overturned that decision and has deleted the text and accompanying external link that the arbitrating editor added on my behalf [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tron:_Legacy&diff=prev&oldid=1195147986]. You can see the complete history of the Request for Edit on the Talk page at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tron:_Legacy#Proposed_addition_to_Themes_section].
For Tripedalism, I had reorganised previously disjointed material and included a reference (with link) to a review paper of mine on Academia.edu that surveyed tripedal animals in mythology and folklore; this is only paper that I know of to address this topic directly. The resulting sub-section was contested in July 2022 by another editor as “trivia/unrelated content,” despite the fact that almost all three-legged creatures actually are mythical/fictitious. I responded by creating a discussion section on the Talk page seeking consensus on the matter [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tripedalism&diff=prev&oldid=1106577514]. After some give and take, the sub-section was ultimately allowed to stay. The entire sub-section has now been deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tripedalism&diff=prev&oldid=1195148227] without any discussion by User:ThaddeusSholto, even though much of the material in it had been added by others as it predated my rearrrangement of the section into a logical order.

LloydGraham (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no "give and take" on Talk:Tripedalism. I see someone disagreeing with you and you (doing what you are doing here) just plowing ahead with multiple replies and steamrolling your way into including your work. Nobody agreed with you on that talk page. By that point you had already added your work three times to the article and the other editor didn't want to edit war with you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusSholto: Studying your words closely makes me think that you and I have incompatible understandings of the WP:SELFCITE statement "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming."

I have always taken this statement to mean that loading or unbalancing a single WP entry with multiple citations by one author was forbidden, as indeed it should be. Most of my edits where an underpinning reference was partly or wholly authored by myself involved just one citation per WP entry. In one exceptional case, where I was reorganising and expanding a WP entry on a topic for which I had extensive professional expertise, my edits added three peer-reviewed scientific papers - each on a separate topic - where I was either the author or a co-author, all in support of content in the entry. All of these you have now deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bioadhesive&diff=prev&oldid=1195151612] in your campaign, leaving the statements in the article unsupported by any references.

Your understanding of the WP:SELFCITE statement is clearly different to mine. What you have done is to add up all of the edits where I relied on my own published work across many different topics and over a period of 16 years to arrive at a total of 8 or so self-citations, and on that basis you have labelled me as a spammer and deleted all of the material that I added. Is this a fair summary of your thinking?

As always, I look to others for guidance in the matter of which reading of the WP:SELFCITE statement is correct. LloydGraham (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more than your "8 or so self-citations" it is the fact that even when reverted you just edit war your work back into articles. That when confronted about your COI in creating Danny Malboeuf with DannyMalboeuf. You and DannyMalboeuf together wrote his biography at User:LloydGraham/Sandbox as well as duplicating it on User:DannyMalboeuf before moving it to article space. When I asked you about it at first you played games saying "I have never met Danny Malboeuf" but after some back and forth you finally admitted "I said that I have never met Danny Malboeuf, and that is correct. I do, however, correspond with him electronically and yes, I now regard him as a friend." You aren't forthright with your COI and you play games with words to get what you want. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusSholto, your posts in this section of the Noticeboard are supposed to relate only to the material that you deleted from Lake Mackay and, at most, to your other deletions of my contributions that were motivated by the same logic. I am working hard to try to pinpoint the underlying source of our differences and think that I have found it in the fact that the WP:SELFCITE sentence that you quoted can be read in two completely different ways (see my previous post). We do not yet have any independent opinions on the matter, but if my reading of the sentence is correct and yours isn't, then most or all of your deletions of my contributions are unjustified. Rather than concede that this might be the case and await outside guidance, you have simply launched into yet further accusations of wrongdoing that are even more off-topic for Lake Mackay.

For the record, I do not edit-war my work back into articles. In the few instances where a contribution of mine to a WP entry has been deleted without discussion for a reason that I think or know is invalid, I would probably have reverted the deletion and given my reason for doing so. If the deleter reverted that, giving another invalid reason or no reason at all, then I might give it one more go with my justification again spelled out clearly. If that failed, then I would normally try to contact the deleter and/or take the discussion to the Talk page and seek third party intervention; see the detailed examples of my actions on Tripedalism and Tron: Legacy above. I have never been subject to an edit war caution (assuming such things exist) or been blocked from editing any WP page.

The WP entry that I created in 2008 for the American surrealist painter Danny Malboeuf is another of ThaddeusSholto's grievances against me, but this issue is of a different nature to the deletions of my academic contributions from Lake Mackay and from some eight other WP entries (I keep finding more). I was not asked to create Malboeuf's WP entry and did not collaborate with Malboeuf in writing it, but – mindful of WP:BLP – I did create a mock-up of the initial WP entry on the page User:DannyMalboeuf so that the subject could view it and approve it before it went public. All statements in the content were factual and supported by third-party citations, e.g. links to reviews of the artist's work, exhibition records, etc. After Malboeuf gave consent for the WP entry to go live, I created the genuine WP page and completely forgot about the fact that the content was still duplicated at User:DannyMalboeuf (which has now, quite rightly, been deleted). I have never met Malboeuf, but over the years he has become an online friend, and I can see why a perception of COI might now exist. ThaddeusSholto has placed a banner on the page which reads "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and flagged this for discussion. I have never contested this; I support it, and have told ThaddeusSholto that I support it. I am happy for others to assess the page for compliance with WP policies and decide its fate. I have done almost no editing on the page since 2017.

Now that I have addressed the latest off-topic accusations from ThaddeusSholto, I would like to return to the key question of the WP:SELFCITE sentence "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." This can be read in two completely different ways (see my previous post). We do not yet have any independent opinions on the matter, and I would like to hear from experienced editors as to which reading they believe to be correct. LloydGraham (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop pinging me just to reiterate the exact same argument again and again? You claimed you wanted input from others so be patient.

You have edit warred your content back into articles. ([21], [22], [23])

If you didn't collaborate with Malboeuf in writing Danny Malboeuf then who is DannyMalboeuf and why did you both work on User:LloydGraham/Sandbox as well as User:DannyMalboeuf?

Now please stop posting walls of text justifying your self-promotion and just let some other editors read what has already been written. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As no guidance seems to be forthcoming on the last statement of WP:SELFCITE, let’s try a different tack and look at its opening sentences, which arguably are more important. I have always believed that my academic contributions to Lake Mackay (and indeed to other WP articles) comply with the headline policy of WP:SELFCITE, which says: “Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work.” Yet ThaddeusSholto is vigorously deleting expert contributions across WP and denouncing good-faith academic contributors on the basis that, in his words: “Adding your own paper to Wikipedia articles would violate WP:COI. Simply put: you cannot.” [24] If ThaddeusSholto is correct in insisting that any self-citation must first be approved by others via a Talk page discussion, then why does the WP:SELFCITE policy not say this? The policy only requires pre-approval for contributions about which the contributor has doubts. LloydGraham (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a third opinion on Clan Graham and were explictly told on the talk page including your own book in articles goes far beyond what is allowed in the COI guidelines and that you should restrict yourself to talk pages. You got your answer. Stop trying to self-promote. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another off-topic deflection from ThaddeusSholto. The Clan Graham discussion related to my addition of a book to its External Links, and the editor who responded to my request for WP:3O (following the book’s deletion by ThaddeusSholto) said that it would have been better if I had cited it as a reference in support of specific additions to the article’s text. That’s exactly the pattern that I followed in the case of my contribution to Lake Mackay, which – according to the instructions for this very Noticeboard – is the only issue that should be being discussed in this thread. Specifically, I cited a highly relevant peer-reviewed paper of mine in a well-respected journal in support of three sentences that I added to the text of Lake Mackay. Over its lifespan of 16 years, the validity of this contribution has never once been challenged – until now.

Earlier this month, ThaddeusSholto deleted my entire contribution to Lake Mackay and, in his edit summary, labelled it as “more self-promotion by LloydGraham.” [25] To personalise his edit summaries in this manner, and to continue to brand me as a self-promoter, self-advertiser and spammer in my attempts at constructive discussion, violates Wikipedia fundamentals such as WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL, WP:FOC and WP:NPA. The WP:FOC policy says that editors must “comment on content, not the contributor,” but ThaddeusSholto repeatedly does the opposite.

The more important point for WP:COIN, though, is that ThaddeusSholto’s condemnation of my self-citation on Lake Mackay (and of other directly comparable contributions by academics across WP) is not actually supported by WP:SELFCITE, as I pointed out in my last post. Forcefully and repeatedly misrepresenting WP policy in order to judge, punish and insult good-faith academic contributors is not okay, surely? LloydGraham (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't off-topic or a deflection. You are also misreading the 3rd opinion as it doesn't say your COI should have been used as a reference but said "If this book is a high quality reliable source, it should be cited in the article, not linked to in the external link section" and further "If you want to include your book in articles going forward, you should make edit requests on the talk page using {{edit COI}}" which is something you continue to argue you shouldn't have to do. Hence, this is very very relevant and not off-topic. No matter how many times you are told not to self-cite because it violates COI you seem to think it doesn't actually apply to you because your work is just too special. This blind spot is the very reason WP:COI exists. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully prepared to use the COI template process for any citation of mine that has been challenged on the basis of COI, even if – as in the case of ThaddeusSholto's objection to the book on the Graham surname – the challenge has nothing to do with the actual content or relevance of the work. I told the WP:3O editor that I would use the COI template if I felt that I still wanted the book added to Clan Graham down the track, after the new revision was available on the Clan Graham Society’s website.

I don’t think that my work is special or that WP policy doesn’t apply to me; on the contrary, I keep pointing out that – in respect of Lake Mackay and other similar contributions involving self-citation – I have actually followed the instructions provided in WP:SELFCITE. Something that might not be apparent from the accusations levelled against me here is that the vast majority of citations in my edits have been to the works of others – I can provide a list of these if anyone is interested.

ThaddeusSholto keeps insisting that the presence of an academic self-citation in a new contribution automatically violates the WP:SELFCITE policy, but the policy actually says nothing of the sort. It certainly cannot be used to judge, punish and insult good-faith academic contributors in the way that ThaddeusSholto has been doing to me – and I note that I am far from the only scholar to fall victim to this judicial overreach on his part. LloydGraham (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are fully prepared to actually abide by the COI guidelines, why have you still not done so? Why have you not properly publicly disclosed your COI with the article you authored for (and with) your friend Danny Malboeuf? You clearly do think your work is special because you use your credentials as a bludgeon and on Talk:Clan Graham you sang the praises of your own book as to why it should be used in the article. How many times are you going to make the exact same argument about your personal interpretation of WP:SELFCITE? You have done it almost every single comment here. Brevity would make it look less like you are trying to bulldoze your work into articles. As a general rule if a work is so essential to understanding a subject then someone other than the author will add it to an article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I see no point in replying to the same argument you endlessly make. Stop pinging me in every single comment and please actually wait for the input you claim to want. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can help here. I have myself been in the difficult position of having written what I thought was an important article on a topic, and thinking that Wikipedia should cite that article, but not being the best person to decide that question for myself. (For an example that ThaddeusSholto might be interested in, see Talk:Sidney Paget.) I would evaluate myself whether LloydGraham's article should be discussed and cited, but I have no expertise in the subject-matter so my opinion would be uninformed. Perhaps the two of you could identify a relevant wikiproject whose members might be asked to comment? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Newyorkbrad, I’m pleased to have your input. Referring the paper to a Wikiproject such as WP: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia, which by definition must include the population of the Lake Mackay area, would certainly be an option for the specific case of my Lake Mackay paper, although the Lake Mackay page itself is not a member of that project. But perhaps you can see why I fear that any attempt to reinstate contributions of mine that have been reverted might not get a fair hearing when I have been branded so recently and in so many places as a self-promoting spammer? It seems that you know the editor who has passed this judgement upon me, so I am somewhat nervous about your sympathies and loyalties, but you presumably have read the WP:SELFCITE policy. Would you agree that I have not violated what is written there? Whether the policy should actually prohibit any new contribution that contains a self-citation is of course another matter. LloydGraham (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — LloydGraham made the reverted edit more than 15 years ago, when perhaps the COI policies and guidelines were less robust, but I was a bit surprised to see that LG didn't use the talk page in 2008, and has also bypassed the talk page to protest its deletion, instead coming to this noticeboard to report an editor who doesn't even have the conflict of interest. I agree with Thaddeus that there is a pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed re WP:SELFCITE, and the failure to "propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it" is part of that. Matuko (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment @Matuko. My principal concern is that the WP:SELFCITE policy opens with the statement "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." Yet the policy now being enforced is the opposite of this, namely "Adding your own paper to Wikipedia articles would violate WP:COI. Simply put: you cannot.” [26] Can you see the difference? I came to the COIN noticeboard mainly because I too see "a pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed re WP:SELFCITE." Specifically, if editors are in fact not allowed to include any self-citation without first discussing the addition on the article's Talk page, the policy should be amended to say that up front. At present, it only requires a Talk discussion if the contributing editor is in doubt about the appropriateness of the contribution. If the policy is to be left unaltered, then academics who in good faith use some level of self-citation (because they are contributing to topics where they have a research publication record) without seeking pre-approval should not be pilloried as self-promoters and spammers, especially not by individuals who have no knowledge of the subject matter.

If WP policies don't actually mean what they say, then I will undoubtedly make further mistakes in trying to negotiate a restitution process for deleted material. Since I feel certain that future misjudgements on my part would again be weaponised against me with maximum prejudice, I have decided that it is safer not to contest this or other recent deletions beyond the measures that I have already taken. LloydGraham (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
KauffmanFDN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I tried to update items in the article last week, but the items were reverted due to COI. I do work for the company as the Senior Brand Manager, and was asked by our CEO to update the logo to our current logo and the name of the CEO, which is DeAngela Burns-Wallace, Ed.D. There are other incorrect items in the article that I would like to propose updates for, but I'm not sure how to do that.

@KauffmanFDN:, you can propose changes on the talk page of the article (you can use the {{Edit COI}} template, click on the link for instructions). Please supply references supporting the changes. TSventon (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KauffmanFDN: You will need to choose a new username. We only allow usernames for individuals, not organisations. "JaneAtKauffmanFDN", for example, would be fine. "KauffmanFDN" is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KauffmanFDN has been def blocked (for "promotional editing", not username issues). Is this how we are supposed to treat people who ask for advice, and alert us to factual errors in our content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Path University‎

Bay Path University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Robyn1226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Robyn1226 has exclusively edited about Bay Path University, including edits that specifically use the possessive "our" to refer to the university's program. They were warned about COI editing in 2019 but have never replied to that message or posted in any Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Bay Path University. Edits made were to update the University's information so it is accurate. I apologize if this is a COI. I added this to my user page. {{paid|user=Robyn1226|employer=BayPathUniversity=BayPathUniversity}} Will this resolver the issue. Thank you Robyn1226 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added the disclosure to the Bay Path University talk page for you. Going forward, you should not edit the article yourself, but rather request article edits on the Bay Path University talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Evernden

Roger Evernden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
90.250.1.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

90.250.1.235 has been editing Roger Evernden, and only that article, since early December 2022. They have repeatedly added spotify links throughout the article [27], [28], [29]. When given a COI warning, they just ignored it and readded the spotify links. [30]

The history of the article shows a series of IPs that only edit this article to add spotify, google play, and itunes links. [31], [32] Clearly someone is using the article for promotion and ignoring any warnings about it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article and that IP address have a very suspicious edit history. It looks as though some work has been done recently to remove the COI edits, but more could likely be done. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Tianqiao

Chen Tianqiao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jreindorp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comms88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first WP:SPA admittedly handles 'communication' for the subject of this article and is still active. The second SPA appears to also be part of the same operation. What is the procedure here?

Amigao, firstly you need to notify editors when you start a discussion about them here, I have done so for you this time. Secondly you should try a discussion on a talk page first: the template is useful, but will often need some follow up. The second editor hasn't edited since 2017, so they don't need to be discussed here. TSventon (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Kirchengast

Draft:Tyrone Kirchengast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
JAMIEADES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks to be a straight-up conflict of interest. Stupendously detailed that you can't get from sources. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page is :

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.

Was that done, scope creep? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: No, not on this. scope_creep^Talk 18:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avia Solutions Group

Avia Solutions Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its divisions
Spontiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yaorule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and friends

Major interwiki campaign of undisclosed paid editing, over the years using multiple accounts. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 17:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubified it as it complete WP:TNT case. I don't know how these are articles get like this. scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI and UPE editing for this company has been going on for years in multiple languages:

185.11.27.0/24 is a range owned by AVIA SOLUTIONS GROUP PLC and has edited several languages.
213.197.169.174 is the exit point of their corporate VPN and has edited since 2008.
Jklmnopr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a paid editor with 4 blocked socks, although it seems it was 2 different paid editors coordinating among themselves, with half accounts for each of them, see their talk pages.
There are also a few corporate accounts that should have been at least soft-blocked for their user name: Aviasgwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AviaSG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AviaAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Avia support (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Yaorule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) obviously edits from the company network, as it has a high behavioral similarity to edits by 185.11.27.2 (again, from their corporate network).
Spontiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is could be a sock of Jklmnopr, although I was not quite ready to report to SPI yet. Jklmnopr attached to zhwiki on 2021-03-25 14:27:59, after a period of inactivity, which was followed by Spontiac zhwiki edit on 2021-03-25 14:42:55.
There are many other accounts that are probably related: Dajana Tim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Lekaralius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Lightingcat66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Stugys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), EdvinasA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tadas1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rita1939 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dylanzhang2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Zilys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Boruzhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tube Orange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

MarioGom (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially related pages:

Avia Solutions Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Small Planet Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Small Planet Airlines (Germany) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Small Planet Airlines (Cambodia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -> At Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small Planet Airlines (Cambodia)
Small Planet Airlines (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Arcus-Air (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ŽIA valda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Skycop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AirExplore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Magma Aviation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bluebird Nordic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AviaAM Leasing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -> Sent to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AviaAM Leasing. scope_creep^Talk 18:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SmartLynx Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
SmartLynx Airlines Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
BAA Training (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -> Send to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAA Training. scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JETMS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Avion Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vygaudas Ušackas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ddb smartlynx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shown "Employed by Smartlynx Airlines, committed to Wiki's COI and neutral point of view policy" on userpage.

I'm not familiar with enwiki procedures for the next steps. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Perfected Notary Services

User Sandy West Tx seems to have created their account purely for a draft about a business. I've notified them about the problems with promoting any business but it doesn't seem like they'll respond. ''Flux55'' (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the blatant advertising, I've templated the draft for speedy deletion per G11. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TRBL-FM

Draft:TRBL - FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
985thelou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

985thelou's first edits were to create a page for TRBL - FM, the home of 98.5 The Lou. The initial edit summary was "By Radio King Inc Team" (the company that owns TRBL - FM). I moved the article to draft for lack of sources and COI and provided a COI warning. 985thelou then created the now deleted [33] page and began asking questions on my talk page aimed at bypassing COI guidelines (see 1), which did not subside after multiple attempts to inform them they should not be involved in creating the page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing

Draft:Kariber Samec - Author (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Chatterboxcharlie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Completely unsourced. User might be either paid to create it or the person who is th subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux55 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page is :

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.

Was that done, User:Flux55? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Indian billionaire writing drafts about himself

Draft:Ramkrishana Halder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:RAMKRISHNA HALDER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ramkrishna Halder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blatantly created several drafts about himself. Despite me warning him several times, he's still doing it. ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like both articles were removed for G11. OnlyNano 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential COI with David Starr (wrestler)

David Starr (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Flamingofire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Flamingofire made a series of edits to the article David Starr (wrestler) in August 2021 disputing the section "Sexual abuse allegations" and reverting edits: [34] [35] [36] (including Instagram from Starr as a reference) [37] [38] (undoing edits/reverts made by an unregistered editor) [39] (making "allegations" in the section header singular) [40] (removing the "Fired" reference and the Over the Top Wrestling announcement regarding Starr which was later restored). 🐦DrWho42👻 09:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page is :

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.

and:

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion.

Was that done, DoctorWho42? In any case the user concerned has not edited since August 2021 so the matter is stale. Any content issues should be raised on the article talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Golam Rabby

Draft:Golam Rabby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Srabon Abir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe there is a COI of the user above, who is possibly writing an article of themselves, or is paid to create this article. The above article includes heavy amounts of promotional language, and I just don't trust that they aren't the subject involved, or are paid to edit. OnlyNano 18:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see he is a banker, author, tv presenter, an instructor, a columnist, a businessman and a radio jockey. Very busy man. Seemed to be Puffed. scope_creep^Talk 19:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wright (music producer)

Andy Wright (music producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sunray77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Across many years, this user has done nothing but repeatedly try and turn this article into a resume. I reverted their most recent edit and put a COI notice on their talk page. They ignored it and reverted me. I was gonna ignore it but it seems like he's not in the mood to communicate so if WP:ICHY applies I'll drop it here.

I left message on the editors talk page. It is a clear coi. The editor seems to be edit warring and disruptive I've asked the edit request mechanism. If the editor adds another discogs reference, I plan to take them to WP:ANI. If they come back, they will need to be page blocked. scope_creep^Talk 19:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you scope creep for your hard work! BrigadierG (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris LaMont

Chris LaMont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Chrislamont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The name is self-evident and this user has only edited the page for Chris LaMont. They received a COI warning in 2020 and have ignored it. Looking at the revision history, an anonymous editor has also made revisions citing their personal relationship with the subject as the source. Vegantics (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is a clear case of COI edits, in addition to obvious WP:Puffery. Should the edits made by the COI accounts be removed from the article? Go4thProsper (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Verdon

Draft:Guillaume Verdon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pmaccabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xirtam Esrevni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They have this article which can only be described as a promotional advert for the subject, puffing him. Hugely promo. Pmaccabe created the article with puff and Xirtam Esrevni came in an added unsourced puff, more of it. A complete mess. scope_creep^Talk 20:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I in fact created the article foremost with a link to a Forbes article that was negative coverage of the subject documenting his identity & role in founding the e/acc philosophy/movement. An editor removed that along with other content, which I restored along with independent coverage from an earlier timeframe from Business Insider as well as related coverage from Business Insider & CNBC there are probably others. I have no conflict of interest or personal, business, etc. connection with the subject. I'd welcome improvements to the article but I think it is objectively incorrect to say it "can only be described as a promotional advert" or "unsourced puff". Some content introduced by others I do think had a less NPOV I tried to correct some like references someone added to LinkedIn where news coverage provided the same educational and career details and stick to facts. I'm sure more cleanup could be done but not sure if I'm the best person to do it so I simply did not remove some of the tags. I of course cannot speak for others but don't believe there is conflict of interest on my part. Phil (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article was definitely promotional. As a New Page Patroller, I tagged it with the Advert, Fansite and (lack of) Context templates; another editor had already tagged it for notability. It was moved to draftspace shortly thereafter, and Pmaccabe moved it back to article mainspace themselves. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- At that time [[User:Bastun actually removed a reliable secondary source (Forbes) of which the subject was the primary topic and then the move to draft dismissed sourcing based on some less reliable sources added later by others like a link to his LinkedIn (which I later removed). When I moved it back I'd added more as there are certainly more out there, so far 2 separate BI articles & CNBC as well as cleanup of things like the LinkedIn link & trying to improve other sourcing. I left tags in place as I felt certainly more cleanup could still be done. This move again to draft was also proceeded not by removing those reliable sources but at least one citation to one of them I've since restored. I had also noted initially this was a stub and was sporadically continuing to improve it. Not feeling a lot of WP:AGF here as an editor on and off since 2008 in not just ignoring but removing sourcing then asserting this is somehow merely promotional or must include some CoI. Independently received new coverage on different occasions from publications first under a pseudonym more recently by name and documenting his background with him as a key subject. Has cited scholarly works, created TensorFlow Quantum at Google. In moving it back I noted he meets WP:BASIC clearly and WP:SCHOLAR somewhat, though perhaps minimally (7) in particular, so not just a single event or subject. I've infrequently created articles for others across a wide range of mostly admittedly minor but notable subjects Troy E. Black, Tompall Glaser, Rita Baranwal, Radia Perlman not anymore trying to promote this subject than others. He has news coverage and wasn't in Wikipedia yet, meets the criteria by which he could be. I make no claims to be any amazing editor but dispute suggestion there is a CoI or that this was definitely or even primarily promotional. Phil (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception that I added pure puff. Majority of my additions have legitimate sources including peer reviewed published work and granted US parents. Places were statements were not substantiated I added needs citation. Xirtam Esrevni (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berenberg Bank

There seems to be an effort by the communications team at Berenberg Bank to remove references to the Bank’s wartime record and detail on who was leading it during the period. Several family members have been removed from the page’s list. See a comment on the page and the editing history. Strange not to reference the bank’s WW2 history at all. 2A02:6B65:90AB:0:982A:8C70:538A:7225 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence either that that information was removed from the article or that the family themselves were Nazi sympathisers and that this is being covered up. From a cursory Google, it seems like the most important member of the family at that time is actually well-documented as an opponent of the Nazi regime. BrigadierG (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to cover something of that era, rather than remove it entirely. 2A02:6B65:90AB:0:982A:8C70:538A:7225 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of owners jumps from 31 to 33. It looks like something has been removed. 2A02:6B65:90AB:0:982A:8C70:538A:7225 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go find the answer and add it to the article then. BrigadierG (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New England Institute of Technology

New England Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ellabeth777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not entirely sure if Ellabeth777 has a conflict of interest but they have only edited this one article and their edits are blatantly promotional in nature. They have not responded to messages on their User Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed "own work" for 2017 photo File:NEIT New Facilities Showcase Pictures 1.jpg taken inside a campus building, also 2023 photo File:2 Girls in front of dorm.jpg taken outside, also another File:1949 NEIT HG 23-0712-ppt-1.jpg with another author's name on it and no evidence of permission, so ... probably some connection. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KAMK1 and African Wildlife Defence Force, et al

African Wildlife Defence Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
KAMK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

KAMK1 created African Wildlife Defence Force which is an organization founded by Jean Kiala-Inkisi. KAMK1 has also attempted to promote Kiala-Inkisi and his other organizations all over Wikipedia. [41] [42] [43] and creating the now deleted African Ornamental Breeders Association (AOBA) and this family tree. He even logs in and out to avoid scrutiny (examples: [44] and [45]) He was warned about his COI back in July 2022[46] but it was ignored and unacknowledged. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Borenstein

Joyce Borenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sam Borenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Joyce borenstein at illuminationanimation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The usual--multiple COI notices have been ignored without any response or engagement. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made a report to WP:UAA. Possibly dodgy editor handle. Asked them to use edit requests. Don't think there is any doubt. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks to Melcous for cleaning up. Given the edit history and refusal to engage, it's possible this will continue, at which time a report can open at ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it unreasonable to request a topic ban from these biographies? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Fox

Gerald Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Syed Sadique Hussain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Syed Sadique Hussain is a promotional and dishonest editor (with qustionable English skills [47] that creates articles with flowery prose).

Gerald Fox
Janine Jansen: Falling for Stradivari directed and produced by Fox
Christian Boltanski: Dead or Alive directed by Fox
Gerhard Richter (The South Bank Show) directed by Fox
Johnny and the Dead (TV series) Cowritten and directed by Fox
This is not an Exit: The Fictional World of Bret Easton Ellis directed by Fox
Thomas Ades: Music for the 21st Century directed by Fox
Together we can: South Africa’s Youth against AIDS directed and produced by Fox
Opening Shot (TV series) edited by Fox
Leaving Home, Coming Home: A Portrait of Robert Frank directed and produced by Fox
The Fundamental Gilbert and George co-directed by Fox
Force of Nature Natalia directed and produced by Fox

Syed Sadique Hussain declares they were paid for four of the above User:Syed Sadique Hussain but it's unlikely that's all.

See the quote (identified at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameh Al Tawil) "body of work is distinguished by its thought-provoking exploration of themes, notably freedom, religious identity, artistic identity, and human rights," not supported by sourcing.

See [48] "creating a page by following the Notability guidelines of Wikipedia. i have written the Information with keeping neutral point of view in my mind and following the Wikipedia: notability organisation and companies' guidelines. apart from that i have added categories list and short description and other important things." (which was deleted as G11).

For dishonesty see Gerhard Richter (The South Bank Show) at [49]. Sources were checked and of those i could read all but the one primary source did not even mention the film. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Together we can: South Africa’s Youth against AIDS where someone else saw the exact same issues "almost all of the sources do not even mention the film."

Other promotional/refbombed articles created include Sameh Al Tawil (afd), NeeRain, Savage Humans (afd), Ryan Tseko (belatedly declared paid despite earlier knowing the requirement), Jeffrey Ampratwum (declared paid).

duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if Hussain declared correctly that they were a paid editor, it is unacceptable to post such highly promotional content on Wikipedia that clearly breaks the terms of use. He warned by me just now and was by warned by @BoyTheKingCanDance: clearly and multiple times on 14 May 2023, yet carried on abusing the rules. ~~He should be really indef blocked.~~ The editor is a time waster and completly disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scope creep, On what basis should i be blocked ? I have followed the guidelines of Wikipedia strictly and as a matter of fact, i haven't even worked on any of the Wikipedia pages of Gerald fox's page more than 9 months!

This is big accusations against me! i have been following the rules after getting the warning from the administrators from a very long time!

I have also declared the articles in which i was paid and i have added only those words which i thought is written in neutral point of view, i haven't done any kind of disrupting editing or did any vandalism ...so, on what basis am i getting banned for ? Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. You would have went back and fixed if you were in earnest. I do intend to review the rest of your articles over the next week or so. scope_creep^Talk 13:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want me to fix those articles...definitely i will do it right away! and i thought those article where fine since it was reviewed by editors so how am i going to know whether it was correct or not ?. and anyone on Wikipedia can do the edit so, i thought someone else has fixed it Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme Hi, with regards to Gerhard Richter (The South Bank Show) - Wikipedia , you can procced with nominating it for deletion if you want, just for your information i created this page about 10 months ago and as i said earlier i was a rookie in Wikipedia who didn't understand the guidelines, terms and conditions of Wikipedia correctly at that point of time, and i didn't know the law on how the Wikipedia guidelines worked and which sources where reliable you can check the edit history to verify my records of edits.

With regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Savage+Humans this page was written from my perspective in a Wikipedia language best to my knowledge but i respect the decision for its deletion since now i understand why it was deleted but at that point of time i thought it has a very common name that is the reason why i was just justifying my point that when it was nominated for deletion that the news articles are not visible in search engine due it's name and nothing more than that .. there was no intention to getting the vote in favour and also those who voted where senior editors who have years of experience so, they also understand it quite well. i hope you get my point Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Duffbeerforme,

I am 100% sure that you are giving just one-sided examples of pages i have created and that too more than 9 months ago! particularly with regards to Gerald fox's Wikipedia pages where i made mistake since i was new in Wikipedia at that point of time!

but what about other pages that i have created are you not going to give examples for that???

Khuda bakhsh

Anees Fatima

Ela Area Public Library

Tarikh e Khandan e Timuriyah

Taking examples of selected articles that was created by me more than 9 months ago(gerald foxs wikipedia page) that too when i was a rookie and at learning phase of Wikipedia is not a right way of judging me. i am not a dishonest editor.

Please note with regards to sameh al tawil's page i was just defending my point of view and i thought his page could have been created but i was wrong since, he doesn't have significant amount of coverage that is the reason why i backed out.

i have contributed good amount of articles by following the correct guidelines of Wikipedia whether it is by following the general notability guidelines or COI or any law of Wikipedia Have i made mistake at past ? Yes i did , and i regret that alot !..that's the reason why i dont want to make mistake now Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough dude. I still intend to review your articles as I'm article reviewer. It is common to go back and fix articles that are considered broken, promotional, out of date, missing references, bad grammer, spelling, wrong kind of structure, section needing renamed, adding new stuff that has been found, people coming in and making suggestions, all that kind of stuff. You should have done that. Leaving a mess like that in mainspace isn't cool. Folk won't put up with it. scope_creep^Talk 13:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really apologize for the inconvenience, i will not repeat the same mistake again !

Having said that please find the attached Wikipedia articles that i have tried to fix it also as you said i have removed IMDB references out of these articles, also would be glad if anyone can help me fix these articles,

Please note - After learning the guidelines, terms and conditions of Wikipedia, i have created good amount of quality articles and edited more than 100+ Wikipedia pages so, it is very difficult to navigate across all the articles and to update all so, that's the thing and at the same time, i am also a working professional as well so, need my fellow Wikipedia colleagues help as well!

Also for your information with regards to creation of my articles it was reviewed by senior administrators. and some of my page where reviewed twice! also to not get COI i even created some of the article through AFC, as i don't want to flag any wrong work. so, the articles that you have seen are those ones which i created a very long time ago and i do admit i did a mistake while not creating those with correct format but i will try to fix it with regards to updating it with new links. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. Editor is wasting our time. My experience at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameh Al Tawil is that they ref bomb articles, forcing other editors to wade through 40 supposed sources, some of which do not even mention the supposed subject, misleadingly cite those sources by attributing promotional text to them which does not remotely exist, and then respond with walls of meaningless text, further wasting multiple other editors' time. When I requested they stop responding to me and tagging me in their responses [50], they, just continued to respond to me and tagged me.[51]. It required half a dozen editors over 10 days to cleanup just this one mess this editor made. I see from duffbeerforme above that this editor is still, four months after I had to deal with them, refbombing sources that don't even mention a topic, and this has been ongoing long before I discovered the issues. I am appalled and disgusted to now learn that this is a paid editor, making money for wasting our time and forcing us to spend hours of unpaid labor when we could be doing literally anything else here to build this encyclopedia. They are clearly here for promotion and to get paid. Let's please block them so they can no loner waste our time. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let me clarify one thing - the refbombing you are mentioning is from the articles that where created more than a 10 months ago ok? and that too for 3 articles as compared to the 12 articles i have created please note about that and i don't have any involvement in those articles that @Duffbeerforme is referring to from the last 9 months but now upon the request from my fellow editors ..i am clearing the problem which are present in those articles.

the 2nd thing it is my job to add references to prove the notability of the work with regards to Sameh al Tawil or any article.. A person who creates an wikipedia articles knows about that - the references where added with regards to his art and video installation exhibition! not him personally, and that's the only mistake i did that is not able to prove the artist significant coverage about himself with with regards to other significant news coverage. i have already explain you before and i am explaining you again. that's the only mistake happened from myside. Also just to clarify this editor @Elspea756 has only created a single page in main space! that too a stub one so, you have no right to judge me I also work very hard to create articles, and btw you were only involved in only one of my article for deletion project that is the sameh al tawil project which was an level C category detailed page that took me alot of effort to make. so, it was my instinct to defend that page and to justify my points.

Also just to clarify i just replied you personally back once... the other replies where for other editors check this it was not to you personally [62] after which you message not to reply to you for which i wrote a message and that's it.

also just to clarify i also backed out once the administrator told me to [63]
Also, Majority of the page i have created are unpaid and i created those pages for passion some of the examples i have already given above in the chats. and i will also addi some more here in the chat , my domain of research and study is writing biography of famous people who deserve to be recognised.
Apologise for writing this paragraph this long but, i am quite shock with response i am getting from my fellow editors Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme and @Scope creep please find the attach reference message i made to @User:BoyTheKingCanDance - [64] after knowing from him that IMDB is not a reliable source in Wikipedia ...it is an evidence to prove that that i truly didn't know much about the Wikipedia guidelines at that time that is around 14th may 2023 when i was creating the Wikipedia articles of Gerald fox.. it was a small mistake from myside, from which i will be fixing all the pages i did from now on Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through Janine Jansen: Falling for Stradivari and found that you used Apple and AllMusic[52] to erroneously reference the claim that it was broadcast on Medici.tv. Neither supported this. You also used two references to claim a rave review by The Times [53] neither mentioned The Times or the quote you included. You also had a quote from Camilla Long that doesn't appear to exist and wasn't supported by the completely unrelated source you gave. [54] You also gave a two false quotes from the Guardian review. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for pointing this out, I recently did the edit on that Wikipedia page on the request from my fellow editor although not in detail you can find it here [55] Also, the errors you are referring to it was done by me more than 8 -9 months ago! so, i didn't created this page precisely...as i was new in Wikipedia at that time and didn't have the experience for detecting the errors... i thought that someone might has fixed it as it was reviewed by some editors as i got a notification , but anyways thanks for correcting my mistake! Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when I was new as well but I didn't make up quotes and use fake references in articles. I feel like you are evading responsibility by pointing out that it was 9 months ago. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to The Guardian quote - i quoted exactly what was told by Peter with respect to the primary source and here is the evidence for that [56] both the quotes where true here is the 2nd quote evidence from peter - [57] ..With regards to the Times, yes the review does exist - i quoted that from the primary source as wellt [56] ..which was given by Richard Morrison of the times not only that there was a interview conducted by Richard that was publish in the article of the times - [58] to give some more evidence from the times here is the some more proof - [59] if you are not able to open the link you can check the official twitter handle of the production company that made this documentary. that is Asterisk Films [60] you can find the proof review there as well, so whatever quote i have made those are not false , but i think they lack evidence and all of them are true Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article from The Guardian you used is here and it has none of the quotes you ascribe to it. Using the trailer for the film itself is not a reliable source. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I first encountered this editor seeing them comment in an unrelated AfD, and thereafter finding the Ryan Tseko article. Then after checking the page history there I found that this is the IP who "caught" the editor. Manoj Sharma (voice actor) and Adele De Berri are two articles that probably deserve extra scrutiny, because even assuming the editor is correct that they weren't paid on those two articles, where there's smoke there's fire; the editor has created 31 articles and the IP only tagged four, so there must be a reason. As for the editor, I'm on the fence about calling for a block, but we're definitely in WP:ROPE territory by now. Left guide (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Left guide yes, on the basis of that only i disclosed my payment term for Ryan tseko and for some other pages, i wasn't caught editing on paid undisclose .. i didn't know that i have to disclose the payment term, here is also the reply to the same person - [61] who let me know about it,

With regards to Manoj Sharma page it was created through AFC creation [62] that i thought would be the best way possible to create this article that is getting it reviewed from multiple other editors

With regards to Adele de Barri's wikipedia page i picked this topic up from Wikipedia request for article. she was the inventor of silver screen and in some Wikipedia page i found that someone gave the credit for the invention of silver screen to other inventor, which was not true so, i created a page for her so,that people know about her and her legacy and work is preserved.

With regards to Ryan tseko page i indeed did a mistake, i didn't know that these news articles which i used for references where paid and publish in Nigeria and Ryan was based in America , i got to know after i made this article from other editors but it was already too late ...i thought that since the guardian, the sun is a reliable source an article about this person can be created but i didn't checked the source location where it was publish correctly.

wikipedia has a alot of guidelines, terms and conditions so, in the initial stage alot of mistakes did happen from myside, but i always try to improve myself so, that i can limit and minimize my mistakes and when i am not confident about some article whether it should be created or not ..i go through AFC creation that's the thing i found the best and efficient way of making good articles and not doing wrong editing Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still a current problem: This can't be dismissed as a "9 months ago" problem. For example, the article Adarsh Iyengar was created by this editor on Dec. 9 (two months ago) and last edited by them on Jan. 4 (one month ago). The second sentence says the subject won the "Proud Indian Award presented by the Smruti Sadhana Foundation at the City Central Library," and is sourced to three links [55] [56] [57]. As far as I can see, not a single one of these three sources contains the words "Proud Indian," "Smruti," "Sadhana," or "Library." The next sentence says the subject was "born on 13 September in Shimoga, Karnataka," attributed to two sources [58] and [59]. The words "September," "Shimoga" and "Karnataka" don't seem to appear anywhere in these links. That is five citations in a row in just two sentences where none of these supposed sources say anything close to what is attributed to them. This looks like either gross incompetence where this editor does not understand proper sourcing well enough to be creating or editing articles, or this is a conflict of interest editor who, as duffbeerforme puts it, is "a promotional and dishonest editor." Elspea756 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? you want me to even prove that where this person was even born ...seriously dude?, here is the link from the primary and secondary source - [60] [61] the problem is you are checking every words and pointing out. instead you could have just put those links and get it sorted and you are telling that there is no mentioning in the 5 citations about where he was born ?... dude his date and where he was born is mentioned in the 1st citation posted in his Wikipedia page itself [61] and that too secondary source and this article was created through AFC process. and on the basis of that you are telling that i am promotional and dishonest editor where is the logic in that ? .. do you have a problem with me ? because i see you have a COI against me. i created this whole article from scratch get it through AFC creation and there was a small misplacement of references and you are concluding that i am a dishonest and promotional editor ? seriously ? btw Shimoga is a city located in Karnataka, you want me to prove that as well ? Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Batterson

Mark Batterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Maggieseagren18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor evidently works for the subject. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing section blanking in the contribs, but what makes you suspect paid editing over some other conflict? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chosen username happens to be the same as Batterson's executive assistant at the National Community Church. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Deacon

Katy Deacon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
EngUpdate21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EngUpdate21 adds incredibly promotional text to Katy Deacon (example "Katy has been an inspiring advocate for inclusive engineering and inclusion for all") They are either directly employed by Deacon or by Institution of Engineering and Technology which they also edit (and Deacon is associated with). Warned (twice) about COI but they continue to edit. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked indefinitely for persistent promotional editing and lack of communication. It's possible the editor isn't aware of their talkpage, but if so, the block ought to help against that also. Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Review a COI article?

Kessel Run (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GRuban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello folks, I need your help. I'm a long term Wikipedia editor, 18 years, wrote over 100 nontrivial articles, as listed here, uploaded over 4000 free licensed images for other people's articles, as listed here. Out of those 100+ articles, four are conflict of interest articles, as detailed here. The first three, written by me as drafts in 2016 and 2018, went fine, reviewed by uninvolved people (including an author of the WP:COI guideline, and an Arbitrator and Wikipedian of the Year!), pushed live, not touched by me since. This last one, Kessel Run, I wrote last year (and clearly forgot how to do it in the meantime!). I also got it reviewed and pushed live by an uninvolved person, but User:Legoktm tagged it with COI and POV tags. When I asked what the issues were, so I could deal with them, he said that the specific issues weren't what mattered: I had a COI, so it had a POV, and needed the tags because it still needed review by an uninvolved person. But he says he won't do it himself, I need to find someone else. That was in October 2023. I've been looking for that someone else since. I asked several admins, and a relevant WikiProject without result. So I have landed here.

So:

Is it true that the review by uninvolved User:Robert McClenon, who pushed it to main space (Talk:Kessel Run#Non-Comment by Reviewer) does not suffice?
If so, anyone willing to be that other reviewer? I'll be very happy to do what I can to make an uninvolved reviewer happy to remove the tags. Thank you very much. --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this is a tagging dispute, and tagging disputes are essentially stupid. I occasionally see a tagging dispute at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and I will not deal with them as tagging disputes, but only as disputes over article content. The purpose of both dispute resolution and tags should be to improve the article. Either identify the non-neutral aspects of the article and edit them, or agree that the article is already neutral.

I reviewed it twice, once on 26 August 2023, when it wasn't tagged for conflict of interest and was in draft space, and again on 15 September 2023, after the issue of the conflict of interest was raised. I said that I would have accepted it if it had been tagged for COI. While employment by an agency of the United States Government is a conflict of interest, it is my opinion that it is a less significant conflict of interest than employment by either a non-governmental organization or a business corporation. Either identify the non-neutral language and reword it, or remove the tag. If this is a tagging dispute, then it is stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quetstar removed the COI/POV tags. Hopefully that's the resolution. Thank you very much Robert McClenon and Quetstar! --GRuban (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Medina

Santiago Medina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jordanjemison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(relisting because zero people commented last time, i hope this is fine) Jordanjemison's only contributions have been creating and editing the article Santiago Medina 2 years ago and has since stopped editing. Article is heavily promotional. See "About the sculptures" section before it was removed, as well as everything below the "Sculptor" section. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions for User:Jordanjemison are all from 2015, not two years ago. Maybe no one replied because this so stale that there is little chance this user will offend again. If the article is too promotional, edit it. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida

Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. Written like an advertisement

2. Contains classic, out of context, copy-pasted language that is a paraphrase of wording on the company's site.

3. Company is well known in Florida politics for influencing politics, the media, and even academics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were right to add Template:Advert, and clearly there was a problem with its creator, User:Appletoncreative, an apparent undisclosed paid editor who was indefinitely blocked in March 2012, but it's not apparent to me which users in the years since then have shown a conflict of interest. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 558: / Line 558: @@
 [[User:Syed Sadique Hussain|Syed Sadique Hussain]] ([[User talk:Syed Sadique Hussain|talk]]) 05:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Still a current problem:''' This can't be dismissed as a "9 months ago" problem. For example, the article [[Adarsh Iyengar]] was created by this editor on Dec. 9 (two months ago) and last edited by them on Jan. 4 (one month ago). The second sentence says the subject won the "Proud Indian Award presented by the Smruti Sadhana Foundation at the City Central Library," and is sourced to three links [https://www.cinemaexpress.com/kannada/news/2022/oct/04/rakshit-thirthahallis-novel-kadina-nentaru-to-be-made-into-a-movie-35261.html] [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/music/not-every-college-story-has-a-happy-ending-my-song-depicts-this-adarsh-iyengar/articleshow/92935570.cms] [https://www.adarshiyengarofficial.com/]. As far as I can see, not a single one of these three sources contains the words "Proud Indian," "Smruti," "Sadhana," or "Library." The next sentence says the subject was "born on 13 September in Shimoga, Karnataka," attributed to two sources [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/music/not-every-college-story-has-a-happy-ending-my-song-depicts-this-adarsh-iyengar/articleshow/92935570.cms] and [https://www.adarshiyengarofficial.com/]. The words "September," "Shimoga" and "Karnataka" don't seem to appear anywhere in these links. That is five citations in a row in just two sentences where none of these supposed sources say anything close to what is attributed to them. This looks like either gross incompetence where this editor does not understand proper sourcing well enough to be creating or editing articles, or this is a conflict of interest editor who, as duffbeerforme puts it, is "a promotional and dishonest editor." [[User:Elspea756|Elspea756]] ([[User talk:Elspea756|talk]]) 23:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
+*:Are you serious? you want me to even prove that where this person was even born ...seriously dude?, here is the link from the primary and secondary source - [https://www.adarshiyengarofficial.com/about-1 <nowiki>[60]</nowiki>] [https://www.iwmbuzz.com/music/celebrities-music/adarsh-iyengar-driving-force-behind-rising-popularity-carnatic-music/2021/03/16 <nowiki>[61]</nowiki>] the problem is you are checking every words and pointing out. instead you could have just put those links and get it sorted and you are telling that there is no mentioning in the 5 citations about where he was born ?... dude his date and where he was born is mentioned in the 1st citation posted in his Wikipedia page itself [https://www.iwmbuzz.com/music/celebrities-music/adarsh-iyengar-driving-force-behind-rising-popularity-carnatic-music/2021/03/16 <nowiki>[61]</nowiki>]  and that too secondary source and this article was created through AFC process.  and on the basis of that you are telling that i am promotional and dishonest editor where is the logic in that ? .. do you have a problem with me ?  because i see you have a COI against me. i created this whole article from scratch get it through AFC creation and there was a small misplacement of references and you are concluding that i am a dishonest and promotional editor ?  seriously ? btw [[Shimoga]] is a city located in [[Karnataka]], you want me to prove that as well ? [[User:Syed Sadique Hussain|Syed Sadique Hussain]] ([[User talk:Syed Sadique Hussain|talk]]) 04:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 == Mark Batterson ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards