Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:59, 23 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.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss 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:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa 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]

Glovo – like an ad, almost certainly created in COI, edited by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g. Mapevi21cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lesterpremnoronha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silpo – nothing suspicious. Janhrach (talk) 20:13, 18 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]

I have discovered Wikimedia participant lists for several Wikipedia events, which prove a connection between Atakhanli and several of the other accounts that have been listed.

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX With all of the evidence presented over almost two months, will any action be taken? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope so, just had to clean up more stuff... HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, HistoryofIran and KhndzorUtogh, we have admins who specialize in taking action on COI cases, but I am not one of those admins. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion needs to be brought over to ANI where it will get more adequate attention. The initial, limited report concerning Atakhanli was appropriate for COIN, but now that this is a sprawling report concerning a dozen different editors with varying degrees of evidence, and particularly given that it now includes credible accusations of government involvement in relation to a CTOPS topic, I don't think that COIN is equipped to take care of it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: you seem more familiar with the process than I am. Can we leave this in your capable hands? Owen× ☎ 00:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, after reviewing the discussion more closely, I'm comfortable blocking Atakhanli and Wertuose. Atakhanli, because while their response concedes that they have worked for the institution in question, it does not adequately address the accusation that they specifically worked at the institute in question as a PR professional, which makes their claim to have simply innocently been of the opinion that the it was a notable company less than credible. While the evidence of paid editing by Wertuose is less clear, their description of the accusations as baseless is clearly false; regardless of whether one agrees that all of the listed accounts have engaged in UPE, the allegations made in the report have a clear, rational basis. To suggest otherwise, and accuse the filing editors of vandalism and xenophobia at the same time, is the definition of tendentious. Note that while Johsgun Aliyev's response here was also indignant, it does not cross over to the same level of tendentiousness, hence no block at this time. For them and the rest of the listed accounts, editors are encouraged to raise this at ANI, where more editors will be available to investigate diffs and contribution histories. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rosguill! I knew I could trust you to handle this better than I could. Owen× ☎ 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OwenX, HistoryofIran, Thenightaway, I've also opened a discussion at metawiki notifying the broader community of the actions regarding Atakhanli and Wertuose, as Atakhanli in particular is clearly in violation of wikimedia-wide policy that should impact their ability to remain an admin on az.wiki. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd claims and surprise decision. If there is an allegation against a user, there must be significiant evidence to prove that the allegation is true. Is the evidence that proves the allegation to be true and serves as the reason for blocking of the user the fact that the user admitted to working at the mentioned institution but did not disclose working as a PR professional? The allegation already stated that the person worked as a PR professional, and the user has not denied it.

Atakhanli admitted that he worked at that institute. And he said that although he worked in that institution, he created the article because he thought that institution is notable. As a piece of information, let me say this: The mentioned institute is one of the biggest institutes of Azerbaijan. 25,000 graduates a year, can you imagine? It is also a private organization that is not a public institution. The chair of UNESCO operates in this institution. He said that he had no other interest here and he did not know that this violated the rules. And most importantly, he apologized for it. He also said that if the organization does not meet the conditions of Wikipedia, it should be deleted. That is it, he did not denie working at that institution. Is there anything unusual here?

And when it comes to claim, such allegations can be reported for any user. If you look at a user from any country, you will see that they have created specific articles about their country or expanded on existing articles. What could be more normal than that? Azerbaijan is a small country. Anything can be associated with anything. But this is just a claim. The Azerbaijani Wikipedia community is also a small community. You have blamed the whole community. Every claim need a strong evidence.--Sura Shukurlu (talk) 13:25, 21 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]

Revisiting my block, or at least topic ban request. More of same. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B5B5:46AC:4F0D:7F08 (talk) 07:09, 15 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 [14] 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 [15] "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 [16]. 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 [17], they, just continued to respond to me and tagged me.[18]. 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[19] 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 [20] 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. [21] 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]

Yes, i do know that the trailer is not a reliable source, if you see Gerald fox's website you may find the quote my only intention was to prove that the quote existed [56] and for the secondary source the 2nd quote evidence from peter - [57] .. as said earlier only to prove that i am not writing any falsified work from myside. although i do admit that i made mistakes and i would humbly like to apologize for that Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 05:54, 8 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 [22] [23] [24]. 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 [25] and [26]. 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]

Comment: Dear colleagues, i can see that i had made some mistakes in my existing articles, so, from next time if i want to create any new articles..i will go through the Article for creation method (AFC) so, that it only get approval if it passes the guidelines and after minimize the mistakes as much as possible. by that i will also be safe and the articles i will create will not have much mistakes when it enters the main space. having said that, i would like to apologize to my fellow editors for any mistakes i have done with regards to my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked that "Camilla Long" quote. I found it on here: "https://archive.ph/WheBQ". You need to be careful your doing a proper lookup. scope_creep^Talk 08:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sadique Hussain has the Camilla Long quote sourced to this which doesn't mention her at all. Nor did any of the earlier sources in that paragraph. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. Yes. The first time around I couldn't find it anywhere from the available refs. I thought I'd made a mistake and left it. It took real effort. I suspect the editor is mixing sources in a kind of compositive sentence, which may be accurate in terms of where it comes from, i.e. from the source, but by time they write it, its composite, multiple stuff mixing and its not necessarily sourced correctly, by the time they finish. I've seen it a few times in the past, not for ages though. I don't think it's malicous but it could be WP:CIR by definition.scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 9 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]

This appears to be true, as a quick Google search will confirm. If the editor isn’t an employee or paid editor, he/she does have a clear COI. Go4thProsper (talk) 04:12, 19 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]

Robert and others, it's not simply about whether the article has neutral language. That is a small part. More importantly what does the article say. What doesn't it say. If I were a PR agent for a fictional doctor I could write Hannibal Lector is a Forensic psychiatrist who consulted for the FBI on serial killer investigations. No non neutral language there. I can even provide references to support it all. But that is clearly not a balanced and neutral article. So it's not simply reading the article and saying it sort of sounds neutral. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely true and an important point in general, but that's something that has to be specifically raised, not merely tagged. Legoktm did not properly outline issues when adding the tag. If someone asks "hey what are the issues" at that point you can't just say "I mentioned a couple, I don't need to cover anything else to keep up the tag indefinitely", and Lego didn't even specify issues beyond puff language (so the question of "what doesn't it say" has not been broached.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put them back as I thought it was bit premature to remove them, now a discussion kicked of. I read it last night but haven't reviewed. On the first look it seem kind of breathless, i.e. "breathless with excitement" but not necessarily balanced. Some obvervations: They were still using VBScript in 2016 and hand't introduced agile. Crazy in big way. Its destroyed my illusions, almost hero worthip, of miltary software and capability. I plan to review it over the weekend. scope_creep^Talk 15:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David Fuchs, maybe I'm misunderstanding where the burden of responsibility is? I feel like I pointed out enough issues to justify the COI/POV tags, but I didn't expect it was my responsibility to outline for a COI editor every single detail that I felt was inappropriate. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. I don't see anything that merits a COI or neutrality tag. But IMO it does have a bit of a subtle issue. It's written more like "The Story of Kessel Run and why it's needed" rather than a typical enclyclopedic article. Later on (after the discussion is over) I'd be happy to go through it if desired and if you ping me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: Does that satisfy you? --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: We now have multiple uninvolved experienced editors who say they don't see anything that merits a COI or neutrality tag. Is that what you were asking for? Does that satisfy you? --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: ping. Sad, hopeless ping, crying out into the wilderness. Is your condition met? I'd really like to meet it. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, Robert McClenon, and Legoktm: and anyone else on this noticeboard: it has now been 4 months since Robert McClenon approved the draft to go to mainspace. It has been another 12 days since North8000 didn't see anything that merited a COI or a neutrality tag. (He saw a subtle issue that I would love to discuss and deal with, but presumably we should steer away from the iceberg first, and rearrange the deckchairs second?) I think Legoktm's condition of having a reviewer without a COI has been met. Legoktm has not responded despite 12 days of repeated pings. If he has some other conditions that have not been met, then I would love to know what I need to do so they can be met. I do not think that the state that the article stays with tags of shame on its page, forever, with no way to remove them, is acceptable. Can someone either say "I will remove the tags", or "I won't remove the tags yet, but I will when X, Y and Z are done"? Surely that is not too much to ask? --GRuban (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:GRuban - It isn't so much User:Legoktm's concern at this point as User:scope_creep's concern, because they reapplied the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:GRuban - You are the wrong editor to be asking about the COI tag. As long as you ask about the COI tag, you are acting like an editor who has a conflict of interest. Let neutral editors argue about whether the article is neutral or should have a COI tag or has subtle issues. There is an issue about your involvement with the article. I don't think it is much of an issue, but it is an issue. If a declared paid editor were repeatedly asking about a COI tag on "their" article, we might tell them that they were acting against their own interests by being too persistent. You have far less of a conflict of interest than a paid editor, but you have a conflict of interest, so it is unseemly to continue asking about the tag. Let the neutral editors do the arguing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I admit that I was afraid this would fall off of people's radar, and people would be willing to let the tags remain indefinitely without action. But I will trust that is not the case. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, some editors do think that it is all right for tags to remain on articles forever, and some tags do remain on articles forever. Second, if you continue to ask about the tag, some editors may, with some reason, think that is evidence that the tag should stay on. Third, I have asked at Village Pump what the policy or procedure should be for dispute resolution of a {{coi}} tag. I advise you to observe the discussion without participating. Fourth, by continuing to ask about the tag, you are providing a reason for some editors to think that the tag is appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tags should never remain on an article indefinitely. Tags are there for the sole purpose of alerting readers to issues with the article content they need to be aware of (c.f. WP:NODISCLAIMERS). If specific, actionable issues cannot be articulated by the person placing the tag, and/or neutral, uninvolved editors assert that there are no (remaining) issues then the tag must be removed.

GRuban asking for independent editors to review an article to determine whether a tag is or is not still needed is absolutely not providing a reason for anybody to think the tag is appropriate. They are providing a reason for people to believe they have a COI, but as they are upfront about that this is irrelevant. We want editors with a COI to be open about their COI, we want them to communicate with editors who don't - indeed we require that they do that. However the corollary of that requirement on COI editors is that editors who are in a position to review their edits/requests must be required to communicate with the COI editors, review their edits/requests and either action them or explain why they will not be actioned. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag has been removed and I believe it should stay off unless someone provides a strong rationale for putting it back on. IMO now it's time to move on to the more subtle problem which might have fueled this. The article is worded more like "the story of Kessel Run" than an enclyclopedia article and includes somewhat "I'm impressed" type way of telling various elements of the story. It's a subtle problem which I think should be worked on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to. I admit, as a writer, I'm a software engineer; I do the best I can, and welcome review to improve; I think I've gotten better over my 15 years here. But I think at least a few people think we've taken enough of their time here with this one article; if you are correct and the tag stays off, want to move this discussion to either article talk or personal talk? If you give a couple of examples there of the sort of subtle changes that you want, I'll try to write up a complete rewrite in user or draft space that follows the model you suggest throughout. Then you can take a look at it, maybe make more suggestions, and we'll iterate. When you're happy, you'll push it up. Good? --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the thing that that's required the {{promotional tone}} tag, then? --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went through it with the intent of tweaking it but couldn't find anything glaring. I think that the issue is so low key and so pervasive that I couldn't find anything to easily change. One think that I think that the editor (but not me) can easily do is there are many places where there is a positive value-laden claim which appears to be well sourced. I'd recommend rewording those using attribution type wording. The other issue might be too pervasive but minor to fix. The entire article is structured like "The story of Kessel Run" and "The story of modern US Military software development" (including related needs and techniques) In that context it's well written and good reading but maybe less of an enclyclopedia article structure. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:52, 21 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]

A little mean-spirited but I get your point, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't 100% confident in my thinking that it was COI and wanted awareness of the article. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:50, 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]

Camille Herron

Camille Herron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Temporun73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring to add promotional tone, their primary interest here since 2016 has been this biography. I like the insistence on adding She is known for running with her hair down, a big smile, and eating tacos to fuel ultramarathons. Has endeavored to include sponsors [27]. See also unexplained removal of sourced achievements in other athletes' biographies [28]; [29]. Requesting a topic ban, at the least. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops--I see they've been blocked for edit warring [30]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Activities Association

Arkansas Activities Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bobby Swofford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
96.70.23.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The chosen username happens to be that of the association's assistant executive director. – Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Simon

Melissa Simon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ORG-FSM-CHET (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Megan.morrell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Usernames associated with the subject and their workplace, responsible for promotional edits and copyright violations. Since overtly promotional editing began in September 2023, the article has become a mess--textbook example of COI damage. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OneTaste

OneTaste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rectitudo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has made repeated attempts to insert URLs promoting a business web page and its events page (also on the talk page), after (back in September) "reviving" the Wikpedia article of a defunct business written in the past tense, now claiming it still exists on a different website. Although they claim not to be affiliated, they for some reason feel the need for legal threats? See [31]. Skyerise (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-legal}} issued. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise, are you or are you not affiliated with the Onetaste organization of one of their off shoots? Your behavior and reticence to answer that question seems to mirror behavior of their various members that I've encountered in the past. Rectitudo (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that and the constant referring to yourself as "we". It's really vain and irritating. Rectitudo (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the user is also engaging in attempted outing. It seems they may have an emotional involvement with the subject. Perhaps a topic ban would be in order? Skyerise (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)

Resolved

– Agreement has been made to remove the unsourced content and only add the new content once it has a reliable source in the correct format. Shadow311 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WarBishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps adding unsourced information to the article and has been warned multiple times. User has claimed that another church denomination was vandalizing the page and they are fixing the vandalism.. Shadow311 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i’m literally posting the sources in the change.

https://www.mormonstories.org/truth-claims/the-books/the-book-of-mormon/book-of-mormon-witnesses/

U.S. postal records from two cities along the mail route confirm that a letter was in fact mailed to Strang from Nauvoo.

Lucy Smith (Joseph’s mother) wrote a letter on May 11, 1846 upholding James Strang as a prophet, while Emma Smith testified that Joseph held a council of trusted advisors before penning a letter to Strang. WarBishop (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CS Shadow311 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User disclosed a COI with this edit. This editor states they are a senior member of the clergy. While I do not know how their Church is organized this statement probably means they are fairly high up in the Church and not just a regular member. --VViking_TalkEdits 16:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am clergy, there is no conflict of interest, as I am only seeking to remove unsupported opinion statements WarBishop (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but then you pretty much automatically have a conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that isn’t what the policy states. I suspect this page is being gatekept by the rival LDS church members. You deny you are a member of the LDS Church. WarBishop (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally what the policy says, in the first sentence: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." As for "rival LDS church members", I don't even know what that means. BTW yes I deny being a member of the LDS church, or any other church for that matter, and it's none of your business anyway to speculate this way, violating WP:AGF. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i’ve contributed nothing about myself, my family, my friends, my clients, my employers, or my financial relationships WarBishop (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without really looking at the COI, I think that this should not be used as a source. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what was the source for the “critics” with no citation? WarBishop (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the previous information does not provide a source, does not mean you should do the same. Shadow311 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t what I said. I removed opinion statements without an RS. http://www.centerplace.org/history/ch/v3ch02.htm Has no authority WarBishop (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes however, you were also replacing said statements with even more unsourced information. Shadow311 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let’s remove the unsourced opinions statements, and I will learn how to properly cite WarBishop (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri Westerson

Jeri Westerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mystwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other than a handful of minor edits (changing B.C. to B.C.E.) Mystwriter has only edited Westerson's article or added Westerson to other articles[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

It has been going on for years and ever after having a COI notice on their talk page with a followup warning they still continue to edit Jeri Westerson without disclosing the obvious COI. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoncehc

Draft:Yonce's Theory of Everything (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yoncehc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User who has created several drafts, nearly all speedily deleted due to promotion. They seem extremely keen to promote their book in the site. ''Flux55'' (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft this morning and it was deleted before I could even add in the factual logic & reason to support it.

Metaphysics isn't a product it is a branch of philosophy that deals with questions about the nature of reality, such as the nature of existence, causality, time, space, and the relationship between mind and matter. This work is exactly that. All I have provided is logic, reason, & universal truths which have been uncovered through years of hard work. Where in this article am I selling anything - what would I even be advertising? I do not have a book - so that is factually incorrect - the intent here is to leverage Wikipedia as my publisher to give this information to the world for free rather than write a book. If anyone is able to disprove anything that I have written then I'll stop defending my stance on sharing these universal truths.

Yoncehc (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoncehc Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own ideas, full stop. Your intention to "leverage Wikipedia as my publisher" goes entirely against the purpose of this project. Start your own website if that is what you want to do. But doing so here is in breach of both the conflict of interest guidelines and the No original research policy. Please just stop. Melcous (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I will not share my work with wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Yoncehc (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

avoid editing or creating --> This isn't about me it is about a valid theory of everything.
propose changes --> If anything that has been written can be proved as factually incorrect then I am open to changes.
disclose --> I have no conflict of interest in selling or advertising anything. I do not have a book. In fact I decided to use wikipedia because it is one of the only ways I could provide this valuable factual non-bias information to the public for free.
avoid linking --> I don't link to anything. The beauty of metaphysics is that in metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things. thus I do not need link to anything the logic of the relationships of these particulars creating universal truths stands on it's own.
do your best --> I have done my very best to but am being bogged down with false claims and assumptions.

Yoncehc (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoncehc When you say "In fact I decided to use wikipedia because it is one of the only ways I could provide this valuable factual non-bias information to the public for free.", I beg to differ. There are many ways to do that, over which you would have full control (unlike here). You could, for example, go and build yourself a free website or a free blog; you could create any number of social media accounts, or you could stand on a street corner and shout it out to the world. All those options are open to you. But what you cannot do is use Wikipedia as a publishing route for your ideas until they have been written about and reported upon, in depth, by reliable mainstream media. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - thanks for the help nick 96.228.37.198 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason University

George Mason University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
129.174.255.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite all efforts, editor(s) from George Mason University – to which the IP is registered – are still editing the article directly rather than proposing edits at Talk:George Mason University under Template:Edit COI. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A requested edit on the talk page was responded to with: "According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself...". It's hardly surprising that the IP then did exactly that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Z

Rachel Z (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rachel Z Hakim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sickoflies22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rachel Z Hakim admits to being the article subject but claims that since she "has a masters in music" she should be able to edit her own article and that men shouldn't be allowed to edit it.[40] None of which follows any known Wikipedia policy so I am bringing it here. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusSholto is harrassing me. He could simply research the things I wish to add and support me- bit instead seeks to humiliate me.

I said that a man who wishes to diminish a woman should not be allowed to edit.

please have wiki use a female write to add important details to the page. Rachel Z Hakim (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rachel Z Hakim In regards to He could simply research the things I wish to add and support me: When you're presenting material to be added to any article (but especially one where you have a conflict of interest), you should also be presenting independent reliable sources to support the edit. You shouldn't be relying on other editors to do that work for you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fred C. Thank you - you are all respected writers. I understand you want the journalism to be accurate. I assumed that I was in control of my own information. Rachel Z Hakim (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rachel Z Hakim you are in control of whatever you want on your own personal website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- it reports on what has been credibly recorded in journalistic and credible sources. You should be able to see how otherwise anyway could claim to the be the person that an article is about and control the narrative without any scrutiny or proof. If you want to add information to any article, whether its about yourself or someone else, it should always be verfiable from third-party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, free SEO or any other kind of promotion for anyone. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect.

I added well know documented facted my friend.

the FACT that Omar Hakim is a jazz, rock, pop, funk, and electronic drummer.

Look at his wiki page…

I added that I have a new single out whoch is a cover of the Foo Fighters song These Days.

these are facts

Honestly- i really need to understand what documents you would like to see. Rachel Z Hakim (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

, firstly, you need to WP:AGF. Clicking through to another wikipedia page to verify what you've added to your own page isn't acceptable. Wikipedia is not a source for other wikipedia pages. Those references/sources that state the information you added about your husband need to appear on every page that information is contained on. It's great that you've released a cover today - but again what's the encyclopaedic value and what's the source that a new song has been released? Read WP:V and WP:RS which explains the answers to all of your questions. If you can't appreciate this then you shouldn't be editing any pages let alone your own. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I’ll try to provide the proper documentation. I have a full album coming out on Dot Time Records March 29th so I’ll have my publicist Lydia Liebman properly submit a proper requst to update. or I’ll check in on the update page. This is a bit complicated bit I understand the need for accurate wiki!

fyi

These Days

https://open.spotify.com/album/61X6UhkBRRwCHDz156ZDbc?si=wi8pWDKKR1G1tJxp2ABFlg

Regarding Omar Hakim here is a link. The article neglects to add the rock category…but does state alot of credits like Weather Report, Miles, David Bowie, Dire Straights,Foo Fighters and Sting are all rock bands - so that is evidence that therefore Omar is a rock drummer as well.

https://www.moderndrummer.com/drummers/omar-hakim/

with respect

rachel z Rachel Z Hakim (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I said that a man who wishes to diminish a woman should not be allowed to edit.". No you did not. What you wrote was "Men should not be writing or correcting women regarding our work as in fact-". You followed up that false claim on this page with "please have wiki use a female write to add important details to the page". This is not how Wikipedia works and we do not quiz editors about their gender before they are allowed to edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added user's previous account, User:Sickoflies22 (last active 2020), for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've asked the editor to use edit requests from this point forward. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial consciousness‎ and DIKW pyramid‎

Artificial consciousness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
DIKW pyramid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
小弓 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

小弓 has edited these two articles, multiple times, with edit summaries that explicitly reveal their clear conflict of interest e.g., "Dear Reviewer: I am a doctoral student of Professor Duan. At his request, I would like to add the concept of DIKWP proposed by Professor Duan to Wikipedia. Could you please approve it. Thank you very much!" Their edits have been reverted several times by different editors and warnings have been left on their User Talk page to no avail. ElKevbo (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They continue to make these edits with no attempt at discussion or communication with other editors outside of their edit summaries. I think that a block may be necessary to prevent further disruption and get them to begin communicating with us. ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing agency

hirewikipediawriters.com is a paid editing agency which claims to be able to create, release, and translate sources. I'd try to dig up more info but I'm not too eager to go down that rabbit hole ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We track this companies at Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies. These websites are run of the mill, there are hundreds of them. Unless there's a connection to specific editors, there is not much point in reporting these domains to this noticeboard. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Kumar (Ansh)

User who's entire editing history is to promote his movie. Despite his draft being speedily deleted several times, they are still remaking it without any improvement at all. Clearly not here. ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What user, what article, did you inform the editor? There is standard format for reporting. Are we to guess the article the editor is working on. Why are you not using it. scope_creep^Talk 13:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to add that but forgot ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flux55: Good work :) scope_creep^Talk 13:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neva blyad and Tox (protocol)

Tox (protocol) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Neva blyad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few days ago, another editor correctly removed a bunch of content from Tox (protocol) which was cited only to self published sources, blogs, github pages and the like. That included a list of mostly nonnotable software clients which implement the protocol, and a couple of lines about the author of one of those clients. A person who's Wikipedia username matches the username of that author's github account (a github account which was cited as a source) has been edit warring to keep this information. Their response to user talk warnings has been more edit warring, with personal attacks in the edit summaries. They have not used the article talk page. We could use some more eyes and action on this. MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text you are trying to delete is based on various Web sources, not GitLab/GitHub only, but many news, software blogs, official Tox resources, etc.

WTF, you'd deleted the almost all the article. These paragraphs are full of links to official Web sites, not only git. This article is the only one in the Web source containing FULL list of GUI/console Tox clients.

This article is the only one source on the Internet where anybody may see almost all the Tox clients formatted as list. It is very useful information which needed for anyone who has interest to Tox. Please, do not delete it! Do not put your dirty hands on it! Neva blyad (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this response and other edits they have made recently after having been warned about personal attacks, I have given a 31-hr NPA block. No prejudice against continued analysis and subsequent blocking based on COI (which they do seem to have and have not denied), EW (which they have definitely been doing), or content concerns (which I have not looked at). DMacks (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib

Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Backlashblues1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article was created by Backlashblues1976, about himself, as he admits here. He is also the creator and main author of the article about his movie, Game Over (2013 film), and is likely the IP that created the page about his other movie, White Paper (film). Owen× ☎ 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left the standard offer. Plain as a day really. See how it goes scope_creep^Talk 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Please give me a shout if any admin action is needed. Owen× ☎ 16:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It is corrct. Did I do something wrong?

In another discussion, a professional editor explained to me about COI and asked me to use edit requests for future edits. Should I do something more? Backlashblues1976 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Backlashblues1976: Follow the instructions in WP:ER and don't edit the article please. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential paid editor

Draft:London Tha Arsonist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Autobiography GhostWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user clearly has a conflict-of-interest and judjing by their username and the absence of any sources in the draft they put in their userpage, they may be paid to edit. When I notified them about the problems with paid editing, they didn't respond.''Flux55'' (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flux55: He was blocked indefinitely 2.43 hours ago as an advertising only account. In the preferences there is setting that puts a line through an editor who had been blocked, and provided a tooltip telling you when he was blocked. I suggest you turn it on and it will help you identify blocked editors. scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it was days, its hours. Good work :) scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where in Preferences is this tool? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Under Gadgets->Appearance (Strike out usernames that have been blocked). scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Ryan_Tricks

Ryan Tricks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
magicmantv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

magicmantv is Ryan Tricks himself. There has been no attempt to edit any other articles. This article violates the wikipedia COI as it's a self promotion article 86.182.79.230 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here he refers to himself as magic man [41] 86.182.79.230 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert ref to link. scope_creep^Talk 09:14, 17 February 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...". Where was this done? Your link does not prove that the user is the same person as the subject, as anyone can create an account using that name. In any case, user has not edited since 2019. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYT editorial assistant

Gail Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
170.149.100.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to this difference's edit summary they claim to be the subject's "editorial assistant at the NYT" and they collaboratively edit "to more accurately reflect her life and work". MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS comes back to "The New York Times Company". Graywalls (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has only ever made two edits, one of which was declaring their COI.

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." You posted here eight minutes after posting a CoI notice template to the IP's talk page. Did they edit during those eight minutes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me!

Hello, I have absolutely nothing to do with the EGOV.PRESS project. As a resident of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I wanted to write on the English-language Wikipedia about a site that allows freedom of speech in our country. Most likely, because of my patriotic goals, you thought that I was related to the project. I would be grateful if you remove COI. Please be understanding. Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzremin: What "COI" would you like to have removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Sur, California area touristy contents

Ventana Wilderness Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Btphelps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Btphelps created the article Ventana Wilderness Alliance. After I checked insource:https://www.ventanawild.org/, there are 22 articles sourced to it. I have not checked all 22, but they mostly appear to have been linked to by Btphelps. I've removed tourism guide like contents added by same user fom numerous Big Sur, California adjacent articles that were sourced to traveling resource sites. They've also used https:///plaskett.family source in numerous articles. I've since removed them, but no other users have added that link. I am seeing possible COI of promoting tourism activity in the area. Graywalls (talk) 03:38, 18 February 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...." Where did that happen? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you have a valid point, I posted this here as "This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI)" is one of the things editors can consult here for. Graywalls (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Menon (singer)

Siddharth Menon (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Siddharthmenon2121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:202.191.65.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both accounts are claiming to be the article's subject and/or the subject's team and claiming ownership of the article, despite several warnings between both accounts that there is a conflict of interest. Both accounts' sole purpose is to edit this article. NJZombie (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Siddharthmenon2121 seems to a direct conflict of interest, by his own admission in an edit summary. I left the standard offer. The other editor I'm not sure about. I've removed all the unsourced content from the article. 70% of it was unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 16:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor 202.191.65.246 seems to be claiming they are on the team of Siddharth Menon. So clear coi there as well. scope_creep^Talk 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious third account, User:Vidhyasuja, started editing the article today and also claimed to the know the article's subject, on my talk page. NJZombie (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:, this is concerning. I don't even know where to begin addressing it. I had already reported Siddharthmenon2121 to ARV for yet again editing the Siddharth Menon page. Seeing this message causes great concern. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I guess wait and see WP:AIV does. If nothing happens I will take the editor to WP:ANI. Soliciting is beyond belief. I've not seen it ever. Its beyond belief. It just taking the mick out of everybody here. scope_creep^Talk 07:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was looking at it from a different perspective. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: What perspective? scope_creep^Talk 10:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki moderator whitewashing LTA entries

Simon Peter Hughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is whitewashing entries on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse belonging to people who also contribute to RationalWiki. For example, I edited the entry for Mikemikev because I noticed that it mentioned the numerous sockpuppets he has created on RationalWiki. That entry is a WP:BLP, and while I have no doubt that he does create sockpuppets to unleash mayhem there, I thought it important to note that RationalWiki has a history of falsely accusing people of being sockpuppets. User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver of all people, who held A LOT of power on the site in the not-so-distant past, convinced others that I am Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (who was also editing the site) and in turn a lot of innocent bystanders were blocked as being socks of me (including during a time when I was on a ventilator in a hospital, allegedly editing from a Comcast range in California), Mikemikev, Conservative from Conservapedia, and numerous other people (see this post by one of their own former moderators), so it's certainly justified to note that not every account accused of being Mikemikev on Rational-Wiki is in fact Mikemikev. More recently, I noticed that Andrew5 of Rational-Wiki is listed as an LTA on Wikipedia, and they were really whitewashing his involvement there, trying to act like he is no longer active there when he is, so I edited it. Simon Peter Hughes reverted my edit, and then proceeded to remove the mention of Rational-Wiki altogether when I provided a link showing that their site acknowledges that LACNB threats are rarely followed through. Part of me is in agreement that what LTAs do on other sites is irrelevant, but it could be useful in analyzing behavioral patterns. In case someone notes I am involved with Conservapedia, I am barely even active there, which is why the site owner wouldn't recognize me as a "Senior Admin" several years ago despite having access to almost the entire toolset including CheckUser; I'm more of a tech geek there. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See note at top of this page: 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. As far as I can see, nothing in the above relates to the WP:COI guideline, or even to article content at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like a collection of petty potshots from at least your side, so I'd suggest that this doesn't belong on any noticeboard, and that you drop it and leave well enough alone. Filling out LTA pages is largely pointless anyway, other than for scoring said potshots. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny because the user filing this case has a conflict of interest against RationalWiki, given that they are banned from that website and are effectively a LTA there with dozens if not hundreds of banned socks. Pay them no heed. 50.29.218.72 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TindDIrving at North Highland Way (again)

North Highland Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
TindDIrving (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 200#User:TindDIrving at North Highland Way, we have further additions of unsourced, apparently COI commentary and external links. Time for a block? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe www.northhighlandway.com has a conflict of interest. I started the NHW Project not them. TindDIrving (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that they've been editing the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TindDIrving's response to the copyright explanation on their talk page (after they added copy/paste from their cited source to the article) was:"The copy right is mine.. Source materials have been sent." I think that clearly indicates they have a conflict-of-interest with the article topic, and need to comply with WP:COIEDIT. I suggest a page-block from North Highland Way. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing whatever you want featured on Wikipedia off-Wiki, uploading to your website, then releasing the contents as Creative Commons is not such a clever attempt to circumvent WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Your original contents do not become "reliably" published in Wikipedia idea of WP:RS simply by uploading it online for public view. This happens from time to time. In one example which I'm not going to name as the effort to track down the diffs is excessive: the editor wrote about his extended family and their business activity using papers and documents within his family and generally unusable sources like FindaGrave and FamilySearch. He released a section of his family ancenstry research website as Creative Commons and copy and pasted that section into Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a Teahouse conversation, TinaDIring says they're quitting their attempts to edit wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Albers Comment

John Albers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
47.39.190.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently had an edit on the John Albers reverted by an IP address which appears to have only edited that article and further appears to have admitted to being John Albers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:47.39.190.24

Moops - this is all my website: senatoralbers.com

Thanks, John 47.39.190.24

Brad (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Skyler Cassity

Draft:Skyler Cassity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Braden Cassity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
SportsGoldaSocial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has not responded to a COI notice. These are drafts, so it's no big deal yet. But they're written by a new WP:SPA account, whose sole intent thus far has been to promote the Cassity family. The drafts are fairly dreadful, with lots of promotional fluff, name dropping, external links and non notable family histories. Even some copyright violation in the Braden draft, which includes the sentences It was not uncommon for the Oklahoma media to ask Cassity about his adventures. (I could tell you my spots quote on YT) and noodling pic. Skyler may be notable, which complicates matters, but that can be remedied with the attentions of non-involved editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CIO will be addressed for both. These are drafts that will be fully annotated..Both are notable. Please allow the drafting process with COI to be completed. Thanks for your concerns. I respect the platform and the rules. SportsGoldaSocial (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit COI|R}} as these are new biographies. Apologies for not understanding Template:Edit COI/Instructions. Thank you for the welcome. I'll take any help that I can get as I learn and contribute. I think my notations now on each page are there correctly, right?

Draft:Braden Cassity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is far from ready. Can one not add items like bullets to themselves to go get items for annotations and copy? My notes were to go get the annotations. Apologies if that was confusing or not allowed.
Draft:Skyler Cassity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) could use a first review. I think someone began, but help would be great for quality and neutrality especially with so many annotations and links.

SportsGoldaSocial (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SportsGoldaSocial, thank you for responding. The content and tone of both drafts are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If your respect for the platform and its guidelines is genuine, then you'll refrain from continuing to write about yourself or your family on Wikipedia. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dharampal Singh

Punjab Lalit Kala Akademi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portrait Society of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dharampal Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've worked on the two articles I named above. They've created 23 articles and 8 of them have been deleted. Of the 23 created, four of them are on people containing the name "Singh". Please look into the edit pattern. This appears to be an abandoned account from a farm of professional editing accounts Graywalls (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Are you aware that every Sikh male uses the name Singh? That's like saying someone has a COI because one-sixth of their articles are about someone called "Mr." You have made no attempt to discuss this on the user's talk page (and the user has not edited since July 2023). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rovos Rail

Rovos Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
41.160.12.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Liezl Maclean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would appreciate some more eyes and feedback here. Recently an IP editor was adding promotional, copyright-violating material to the Rovos Rail article. The IP was warned for this behavior by Broc (courtesy ping), only to promptly restore the objectionable content, after which I explicitly requested the IP to cease doing so. The IP responded by asking me on their talk page to assist them in creating an account to facilitate further promotional edits, which I refused to do. The same day as my refusal, the Liezl Maclean account was created, and quickly began editing the article in a favorably biased manner; again, some of these edits needed to be revdelled for violating copyright. Just within the last 15 minutes or so, I have twice reverted changes which altered existing content to skew it towards a commercial bent. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Fisher

Jodie Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Loveinfo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps changing birth year from 1960 (which is listed in the sources) to 1969 on Jodie Fisher's article. The user's last edit on the article's talk page suggests that it's her doing the edits. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User has ignored this discussion and has made at least one edit continuing their vandalism. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaydoggmarco: Please see WP:NOTVANDAL. Also, where did you try to resolve this issue previously? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly changing the birth date from one supported by multiple sources to a date supported by no sources is not vandalism? -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pemilligan: No. You, too, should see WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it before I posted. Perhaps you could explain instead of condescending to everyone. -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it fits: Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism. Schazjmd (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaydoggmarco, the editor has never been informed of the COI guideline; I've added that notice to their talk page (although there's no indication that they ever read it). The editor has been attempting to change the year of birth from the sourced version since 2018.[42][43][44][45][46] They were blocked in 2018 for violating WP:BLP with their edits to that article. They only seem to pop in to edit when someone (often an IP) corrects the year of birth per the source. If they revert it again, I'd suggest taking this to WP:ANI. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this counts as a conflict of interest given that the editor seemed to admit being her in this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJodie_Fisher&diff=1208780797&oldid=1204263023 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jishnu Raghavan

Draft:Jishnu Raghavan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jishnu Raghav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previously discussed at COIN here. A UPE sock farm continues to attempt article creation for Jishnu Raghavan. A new sock has appeared (account created same day as a previous was blocked). I filed a SPI report here but hoping an admin or CU can take a quick look and block per DUCK if they see fit in order to avoid further attempts at this creation. Note that user has now blanked the draft page. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See I conclude that I'm not a SUCK. Never ever I'll not FUCK anyone's page and Goodbye to Wikipedia. This platform is such an insulting pedia. Jishnu Raghav (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest

Draft:Gohar Vardanyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sammyjava (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user received a COI warning for creating "draft:Gohar Vardanyan". In response, they stated that they are not receiving any form of compensation for their edits related to this page, either directly or indirectly. When asked if they have had any professional or personal contact with Gohar Vardanyan, they replied, "I have, via comments on her performances on YouTube..." However, they uploaded File:Gohar Vardanyan 1250x1939.jpg and File:Gohar Vardanyan performing at age 8.jpg today, claiming it was "provided by the subject with the purpose of CC-licensed publication on Wikimedia Commons." So, if they do not have a conflict of interest, why were they asked to upload this file? GSS ^💬 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asked to upload this file: that is flatly incorrect. I found both photos online, but they did not have clear CC licensing, or attribution. I wanted to upload them to Wikimedia Commons with proper CC licensing and attribution, if possible. So I asked Vardanyan about them via social media PM, and she confirmed that they were her own photos, one taken by her ex-husband (who does not wish to be separately attributed) and the other taken by her father (who I have attributed). Therefore I say that she "supplied" them to me on Wikimedia, since supplying CC licensing and attribution is much more important than simply grabbing the photo from a website, which was trivial. Sammyjava (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source on the images reads "provided by the subject with the purpose...". Could you kindly share the link to the original source? I've been unable to locate it online. GSS ^💬 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. And that's my mistake for saying that the subject provided the photo; I had licensing and attribution in mind. Here's the photo I found of her performing as an 8-year old:

https://voyagehouston.com/interview/meet-gohar-vardanyan-houston-classical-guitar-festival-competition-houston

(scroll to the bottom). I did crop that photo, which I think is acceptable under the CC licensing. (Otherwise I can replace it with the un-cropped version.) No significant content change happened with the crop, just a better format without the back of the guy in the background. She provided the CC licensing and attribution via social media PM.

And here's the other one used in the artist Infobox that I found:

https://www.goharvardanyan.com/gallery?pgid=k8i0ik3j-e602f197-dd56-445f-b697-953012e21315

True, it resides on her public website (perhaps other places as well), but I found it on my own and I was provided the licensing and attribution as the owner via social media PM.

I really tried to do things the right way with those two images that I found for the article! Sammyjava (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And not to pound this into the ground too much, but the high-res version of that photo is provided with the "Download High-Rez Photos" link to a Dropbox on this page: https://www.goharvardanyan.com/gallery which I downloaded. Sammyjava (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Devol

George Devol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Computer memory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Computer vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bangthedash101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bangthedash101 has identified themself as the grandson of George Devol. They've been editing the biography based on primary sources such as patents. They've also been adding mentions of Devol to other articles, again using patents to claim credit for inventions - and doing some edit warring to maintain these additions. In at least the two articles listed above, this conflicts with a plain reading of the secondary sources that are already cited. I opened a discussion about this at User_talk:Bangthedash101#Managing a conflict of interest, but they do not see any problem with their use of patent sources and would like additional input. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mamun Al Mahtab

Mamun Al Mahtab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sunan 213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor created this article in 2019, and clearly, they were either paid for it or are closely associated with the subject. They even uploaded various certificates' photos as references (unsure of the proper copyright management of those), indicating they have first-person access to the subject's personal belongings, they also added multiple pictures of the subject on commons, some of which were deleted. The article also has an overly promotional tone. Their account is one purpose, and they hibernated from 2019. Recently the subject of the article came under criticism, and the editor soon came back, and promptly removed those criticisms, including an Unpaid contribution template imposed by me early on. There are existing COI notices on their talk page. They should not be allowed to edit the page (or any pages, as it's a one-purpose promo account with some serious COI violations) any further as their intention is clear here.

Update: Since I posted this here, the editor has reverted edits on that page multiple times. They need to be blocked ASAP. X (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herculaneum papyri

Herculaneum papyri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
VitoMocella68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Philodemous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user VitoMocella68 has recently been making edits to the article on the Herculaneum papyri. The edits emphasize the importance and primacy of the contributions made by physicist Vito Mocella, in relation to that other researchers in general and to that of Brent Seales in particular. (Example: Special:Diff/1206186206/1208399489.) According to Seales, there is a history of conflict between the two scholars. The edits were questioned on the talk page by the undersigned, but the discussion has not been leading to any resolution.

When pressed about the potential conflict of interest and the user's identity, VitoMocella68 claimed to be "someone who knows and appreciates the work of Vito Mocella" (Special:Diff/1209403659). The edits of VitoMocella68 contain technichal language related to tomography (see e.g. Special:Diff/1208397537, containing the prases "synchotron source" and "X-Ray phase contrast imaging technique") which is an area of expertise of Vito Mocella. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User VitoMocella68 did not hide behind a nickname, as St. Nerol does and clearly says that knows Vito Mocella. VitoMocella68 user argued with factual data that the primogeniture of the use of the experimental phase contrast technique to Herculaneum is clearly that of a 2015 article in which Vito Mocella is first author (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6895). This is a fact attested by a publication in a leading scientific journal and widely reported in the media (see for instance https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6895/metrics or https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-invisible-library). In fact, some of Vito Mocella's statements made in 2015, when there was the wide media echo, were taken up and included in Uroll's section of same wikipedia page. For example, the page in Italian "Papiri di Ercolano", made by someone else supposedly a long time ago, clearly shows the correct primogeniture in the use of the technique. User St.Nerol , on the other hand, claims to quote a generic phrase such as "several group proposed and used phase contrast technique ... " in a chronologically random order and without any factual corroboration.This is not about a conflict of interest, but about restoring a clear and unambiguous truth. Does St.Nerol have any factual argument to quote, other than an interview by Seals which is clearly not factual but simply the Seals opinion? VitoMocella68 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that I have not made any contributions to the article myself; my edits have been partial or full restorations of this version. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to answer, I don't say in detail, but with a simple sentence, how you can justify the sentence present in the versions you restored "several group proposed and used phase contrast ... " with the chronological factual sequence reported by the user VitoMocella68? VitoMocella68 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ask the user who wrote those words, that was User:Artem.G on 7 May 2023 at 12:59 UTC -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should summarize the published papers, and it's not a "timeline of virtual unrolling". I saw no need to chronologically mention all published papers, especially if the quotes used included buzzwords like "this pioneering research opens up new prospects". It should be condensed even more, given that all these proposed methods failed, and the first papyrus was read by three students for the Vesuvius Challenge who didn't publish anything and are only briefly mentioned in the article. Artem.G (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is for discussing whether specific users have a COI and whether they should be editing the article directly or via suggestions on the article talk page. It is not for discussing content. Axad12 (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the work of 3 students should be and is emphasized. But students works is an AI application using scans coming from some experimental technique that is sensitive to ink. Until 2015 all attempt to prove the capability to detect inks failed. This is clearly the first step to the virtual unroll. Indeed I agree that there are many things completely out of topic, as a work on En-Gedi scroll that is completely different from Herculeaneum papyrus, but St.Nerol having some conflict of interest, still put such topic. Also the section on technique is completely exaggerate and outdated but, again St.Nerol like that for some reason... Philodemous (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have also replied to Philodemous on his talk page, I have no conflict of interest regarding the scrolls. I do not know anyone who works with anything that relates to them, and I did not know about their existence until I read about them in the news and on Wikipedia a few days ago. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 07:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Philodemous (talk · contribs), as their edits make them come across as a possible WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:MEATPUPPET. --Yodin^T 23:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yodin: That is fine, but I understand that users must be notified of this on their talk page. I added a notice at User talk:Philodemous. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 00:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the previous user did as asked and created a new account not using another person's name. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True; I'd read User:Philodemous' comments as if they were saying they were new to the discussion, and not User:VitoMocella68 (e.g. at User talk:Philodemous: "i don't have any conflict of interest, I followed the discussion first, and I found that a correct reconstruction is needed"), but rereading them it's not clear, so I should assume good faith. @Philodemous: please can you confirm whether or not you are the same editor as User:VitoMocella68, or if you know them, and/or Vito Mocella? --Yodin^T 01:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yodin, I have already replied above. I started from that version because it seemed to me to be a better reconstruction, for reasons. I am not stupid, everyone minimises the work, so I made an edit and not a rewrite! Everyone has their own way of telling things, so I added some details, for example about the role of papyrologist Obbink (Dirk Obbink), which readers deserve to know and which were missing in all previous versions. Could you please at this point explain and state your connections and possible conflict of interest with the user St.Nerol as well as with B. Seals, of whom you and St. Nerol also seem to be a supporter? Philodemous (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 835: / Line 835: @@
 ::It's possible that the previous user did as asked and created a new account not using another person's name. -- [[User:Pemilligan|Pemilligan]] ([[User talk:Pemilligan|talk]]) 00:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 :::True; I'd read [[User:Philodemous]]' comments as if they were saying they were new to the discussion, and not [[User:VitoMocella68]] (e.g. at [[User talk:Philodemous]]: "i don't have any conflict of interest, I followed the discussion first, and I found that a correct reconstruction is needed"), but rereading them it's not clear, so I should [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. @[[User:Philodemous|Philodemous]]: please can you confirm whether or not you are the same editor as [[User:VitoMocella68]], or if you know them, and/or Vito Mocella? --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">[[User:Yodin|Yodin]]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>[[User talk:Yodin|T]]</sup></span> 01:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
+::::Dear Yodin, I have already replied above. I started from that version because it seemed to me to be a better reconstruction, for reasons. I am not stupid, everyone minimises the work, so I made an edit and not a rewrite! Everyone has their own way of telling things, so I added some details, for example about the role of papyrologist Obbink ([[Dirk Obbink]]), which readers deserve to know and which were missing in all previous versions. Could you please at this point explain and state your connections and possible conflict of interest with the user St.Nerol as well as with B. Seals, of whom you and St. Nerol also seem to be a supporter? [[User:Philodemous|Philodemous]] ([[User talk:Philodemous|talk]]) 09:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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 and 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