Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intensive Interaction Leeds (talk | contribs) at 10:20, 8 March 2024 (→Intensive interaction: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    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-wp@wikipedia.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:Richard France (writer)
    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

    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_creepTalk 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]
    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]
    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]
    information 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

    --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]
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – too many edits to be checked, and too visible for paid edits to survive, in my opinion. I am skipping this article. Janhrach (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bolt (company) – highly likely edited for pay, edited by a known WB sock. Other unbanned editors I suspect include anons and Dariastaverska, Ijustwanttoeditwiki and Whatwherehow. Janhrach (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin help needed

    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

    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:
    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 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]

    Review a COI article?

    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:

    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_creepTalk 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]
    I agree with Thryduulf. If removing a tag is appropriate, I don't see why GRuban raising the matter is a problem. Telling GRuban that now that the COI is acknowledged further participation is somehow prejudicial against the article is unnecessarily punitive and discourages COI disclosure. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:06, 23 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]
    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]

    Big Sur, California area touristy contents

    Resolved
     – At best very premature. CoI not demonstrated with substantive evidence, nor has there been an effort on the talk page; cultivating pet articles is not only normal behavior, but even encouraged by special awards. Our CoI policy exists to stop paid or self-related abuse, not to suppress editors' personal interests. Discussion looks pretty stale, so dismiss without prejudice.

    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    Graywalls, you have not raised a COI issue on my talk page, merely disputed a source I used. You've invented a red herring when you suggest my contributions about Big Sur are a conflict of interest. That would assume I would somehow benefit from the articles I've written about the region, perhaps because I own a business there or as a member of an organization that would somehow benefit from mention on WP. Do you have ANY such evidence? Or are you just stirring up unnecessary trouble for me and admins? Please provide immediate concrete evidence of a COI. Otherwise this discussion should be immediately closed.
    As far as the source you are referring to, the content was written by a member of a pioneer family who settled the Big Sur region in the late 1800s. These stories were written by Mabel Plaskett in a series of articles published in the King City Rustler in November of 1962 titled "History of Coast Schools" and reproduced on the website. If you weren't in such a rush to be the hero in removing content sourced from what you regard as a "blog", you might find some merit in the content. Her first person accounts of life there are analogous to a WWII soldier's stories about combat. Only the subject is much less studied. Her recollections are considered a reliable history of that area by California scholars.
    FYI, her death notice describes Mabel as a "well-known county journalist." Mrs plaskett, Journalist, Poet, Dies in King City
    I am meanwhile attempting to locate the newspaper and other sources. Please refrain from further preemptive, rogue edits and cease your attempts to smear my character, my many years of reliable contributions to WO, and attacks on my reputation. This unnecessary report of a COI and unfounded attack on me along with your rash deletion of content without discussion are in part why so many good editors leave WP. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Btphelps:, I acknowledge. I should have engaged you on your talk page first. Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I accept that I didn't communicate to you as I should have, I would like to add that in addition to Plaskett.family link you added, the various resort and business links you've added and tourism advocacy type contents you've placed is a reasonable cause of concern for promotional or COI editing. Graywalls (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Siddharth Menon (singer)

    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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 10:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dharampal Singh

    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]

    Jodie Fisher

    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.[14][15][16][17][18] 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]
    Why has nothing been done? User:Loveinfo123 has identified herself as Jodie Fisher and changed the birth date in the article five times this week disregarding multiple sources and citing none. What are we waiting for?
    1. 21:41, 18 February 2024 diff
    2. 17:25, 20 February 2024 diff
    3. 18:30, 21 February 2024 diff
    4. 22:47, 22 February 2024 diff
    5. 01:04, 24 February 2024 diff
    -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And she did it for a sixth time while I was typing. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the admins here are lazy. They just don't care. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want admin attention, or action, use an admin notice board. Please do not disparage other editors like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another edit was made by this IP which is a possible sock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:153F:B764:6CA1:EB79:5210:4593 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want admin attention, or action, use an admin notice board. Which admin notice board would you suggest? I've had no previous issue getting admin response here when needed for COI issues. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pemilligan: What you should have done when reverting this vandalism is issued escalating warnings on their user talk page. I have since applied a level 3 warning regards this issue. From here, do not revert any other edits as you run the risk of edit warring. If there continues to be a problem report to WP:AIV. If the other editor makes another revision in less than 24hrs, report to WP:ANEW. I am sorry you didn't get the help you asked for here. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible conflict of interest

    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

    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


    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]

    For some reason the editor Sunan 213 created the article in a sandbox which was fine,copied into mainspace and then later added a whole bunch of non-rs landing page references after creating a relatively well written article on a notable subject, for some reason. scope_creepTalk 18:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep, Yes, I noticed the same weird thing about the refs. Also, they added a bunch of images of certificates, and portraits of the subject over multiple years. One or two have been deleted but I'm unsure about such images' copyright procedures. I'd hope someone with Commons experience would scrutinize their uploads. It's a DUCK case of a paid editor or someone very close to the subject. It surprises me how no one sniffed except one who left a COI warning on the talk page way back in 2019 stating not to edit further without answering, but they kept on editing, and no action was taken, despite vehement violations and whitewashing of the page. There's just multitudes of weirdness surrounding this page and the editor. X (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xkalponik: I did a copyedit to remove everything potentially coi including the non-standard reference images. scope_creepTalk 09:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been moved to WP:An. scope_creepTalk 18:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep, They reverted and removed the criticisms again. It doesn't make sense why aren't they blocked yet. I posted on two noticeboards about them. Admins are overlooking this mess. X (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article subject is notable and the editors behaviour has not likely been egregious enough to be blocked, although I think you've taken the complaint to the wrong noticeboard. I've not really had the time the last 3-4 weeks to do anything of depth on this noticeboard or anywhere on-here really, but I'll look at it now and see if there is problem. If there is breaking WP:NPOV, it needs to be discussed on the talk page to come to a consensus.. If there is WP:TE, or distruptive editig or edit warring then I'll take the editor to the noticeboard directly. scope_creepTalk 14:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xkalponik: Right I understand why that content is removed from the lede. It is definitely WP:UNDUE in the lede. It seems to be series of allegations that have been added by yourself, which break WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME, and don't add up to nil. As I'm unable to find sources in Bangladeshi the language, ie the results of the Ministers investigations into the event of the man dying who sufferering from sleep apnea, then nothing can be done right now. Allegations don't mean anything , only facts matter on here. Everybody makes allegations. They are meaningless. I would suggest waiting until the ministers report is out. If it is out already and says there was no negligance, then that controversy section will need to go. I plan to move it to the talk page of the article, in the mean because it is undue. I'm moving this discussion to the talk page. It is unsuitable for the coi noticeboard. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep, How's it unsuitable for COI noticeboard? Also, there was an edit warring, please check the history of the page. They reverted edits regularly and I stopped as I did not wish to edit war with them any further. Also, they were warned multiple times by multiple users on different occasions, but they kept on editing the page. They were explicitly asked multiple times not to edit further without complying with the PAID editing policies, which they did not, rather kept on whitewashing the page. And I did mention the COI concerns on the talk page but did not initiate any conversation. It's an obvious case of COI, as they uploaded multiple pictures of the subject, along with personal certificates. It's a one-purpose account. And their editing pattern is also a clear indication of that. I'd urge you to check their talk page. Thanks. X (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because its a different problem still to be addressed. I've not looked at it. I've not had time. I'll look at it today. scope_creepTalk 14:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep. Okay. That was my main concern anyway (policy violations by the user). Not the allegations against the subject. X (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @X: I'm going to take a look at this today. I've got time now. Things have freed up at home. scope_creepTalk 08:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @X: Sorry for the late reply. He seemed to left on the 26th Febuary, so the question is moot. I had a look about 3 days ago and today again. I think the editor does have a coi. He mentions the subjects primary school name. That information would be quite hard to find out. There is also other indications there. I don't think he should he should edit the article directly, but it is functionally complete, so may not be back. I think the editor is probably a WP:UPE. That combined with the zero communication is a blockable offence. Ping me if the editor returns. scope_creepTalk 21:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally someone else had a a look at this. Thank you.
    Btw I'm certain they'll return if there are any controversies or critiques on the subject. That's been their pattern from 2019. They return when there's negative information on the subject, they whitewash the page, also they at times added new images and awards, whatnot. X (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Herculaneum papyri

    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 feel a certain discomfort in having a dialogue with people who refuse to discuss, who bring no arguments, only unfounded and unjustified personal accusations. The 2015 article is clearly a turning point, it is not an opinion, it is a fact, just look at the echo it has had. Why is that? Because up until then, ink detection had been considered impossible, and every other attempt had been abandoned for several years. The demonstration that it was possible to read instead, albeit with the difficulties then associated with unroll, was a fundamental step. And it was published in a very prestigious scientific journal. Nobody had the arguments to challenge this result, so much so that a few years later another group used the same technique, on the same synchrotron source, and independently confirmed the result Bukreeva I, et al. (2016). In science, if you want to challenge a result that is more than legitimate, you produce another scientific paper or a commentary in the same journal. Surely the Nature group would welcome any comment if it was scientifically argued. This is not the case; Some quotes a simple interview with B. Seals in which he expresses his views. This is opinion and not scientific result: in science, this interview counts for nothing. B. Seals, as a computer scientist, knows this very well, and if he has not commented, it is because he has not been able to do so. It seems to me to be exactly the same kind of dialogue that you (St. Nerol user in particular) have. You have no argument, not even to counter the evidence of chronological sequence, and then you start with personal attacks. This way of doing things is very suspicious. Philodemous (talk) 10:34, 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. --YodinT 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? --YodinT 01:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User Yodin, I already replied above. I started from that version because it seemed to me to be a better reconstruction, for clear reasons.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]
    For the record, I have no connection with Seales or St.Nerol. My edits are generally in completely different subjects, but when I found out about the Herculaneum scrolls a few years ago, I added the article to my watchlist in case there was progress in reading the scrolls. I've just made a few gnomish edits there (from 2019 on), including initially fixing User:VitoMocella68's bad formatting, before St.Nerol flagged up the COI concerns, and had a series of argumentative replies from User:VitoMocella68/User:Philodemous. --YodinT 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that both accounts User:VitoMocella68 and User:Philodemous have now been blocked. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 16:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like another possible WP:SOCKPUPPET account has just been created: User:LeLouptPierre. --YodinT 18:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also another brand new account User:Svartox, whose very first edit was an (admittedly minor) edit to this article. Melcous (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I'm Leonardo Scabini, I was in one of the runners-up teams. The article stated that 2 teams won runners-up, but it was actually 3, so I made the edit. Leonardo Scabini (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying and congratulations to your success! You're welcome to keep contributing to Wikipedia! —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 21:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible COI

    User Nwachinazo1 appears to have a conflict of interest. They created "draft:Christopher Ononukwe" that was declined multiple times and uploaded File:PhotoRoom-20230708 111353.jpg as their own work from a different account (Nwachinazo2). Despite my efforts, I couldn't locate the same image online. When I asked them about it, they declined to provide an explanation, stating, "...On this note, I can't answer whatever questions you may offer here." Since they are unwilling to address this issue or adhere to the policies, I am bringing it to the attention of this forum for further discussion. GSS 💬 04:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, I know you are being selective in your quote of my words. I wish you could cull all words instead of few ones which you cited subtly to justify your witch-hunting mission. There is nowhere in Wikipedia policies that says a content creator should not disagree with a review and rejection, even politely. With all sense of respect, I have disagreed with rejections of my submission on the point of fact that the draft's references adequately support the subject based on the improvement I have made. I have also explained that I have no conflict of interest in the draft, and that the image is available on Google. A search on the name Christopher Ononukwe on Google is enough to say that the image is in the public domain. Yet GSS didn't do enough job but came up with a hasty accusation of CoI, after I have proved to him that I have added adequately reliable, third-party, independent, sources that significantly treat the subject. I simply told him that no amount of explanations will change his/her preconceived mindset. Wikipedia administrators should not be stereotype in views. I am of the view that GSS simply does not want beginners like me to make valuable contributions on Wikipedia, hence his block tag he placed on my user talk page. Does an accusation of conflict of interest warrant a block tag? His tag and hasty review has influenced multiple rejections of my content. On this and many more, I disagree with his hasty and unfounded accusation. Nwachinazo1 (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you have not addressed my question, which is the primary reason for this discussion. So, I'll ask it once more: Could you please explain how you obtained ownership of File:PhotoRoom-20230708 111353.jpg and where did you get this image from? GSS 💬 07:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rejected the draft after having declined it previously, to be fair I have reverted my rejection and will leave it for another reviewer to to take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe I see your point, I went through it and the editor made the same mistakes I made in their language and using the source material wordings in Verbatim rather than maintaining a neutral point of view tone, however, the subject matter warrants an article page, because for those who are Nigerians currently, the subject matter is a driving force, post the 2020 protest in our country. While I understand your rejection of said draft, communication on the problem and actual conversation and not witness box/suspect questioning approach to resolve the matter would have gone a long way. In other words, guidance rather than punitive stance would have gone a long way to correct and make sure the editor doesn't do a repeat of the highlighted flaws in their future contributions. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the author of "A fundamental to Government....", I'm sorry quick question to editors involved here if the image is not properly sourced wouldn't it just be removed. I'm sorry being that I might be banned just like this editor here, it does kind of show a routine of banning accounts who bother on topics unique to our demographic and/or domestic country. I mean I have a COI as well and I am yet to be blocked, but it seems like that's the next step to happen. I will ask this, besides editors within the community what is the voice that makes sure that bias isn't the case; sorry to say but this is the 4th Nigerian based editor that has been banned since the four (4) months I've become a Wikipedia editor. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Milan Knežević (Montenegrin politician)

    Hello, I need some help from a more experienced editor. Please see the recent article history, and discussion on Jovanadnp's talk page. I am not well versed in conflicts of interest. Jovanadnp does not seem to understand that COI is a real problem, nor interested in editing the page in Wikipedia-acceptable ways. (Additionally, on top of COI, the recent edits have substantially worsened the article. Please correct me if this issue should be posted elsewhere.) Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, Jovanadnp is now threatening police action if their edits are changed... please let me know if this escalation means I should post elsewhere for help. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also posted this request on the incidents board, here. I'm leaving this request up as well, in case someone wants to help with the COI issue. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has been indefinitely blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Toyota G Transmission

    12Dionne had their drafts declined numerous times and finally rejected, as they just list technical data about Toyota products with no significant coverage from reliable sources. After I informed them that AFC is voluntary, they elected to move the drafts into the encyclopedia themselves. It then became clearer that the user has said they were a Toyota Master Tech for a Toyota dealership. Four editors (including me) have said this is a COI, but 12Dionne rejects that(and edit warred to remove the COI tag from the draft). The question is, is working for a Toyota dealership installing Toyota parts a COI with regards to Toyota parts? 331dot (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @331dot mind withdrawing this? Granted, they have not helped themselves but I think the WP:AFD process will handle it and to repeat in part what I said at Talk:Toyota C Transmission, they do have a COI but I think it is COI-lite. The bigger issue is they do not understand notability and exhibit strong WP:IDHT behaviour because it has been explained to them several times by several editors, yet they forged ahead with moving the drafts to mainspace. S0091 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would at least like to see them concede that they have a COI. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was a page about the dealership 12Dionne worked for, that would be a COI. But I'm not so convinced the interaction between tech and transmission rises to a financial or legal relationship. One might well put a COI tag on Wikipedia. Nominating the unsourcable articles for deletion is the best next step. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any COI, any more than I'd have a COI editing ukulele because I teach and play ukulele. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't directly related to the purported COI issue, but on the content side, it might be worth noting that Toyota C transmission was previously deleted via AfD community consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Toyota C transmission. The new version of the article Toyota C Transmission appears to be an alternate capitalization. Left guide (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor now block for various reasons. S0091 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom McMakin - Conflict of interest report

    A person claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator reached out claiming that he approves and publishes articles, and that for $1200, he would publish this Tom McMakin article. He reached out to the subject on LinkedIn then moved to email and sent a communication from what appears to be a spoofed address. The communication is posted below. If this is a real Wiki administrator, this behavior is unethical. If this is a fraudster, it should be reported and documented.

    Mike Blas <mike.blas @ wikiadmin.org> Greetings from Mike Blas, part of the esteemed Wikipedia admin team!. I approve Wikipedia pages and publish them. Additionally, I offer a comprehensive six-month maintenance package to ensure your page remains pristine and up-to-date. I charge 1200$ for page publishing. To kickstart the process, a 50% advance is required and rest after publishing.

    Here is a link of declined page: Draft:Tom_McMakin

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.51.106 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No evidence of CoI editing; more likely a scam. See WP:SCAM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely a scam. They are not admins. This is going on with various domains that look similar to wikipedia.org but are not affiliated to the project. Avoid any communication with them and do not pay anything. MarioGom (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious COI, possible UPE, and some WP:CANVAS/MEATPUPPET thrown in for good measure, at Yinka Ash

    Yinka Ash was created by a possible UPE that went dormant after using an open proxy (and was blocked from editing from there). 5 days later, Anoghena Okoyomoh, a new account, took up the expansion of the very-promotional Yinka Ash article. After I tagged it with the UPE template, they edit warred to remove it, and eventually sought the help of another disruptive editor, Wiki-Helper, who is the same person (admitted) as Elijahtree. That canvassing has resulted in a meatpuppet (maybe sockpuppet situation?) campaign to continue to remove the tag. I have asked for them to discuss on talk multiple times, to no avail, so far. Need more eyes on this, thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At Afd. scope_creepTalk 05:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the accusations of COI/UPE on the part of Anoghena Okoyomoh, but agree that the article has very dubious notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are attempting to get me banned, for no reason. Go to User:Elijahtree instead of blindly throwing "sockpuppet" around, and try your best to assume good fath which you haven't done since the beginning of our back and forth. Your tag for UPE was "possible", thus I editted the page and removed it, stop being so stubborn to have it your way, frankly its extremely childish. I also agree the sources are weak, and think the article should be deleted. Next time feel free to tag me instead of trying to claim sockpuppetry slyly without my response.
    ~ mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just woke up and I'm just so perplexed at everything that has occurred in the span of 7 hours. While I still maintain and disagree that I am a UPE, I accept and appreciate that you chose to use this method of resolving the matter rather than what has been done in the past, because at least now there is an open dialogue. It should be noted that as I am African, the very over head digital banner on Wikipedia for the longest time was aimed at getting those who visited the website - probably with an African IP address - to contribute to Wikipedia and enhance African voices. When I joined I began with simple edit and then Wikipedia themselves gave me options on articles to contribute, one of which was the subject-matter article, I will be honest I chose his, because, it was easy. I gathered all press coverings I could find, arranged them the best I could and began adding to the 'stub' account. When the first UPE was added I reached to Treehouse and asked what I had done wrong, one editor removed the tag and asked that I reached out to @Fred Zepelin to sort the issue out, which I did, the topic of same can be found in his talk page; no reply. I continued adding and learning how to write with same article and the UPE tag added yet again; this time I was the one who removed it and went extra to ask other editors to give me any materials that would guide me in further writing any page going forward, they did same and I was grateful, yet @Fred Zepelin added the UPE yet again, he would ask one sentence questions, I would reply in paragraphs, even his tone was weird; it was annoying that I was having to explain that I was not a UPE. It was back and forth, I offered to supply him any details he might need, even went as far to offer my bank records to check, which was a bit extra, but I was okay with because I had nothing to hide and I'm not a UPE. One thing though was that he never gave me a reason, he just called me a UPE or a sockpuppet or that I was duplicitous, which aren't good things to say, if there's a problem with the article, correct it or discuss it with me, don't pick the extreme without even giving me a chance to be heard as fairly as possible. So I checked his contribution logs and I noticed a pattern of reverting edits and stoking flames of the idea that persons were bots, sockpuppets or whatever label, and that's when I came across @Wiki-heIper regarding an article where they had dissenting thoughts, I reached out to ask how he dealt with it, because, Fred's actions (permit me to say) feels biased, why me a newcomer however overzealous? why always the labels and no discernable reason for same? @Wiki-heIper edited the work and I was able to see the difference, @AirshipJungleman29 edited and gave reasons for whatever they did, so I could learn and I could note down the issue with my previous work; I used words that were less objective and neutral (to which they pointed out same). and that's fine.
    I just find it ironic that Wikipedia asked that African voices be added and African contributions be highlighted and when same is done this is what happens; just so you know and this is me not placating to your heartstrings I was even more invested in this article is because the fashion sphere is the only space where expression is celebrated in this country, and during the End SARS movement of 2020 that led to deaths of many, very few people who weren't political, but artists etc, where those who fought and supported the movement. We the young ones.
    The article I was so enthusiastic and so happy and eager to make, has been turned upside down and made into something completely different, stripped, tagged, labelled and become the focal point of debate. this is just disheartening. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anoghena Okoyomoh: In reference to this reply, I would like to pose the same inquiry as I did to the previous user: If there is no affiliation between you and the subject matter, could you kindly provide an explanation regarding your ownership of File:OLAYINKA ASHOGBON.jpg? Missing sig: User:GSS 08:28, 1 March 2024 Sig added by scope_creepTalk 09:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anoghena Okoyomoh: I think there is relation. It is either a fidicuary relationship, or your a colleague or your the subjects mate? From this point forward, I would advise you not to edit the article further. The standard mechanism for coi editor is to use the WP:ER edit requests. ER requests are the standard way for Wikipedia to disassociate coi editors from the articles they wish to update, so there is a level of control maintained. That is assuming the article is kept after the Afd discussion. scope_creepTalk 09:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, Okay, I had answered this in my response to Fred's inquisition, the only time ever that I reached out or had correlation with Yinka Ash, was when I contacted his assistance for a photo that was not copyrighted that I may use for the page, the initial photo I had used I had gotten from his website and then I was informed was in breach of copyright and was in breach of Non POV. other than that, I'm just a fan because he's an artist who also support queer artist so when I saw his page was him I enthusiastically jumped on it. While I agree that I should stop editing and leave it for others as I've been a major contributor, all these guidelines were unbeknownst to me and being called the equivalent of a liar and a fraud is not the best feeling when I have tried to prove time and time again that I have the best of intentions. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am writing to address some concerns I've encountered during my time as an editor and contributor on Wikipedia. I apologize in advance for the length of this message, but I believe it's important to provide context for clarity.
    I joined Wikipedia with the sincere intention of volunteering my efforts to contribute to knowledge, starting on October 25, 2023. One of my initial projects was improving the page of Olayinka Ashogbon, also known as Yinka Ash, which was classified as a "stub" in need of expansion. Despite being the primary contributor to this endeavor, I encountered challenges, particularly in my interactions with @Fred Zepelin
    Fred labeled me as an Undisclosed Paid Editor early on, which caused confusion and led to back-and-forth exchanges. Despite my attempts to seek guidance and clarification through proper channels like the Tea House, Fred's approach remained adversarial. I reached out to Fred directly on his talk page for assistance, but unfortunately received no response.
    Upon reflection and further research of his contribution and user page, I've observed a pattern of behavior from Fred that is concerning. Instead of fostering constructive dialogue and collaboration, he consistently resorts to accusations and derogatory labels such as "sockpuppet" "meat puppet" and "UPE." His communication lacks civility and respect, and he has shown a reluctance to engage in meaningful discussion or provide constructive feedback. He assumes multiple roles, acting as both police, arbitrator, CIA operative, Judge, Jury, and Executioner. While I understand his intentions may be to uphold standards, I genuinely believe this approach is problematic. Ironically, he may not realize that his behavior contributes to the very issue he seeks to address. As history has shown, innocent individuals often suffer the consequences in situations reminiscent of witch trials.
    I'd like to highlight a few key points to support my concerns:
    1.      Lack of Communication: Fred has failed to provide substantive reasoning or engage in productive dialogue regarding his objections to my contributions. Instead of discussing potential revisions on talk pages, he repeatedly resorts to derogatory labeling without explanation or attempt at resolution.
    2.     Hostile Behavior: Fred's actions extend beyond mere disagreement to what appears to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate and discourage me. He consistently adds the UPE tag to my edits on the Yinka Ash page, even after I expressed willingness to compromise. His presence in unrelated discussions and his condescending tone further exacerbate the situation.
    3.     Failure to Follow Wikipedia Guidelines: Fred's insistence on using the UPE tag rather than engaging in constructive dialogue violates Wikipedia's principles of civility and collaboration. His behavior creates a hostile environment that undermines the community's commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive platform for all contributors.
    Throughout this experience, I've encountered statements from Fred that lead me to believe he lacks respect for me and is not genuinely interested in constructive contributions. It feels as though I'm simply seen as the next "sockpuppet" trophy to be added to his collection. Despite my requests for guidance on Wikipedia guidelines, and having no knowledge of pre-existing guidelines such as WIKI:CANVASS and WIKI:OWN, Fred consistently follows me through talk pages and articles I'm involved which I believe is to undermine my efforts and belittle me (like letting me know they're watching), causing frustration and anxiety. His actions have made it difficult for me to participate on Wikipedia without constantly anticipating confrontation. This ongoing behavior has taken a toll on my mental and emotional well-being, to the point where I've considered deleting my account, I only stay because the people in my personal life tell me to keep going and not let him win.
    On one very confusing occasion he explained that the UPE was for the initial author being CeCe GFI, and implied that the onus (burden) was on me to have figured that out, and I ask myself how I would have even known that, when all UPEs have been directed at me, when all his questioning, claims and insults have been directed at ME. I kindly ask how am I to have known or figured it out, and if that truly is his reasoning why am I being punished for for someone else's action; I engage Fred when he has a problem and try to reply to all his inquiries. It got even worse, I started to succumb to it, I started to think that if I just be uber polite and not adversarial, if I show that I'm good then he'll stop, I started to not stand my ground anymore and if I'm being honest, I genuinely thought he could get my account banned and deleted or just find more unique ways to mess with me, and so for the longest time I stopped contributing.
    When I began my editing efforts to other Wikipedia pages, I noticed similar issues present in articles, such as promotional language and a non-encyclopedic tone. However, I observed that the tags applied to these articles were specific to the identified problems, unlike the recurring Undisclosed Paid Editor (UPE). This led me to suspect that Fred's actions were deliberate and possibly targeted towards me personally, rather than aimed at improving the articles. It seems he is convinced of my alleged misconduct without considering the possibility of error. This situation feels increasingly like a targeted pursuit, with me as the intended target, though I acknowledge this may sound dramatic but it's not unfounded.
    I was previously unaware, but after conducting research, I've learned that intentionally harassing and discouraging editors who do not conform to certain viewpoints is a well-established tactic employed by editors on Wikipedia. This behavior is concerning and goes against the principle of fostering a welcoming environment for all contributors. I now understand that Wikipedia has established the policy of "Do not bite the Newcomers" to address this issue and there was an incident in time past where an Admin even when in the face of it was to the contrary, but all could surmise they were biased had to be banned. As a newcomer, this has been my initial experience, and it's disheartening to encounter such negativity. Additionally, I've noticed similar discussions on Quora and other online articles and discussion, where experienced editors targeting novices is mentioned as a common problem. This behavior not only undermines the collaborative nature of Wikipedia but also raises questions about its commitment to community contribution and objective, factual knowledge.
    Fred's conduct has made my experience on Wikipedia incredibly harsh and emotionally taxing. His disregard of respect for fellow editors raise serious concerns about the integrity of the platform. While I understand that disagreements may arise among editors, but I firmly believe that communication should always be respectful and constructive. Fred's actions not only violate Wikipedia's policies but also detract from the platform's goal of fostering a collaborative environment for knowledge-sharing.
    Forgive me for not being smooth, but please find attached links of interactions that I hope will show what I mean; as the Nigerian adage goes “It is the one who wears the shoes that knows where it hurts” and it’s becoming unbearable.
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&diff=prev&oldid=1187451467
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yinka_Ash&diff=prev&oldid=1201627053
    3. User talk:Anoghena Okoyomoh#c-Fred Zepelin-20240209032000-Anoghena Okoyomoh-20240208192100
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cece_GFI&diff=prev&oldid=1210915098
    5. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wikipedia-really-free-encyclopedia-deb-/
    I could not capture everything, but I ask that people please ask him to stop, I don't know if this connotes as canvassing, but I'm at my wit's end here. I would appreciate an amicable resolution. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, as its been quite hard. Conflict of interest violations are a particularly nefarious problem on Wikipedia and folk get rightfully defensive about it as its a threat to the very existance of Wikipedia itself. As per above, I wouldn't edit the article again (assuming its kept). Administration will likely keep an eye on you for a while. scope_creepTalk 11:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you write anything again approaching what your wrote for the Yinka Ash article, that promotional mess your left, I will taking you straight to WP:ANI to get you indef blocked. scope_creepTalk 11:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I literally just complained that this wordings and statements are not cool. stop this, it's not fair, I try to be polite is it too much to ask that I get that in return. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that, honestly, I would have preferred they told me there was a conflict of interest rather than UPE, I'm editing other articles that have the same correlating problem and the problem is "promotional and non-encyclopedic tone" and I'm just like confused, it's just like a weird stereotype, of course the Nigerian who writes about another Nigerian is dubious and has bad intention. same ole african crook story, it's why it just feels biased, however, you put it, it is. And if Wikipedia insisted on us to be here and we are being run off then what's the point? I just really hate this feeling having to justify myself everytime in every space to foreigners. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Street (director)

    I’m pretty sure that Filmstreetster is Paul Street, and oh boy have they made a mess of the article about them. It now reads like a press release, glorifying their work and talking about them using first names. I’m not willing to edit war over it, but if anyone else would like to revert (although it has been rubbish since Paulstreet1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created it in 2009 so perhaps stubbification might be better) then please do. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, kind of a mess. I've cleaned up some of it, but there's a real lack of sourcing here, making me wonder if this person is notable. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the things they've worked on are notable (mainly commercials, so not enough to have Wikipedia articles about them) but notability isn't inheritable. The two films they claim to have directed don't have articles, which is a clue to how notable they are, but non-notability isn't inheritable either!
    Basically, I reckon this would be turned down for CSD#A7, but I'd give positive odds on it being deleted at AfD. With an active CoI editor, a PROD would last seconds, I'd reckon, but let's see. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natg 19: I would perhaps advise opening an SPI since there seems to be several new editors who've came in the last couple days, to try and save it with atrocious non-rs refs, stonkingly bad. Also the main article, a WP:BLP described the fact he won a bafta which has not been able to be proven. That is problematic and points to a failure of validation for the originating author. Essentially it is a bald lie on a easily verifiable fact. Simple email to the outfit would have done it. scope_creepTalk 08:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you help me file one? I have no experience with the SPI world. Natg 19 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle has a very easy user interface for those reports. Otherwise, follow the directions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did, without seeing this part of the thread – Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filmstreetster – but the backlog at SPI is huge so I'm not expecting it to be got to for another week or so. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the above, SPbeth (talk · contribs) is Filmstreetster (talk · contribs), so I have added them to this report for bookkeeping purposes. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Wiffen (world champion swimmer)

    Hello, I'd be grateful for any input to the issue of nationality and the short description here: Daniel_Wiffen

    Many thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The 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. For content disputes, after proposing changes at the article talk page, follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    National Logistics Corporation

    Enough tolerated already, this is a single purpose account. 194.55.43.139 (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please remember to follow the instruction at the top of this page, including
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    In this case, I've done this for you. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackson State University

    Apologies if this is the wrong board. User:Jacksonstateu was created today and began editing Jackson State University. I posted the COI and name warning, to no response. glman (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been blocked. Secretlondon (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors employed by Springer Nature adding their employer to articles

    Yesterday, I noticed that two editors - Bob Edenbach and Rf-sn276 - were editing many articles (e.g., University of Tokyo, UCLA Health, College and university rankings) solely to add information about and links to a new set of ranking tables published by Springer Nature. I reverted those edits and posted a message to both editors' Talk pages. Rf-sn276 responded promptly and courteously to let me know that they are indeed employed by that organization and they quickly complied with our paid editing disclosure policy. Bob Edenbach, on the other hand, has not complied and to the contrary has edit warred to maintain their material in University of Tokyo. Indeed, Rf-sn276 also appears to be puzzled by Bob Edenbach's behavior (they both say that Rf-sn276 works directly for Bob Edenbach on their respective User Talk pages). So right now we have an organization's employee editing Wikipedia solely to promote their employer who is not only unwilling to abide by our COI policies and practices but who is also willing to edit war to keep adding material about their employer. ElKevbo (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the product manager for the Nature Index and have been working on it since its launch in 2014. My affiliation with the Nature Index and my employment at Springer Nature are both stated in my user profile. I recently created an account on Wikipedia because the entry for Nature Index was old and incorrect. I use my real name as my user name and updated the Nature Index page where I saw errors. As I live and work in Japan, it is customary for me to check the University of Tokyo as an example institution. Given my familiarity with the Nature Index, I know the University of Tokyo has been ranked first in research output in Japan since the inception of the Index. I checked the University's profile and noticed the rank was not correct and fixed that. I also observed that the previous user who added the entry for the Nature Index was using the overall rank, whereas a better performance indicator would be to use its rank amongst other academic institutions globally and domestically. I edited the existing link to the ranking with University of Tokyo position as its in the public domain and be easily confirmed. The University of Tokyo, itself publishes many press releases and articles on its own website about its position in the Nature Index, as you can see here: https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ja/search/index.html?q=Nature+Index&Submit=
    If a view the edit history of the University of Tokyo page, you will see the Nature Index was mentioned and links added by another editor, that I have no connection with.
    The Nature Index has greater awareness in the Asia-Pacific than it does in the United States, especially in Japan, where the release of the Annual Tables are covered by most major media outlets as you can see here:
    The Index is also mentioned by name in a slide deck from the Japanese Cabinet office as a key performance indicator. The Nature Index is mentioned on slide 16.
    Since the Index added 64 medical journals adding roughly 10,000 articles/year I thought the position of healthcare institutions would have greatly changed as they previously would have only been represented by journals in biological sciences. I asked a member of my team to check the top 100 healthcare institutions and edit if needed. I spot checked their first couple of edits but have not had the time to check further. ElKevbo messaged that staff and deleted their edits. The staff notified me yesterday morning and I asked him to stop editing.
    I am not aware of any expertise or knowledge that ElKevbo has of Japanese academic institutions nor of the Nature Index to delete my edits, but I have provided links to everything that can be easily confirmed.
    My intention was to update pages relevant to Nature Index and mentions of Nature Index with the most accurate content and data. Bob Edenbach (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Bob Edenbach. As a Wikipedia community, we're certainly glad to have new editors who bring in familiarity with industries, fields, sources, etc. I hope you can recognize that what's at stake isn't who has certain expertise or knowledge. Wikipedia has policies about contributing information about one's employer that we expect all editors to follow, whatever their knowledge level.
    My sense is that you're interested in Wikipedia articles presenting accurate information. That totally makes sense, and Wikipedia does value presenting verifiable information. What ElKevbo is bringing up here, however, is a behavioral concern. Because Wikipedia involves many people, in addition to content guidelines, there are also behavioral policies, designed to promote both quality content and collegial environment. As a community, we value editors being able to get along and collaborate, and we value transparency about potential conflicts of interest. Because you work for Springer Nature, I hope it's understandable that while on the one hand we value your familiarity with the Nature Index, on the other we also want to be cautious about whether or not adding information about this index to pages is a covert form of promotion on behalf of an employer, elevating the visibility of the Nature Index. To be clear, I don't think the point of this thread is to accuse you of doing that in this particular instance, and neither I or ElKevbo know what personally motivates you; I bring that up just to explain the reason the WP:COI policy exists.
    So what's something we can do going forward? It looks like right now you do have a conflict of interest disclosure on your user page. That resolves that part of Elkevbo's OP ("original post" in this thread). That's great; thanks for complying with the conflict of interest policy by visibly posting that disclosure. As for the University of Tokyo article, the previous lack of disclosure has, I think, left ElKevbo concerned about the purpose and quality of the edit and has resulted in playing it safe by removing it from the article. Since you still want to contribute this content, a way to go about that less confrontationally, given the concerns expressed by ElKevbo about your initially confusing behavior, might be to make an edit request on the talk page for the University of Tokyo article.
    In an edit request, you lay out a proposed edit, including the sources and reasons. Another editor who sees the request can choose to decline it or choose to add it to the article. When someone wants to contribute content about their own employer on Wikipedia, an edit request is a way to go about that without directly doing so themselves. Other editors who contribute to the University of Tokyo article will be able to see your requested edit and decide if they think the content is relevant to the article, and appropriate to add; and they may do so. This requires patience and might be disappointing if another editor declines the request. But requesting edits is suggested because it increases the number of editors participating in the edit, reducing the likelihood that a contribution could be undue and promotional in character.
    I hope this helps explain things. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response that is very helpful. Since I just created an account I was not aware of user profile pages. Once I figured it out the next day I added my affiliation. To be honest I was reluctant to add much to my user profile as I have no intention to elevate my own reputation nor to do any form of self-promotion on Wikipedia. My intention was to make sure Nature Index data was reflected correctly and to cite my sources as verification.
    I may try to suggest edits via the edit request in the future, thank you for the suggestion. Bob Edenbach (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, P-Makoto (she/her), I do have a follow up question that I am curious about as I am new to this. The user ElKevbo is employed by the University of Delaware and has edited the University of Delaware's page but he does not mention he is an employee of the university in his user profile. What edits can be made without disclosing your employer? Are some edits on your employer's page not considered paid editing? Bob Edenbach (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible to have a COI for either paid editing or unpaid editing. It's possible (possibly likely) that ElKevbo was not paid by the University of Delaware specifically to contribute to Wikipedia. However, to the extent that ElKevbo is an employee of the University of Delaware, there is still a conflict of interest (because of the financial relationship that exists between an employee and employer). ElKevbo would not put a paid editing disclosure on his user page but still should disclose conflict of interest if he edits or contributes content pertaining to the University of Delaware.
    It looks like the edits are of a relatively minor nature, ElKevbo, so I'm not terribly exercised about this, but to the extent you have a conflict of interest for the University of Delaware as an employee (as you make this publicly known by linking to it from your userpage (permanent link) (original voluntary linking), it falls under the person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia [bolding added] clause of WP:PRIVACY), you still are obligated by policy to disclose this conflict of interest if you choose to edit or contribute content pertainint to it, such as the University of Delaware article example 1 example 2. ElKevbo, remember that If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it. Per WP:DCOI, you can do so on your user page, in a talk page edit summary, or on the talk page of the affected article—although you linked to information that mentions your employer, you did not actually make make a conflict of interest declaration on your userpage. As I said, I'm not terribly alarmed about these edits. Just in the future please be mindful and declare your COI using one of the three outlined methods. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to more explicitly note my own employer on my User page. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Bob Edenbach's persistent and willful edits to promote their employer across many different articles. ElKevbo (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only Bob Edenbach's behavior has to do with Bob Edenbach, that is true. WP:BOOMERANGs simply are what they are. I hope both you and Bob Edenbach are mindful of your own conflicts of interest in the future when you edit or contribute material pertaining to your employer. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gresha Schuilling

    Per this edit summary they are the subject of the article. Warned back on February 23 about COI and initially used the article talk page but has returned to directly editing Gresha Schuilling in spite of COI. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh I'm so sorry @ThaddeusSholto! I saw that the page was unlocked for me so I submitted small edits. I will resubmit in a COI. Thanks for your help! Gresha Schuilling (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is zero evidence of the subject passing WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN so I have sent it to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User Pcomon

    User has been warned about COI by at least two editors on his talk page. He appears to be persistently self-promoting his work, particularly in the lede. Limit-theorem (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Other pages involved: Signal separation. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zenica87 (UPE)

    This UPE has spammed all IDN Media products on English Wikipedia and they should go through AfD. Despite warnings they continue to edit without proper paid disclosure. 217.165.157.155 (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this UPE has recreated Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. which was previously deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al and later the spammer, User:AmirahBreen, was blocked as UPE. 217.165.157.155 (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite interesting that this IP user just came to Wikipedia to report me, especially since he/she is from UAE, while I created and participated in several UAE politics-related article, which were mainly translations from Arabic Wikipedia. I find this to be a clear case of WP:HARASS since this user came straight out of the blue sky and the first thing he/she does is make COI Noticeboard report without ever interacting with me before. All my articles are reviewed by reviewing editors and I was always cooperative when it comes to suggestions made by other users. Also, in several mentioned articles I did not make a single edit, which is ridiculous. --Zenica87 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    R. Indira

    Usernames and content of edits suggest that this person is editing the article about her. Article has been put under extended confirmed protection but editor is continuing to edit as Indirasociology. Editor is not engaging on the Talk pages for either account. Recommended to bring it to CoIN by Daniel Case here.

    Selection of diffs by Indirasociology:

    And by Indira Ramarao:

    Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's clear a sockpuppetry case. I reported it early in WP:AN. CSM269 (talk | contrib) 11:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not much more to do here. The user was warned. Obviously they did not try to conceal their identity and the fact they are the same user. This usually does not lead to a block. Edits were disruptive regardless of COI, but the problem is likely gone now that R. Indira is protected. MarioGom (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Tania Peitzker

    This draft had a {{coi}} template, but GreenJeans808 removed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ATania_Peitzker&diff=1210076092&oldid=1210022268 It is my opinion that there is a conflict of interest. The draft has an infobox image and two images in the article. The infobox image is labeled as Own Work by GreenJeans808, which implies that he photographed Tania Peitzker. It is a close-up photograph that involved cooperation. The two article images are both labeled in their Commons description as selfies. That implies that they were taken by Peitzker and provided to GreenJeans808. This may be paid editing, and is almost certainly some association that is a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    GreenJeans808 likely is Peitzker, given that her edits are in the same style as the old account User talk:Tania Peitzker. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GreenJeans808 has uploaded multiple images of Tania Peitzker that are identified simultaneously as "own work" and "selfie". DMacks (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Curb Safe Charmer, User:DMacks - Thank you for calling my attention to the 2015 account. What I am saying is that GreenJeans808 either is Peitzker, in which case the draft is an autobiography, or that GreenJeans808 may be an associate or assistant of Peitzker, who has been given Peitzker's selfies. In either case, there is a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed.
    What outcome were you hoping for by bringing this to the COI noticeboard? In my mind, COI users must use draftspace which they are already doing, and the draft there has since been rejected. Either GreenJeans will give up, argue their case or move it to mainspace themselves. If they move it, one of us will take it to AfD. If they drop it, no action is needed. Their most likely action is to argue. We could have them come here to make their case - the other forum I can think of being the AfC helpdesk. Previously, Peitzker threatened to 'take it up with Wikipedia management', whoever they are. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record/centralized discussion, they have also made edits to Dymphna Cusack that have an effect of promoting this person, and ES also NPOV touting them. But those edits have been undone. But unless they make any further edits, I agree that there is nothing further to do. If they do make further edits, easy enough to handle as appropriate at that time. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Curb Safe Charmer asked what outcome I hoped for by coming to this COI noticeboard. It was primarily to report the failure to declare an obvious conflict of interest. It is true that they are using draft space, which is what they should be doing, but the AFC reviewers want to see a conflict of interest declared, so that they know to look for non-neutral language, puffery, etc. Seeing that the draft has been rejected and the edits to Dymphna Cusack have been reverted, I agree that there is nothing further to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they move it to main it will be G4'd. I think it is important to report coi editors wherever they are are editing. scope_creepTalk 07:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I heard about what happened with the Dymphna Cusack edit. That contribution was a) fully sourced b) had credible references from established, academic, secondary sources c) had in-depth treatment of the subject by academics ie experts objectively qualified to write encylopedic entries about this famous author from Australia. I will be appealing the "deletion" and "reverting" of that contribution which corrected some of the false / insufficient / inadequate information currently published under the article titled "Dymphna Cusack". FeministGlobal (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Robert
    I received an email notification from Wikipedia re a wrong assertions your colleague Duffbeer has made about me. I will respond to that separately. As to my distant associate GreenJeans, he told me he made a clear statement to Wikipedia when he first started writing this article about me (unpaid FYI) ie. he is not a "close connection" and he detailed how he knew (of) me and my work at the very beginning.
    Thus you have a clear declaration about any possible Conflict of Interest. Other Wiki eds decided that there was none because they encouraged him to keep rewriting this article after he declared he knew me. That is how he got the selfie photos I gave him because he needed images that were my "own work" re the copyright and Creative Commons. It is my work/photos that I agreed to donate to Wiki Commons via GreenJeans. I hope that puts your concerns to rest.
    FYI GreenJeans is new to Wikipedia editing which means there are several rewrites of this article about me. As all the drafts and your criticisms/rejections have been made public on WikiWand, I have been following this "process" and also shown it to many peers in my industry and academic fields (as I am a recognised expert - see the numerous neutral, secondary sources cited by GreenJeans). We are all wanting to see some actual, concrete evidence as to why a number of Wikipedia volunteers keep rejecting the draft for reasons of notability, sourced material, neutral style and encylopedic tone. Perhaps you care to give some specific examples to leaders in the fields of technology and academia, as well as myself and GreenJeans?
    You should also be made aware that since this draft was submitted, I have been constantly contacted by scammers and fraudsters who are asking me to hire them to write a Wikipedia article about me. I am very curious to know a) how does this business know what is going on with this draft? b) why do I receive emails from them every time an editor rejects the draft?
    Best wishes,
    Tania Peitzker. FeministGlobal (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:FeministGlobal writes:

    I have been constantly contacted by scammers and fraudsters who are asking me to hire them to write a Wikipedia article about me. I am very curious to know a) how does this business know what is going on with this draft? b) why do I receive emails from them every time an editor rejects the draft?

    a. Because they have Wikipedia accounts, and the category system in Wikipedia supports a lot of types of queries, including on the status of drafts. b. Because they are scammers and fraudsters. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Paloma Aguirre

    The author has, in some edit summaries, referred to Paloma Aguirre as her client. The author created an article about her, which was moved to draft space due to the conflict of interest. It has been submitted for review three times and declined twice. The author has now created an article in article space, and did not declare her conflict of interest in the edit summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, yes had a look at the contribution history. Clear as day, conflict of interest. scope_creepTalk 13:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have PROD'd the article in article space, and declined the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Project Nimbus

    Editor Orenelma claims to be removing political bias from Project Nimbus but introduces their own bias toward the project, with virtually no references, while doing so. Behavior suggests an external relationship with the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to your message, it is important to underscore that my edit is entirely devoid of political content. My contribution focuses exclusively on supplying technical details concerning the project, with all information derived from official sources. I invite you to identify any segment within my edit that could be construed as politically biased. The intention behind my revision is to ensure that the article presents a factual, neutral perspective, centered on the project's technological aspects. This approach aligns with the objective standards of encyclopedic content, aiming to inform readers without swaying them towards any political viewpoint. Orenelma (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Orenelma, you appear to have a fundamental misapprehension regarding what Wikipedia is for, and how it works. We do not base articles (any articles) solely on 'official sources', but instead endeavour to describe a subject according to what secondary published reliable sources have to say about it. If such sources include significant amounts of political criticism (or any other negative commentary), our article must include this, to conform with our policies on neutrality. I would strongly advise you to familiarise yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies (WP:RS and WP:NPOV being a good starting point), and then raise any policy-based objections you have to the article on its talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the concerns expressed, I would like to clarify that my contributions, including references from official sources, were intended to add substantive knowledge about the project, addressing a gap where the technological aspects and project data were notably absent. My effort was aimed at presenting a more comprehensive view of the project, beyond the scope of criticism, to enhance the article's informational value. Orenelma (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits were clearly and unambiguously made in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. I suggest you self-revert immediately, before you find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the article in question clearly falls within the scope of the restrictions per Wikipedia:Contentious topics that cover the Israel Palestine conflict, Orenelma should not currently be editing the article at all. I have placed the appropriate notification on their talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a lack of professionalism if you prioritize political aspects over technical evaluations. Orenelma (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Orenelma additionally seems to be using some form of generative chat/large language model to reply, which is not a good sign. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generative chat? Orenelma (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You sound like ChatGPT - both in your wording choice and the way that ChatGPT responses typically do not engage with the substance of what other people are saying. MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe they are a human passing the reverse Turing test. The Turing test is for a computer program to successfully imitate a human. The reverse Turing that is for a human to imitate a computer imitating a human. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Firewall

    This editor has admitted on Wikipedia that they are Robert C. Michelson, a leading American engineer. They have an extensive history of creating and editing articles with which they have a personal/financial COI with. They have subsequently ignored requests to tag either their userpage or the article talk pages per WP:DISCLOSE. The articles are as follows:

    What are the next steps? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The lack of user-page disclosure here is disturbing to me, after creating (and nursing to GA) an article about himself, then more recently creating a blatantly resume-like article about his son, just for starters. Pinging @Materialscientist: who passed the GA on his autobiography back in 2009 and has more expertise in this subject area to see if they have any comment. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Intensive interaction

    Warned back in November 2023 about COI, they continue to edit Intensive interaction and only that article adding blatanly promotional edits like this and this. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi ThaddeusSholto, thanks for getting in touch. Over the previous few months I have been occasionally trying to 'blatantly' (your words) update the Intensive Interaction Wikipedia page to add both increased detail and accuracy to the current poor quality content - and also add supporting or verifying links/references to the current content (as you will see if you look at what I have done). I am a now retired special education teacher and clinician health specialist (in the UK) for people with intellectual disabilities - hence my interest in and knowledge about the Intensive Interaction approach; an approach I used successfully for over 25 years. As I am now retired, I do not think that I have a conflict of interest in this subject area. More than that, I believe that I am uniquely placed to improve on the current poor quality and outdated information that current makes up the Wikipedia entry on Intensive Interaction - and I now have the time to do so, hence my recent attempts at improving it.
    As I said to your colleague previously (but got no reply), I am at a loss to know what I am doing wrong with this. I get messages thanking me for helping whilst at the same time getting messages telling to me desist from doing exactly the same thing. The current description of Intensive Interaction desperately needs updating to a more up-to-date description of the approach - which is what I keep trying to do e.g. Intensive Interaction is not a means of 'teaching', but more accurately a means of 'facilitating learning' - its the learner/participant who does the work! Things have moved on in the terminology used in this field - thank goodness - and I am trying to bring the Wikipedia entry up to date and include more accurate, detailed and useful information; surely you must want that?
    I don't really know what to do next? Perhaps you can help me? Intensive Interaction Leeds (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mytona

    This company's page is edited mostly by employees it seems. Some of the page's editors have already been rightly banned, but there are some stragglers. Lana Seeker Parker is really Lana Parker, a (current/former) community rep for the company (Seeker is a reference to one of their games, Seekers Notes.) Nadezhda Grigoreva is/was also employed by the company. Ravenhill is one of Mytona's games. Also somewhat unrelated, Rany Roy is a crypto scammer that posted his site on the page. poketape (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1212537991"