Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 214

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 210←Archive 212Archive 213Archive 214Archive 215

Alison Creagh

Hawkeye7 created an article about the President of the Australian Paralympic Committee and nominated it for DYK. They dispute having a COI here, despite Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Serendipity, e.g. "media representative, with accreditation supplied by Paralympics Australia" and "Support from Paralympics Australia did not end in Australia. In Paris, they had set up headquarters at a site near the Paralympic Village known as "Our Mob", which contained meeting rooms, a TV studio, dining room and a McCafé concession (McDonald's being one of their sponsors). Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies." Fram (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Writing a BLP about someone who sponsored your trip to the 2024 Paralympics to enhance Wikipedia content is one thing, but nominating their BLP for DYK seems a bit excessive and might not reflect well on you as an editor. I get that Fram has valid concerns, but I also see that you declined any involvement of paid editing, so to help ease the tension, I’d suggest you consider withdrawing your DYK nom. If someone else finds it interesting, they can always nominate it later! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Paralympics Australia did not sponsor my trip to Paris; it provided my media accreditation and assistance and support for our activities. I have never been involved in paid editing; this allegation is false and baseless. The article cannot be re-nominated later. WP:DYKRULES: At the time of nomination, an article must be considered new, which means it was created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to good article status in the seven days preceding a nomination. Nor can I withdraw it, for that is the prerogative of the reviewer and prep area builder. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, for the clarity, I didn’t allege you were involved in paid editing.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
No, that was Fram. All I have done is carry out my role as Wikimedian in Residence, writing articles to expand our coverage of Australian paralympians, coaches and administrators, and Australians at the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, here are some quotes from your Signpost article:
Media accreditation meant that I had access to the media tribunes at the venues and could attend any game even when the event was sold out (as was usually the case). [...]. It meant that we could use the buses of the [...] the Olympic transport system. It meant we had access to the resources of the Main Press Centre (MPC) and the Venue Media Centres (VMCs) [...] It meant that my photographer [...] had access to the Nikon store at the Stade de France, where she was able to get some of her equipment repaired and borrow some very expensive equipment for the duration of the games to supplement the gear she had brought with her from Australia – all for free. (My emphasis on 'all for free').
And Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies (presumably also for free).
And Getting from one venue to another involved a trip on the Paris Metro using the Navigo cards issued to us as part of our media kit. Each day we criss-crossed the city on the Metro as we moved from one venue to the next.
This all sounds like quite a trip. Adding up the financial benefits of this package, what would be the approximate equivalent cash value? Would, say, USD500-1,000 cover it? And what about cost of flights, accommodation, etc?
The idea that there was no financial conflict of interest seems to be quite baseless. There is no meaningful difference between being paid for doing something and being given a large amount of expensive benefits for free.
The project to create large numbers of articles on Australian paralympians has been going in since 2011. During that time you have created many such articles and, based on your Signpost article, attended multiple competitions, possibly under similar terms to those described above. That being the case, what do you estimate to be the total value of benefits received over that period from Paralympics Australia or other organisations?
You deny conflict of interest and paid editing, so I think it would be useful to have a financial figure here to allow other editors to estimate to what extent that was (or was not) the case.
Please note that WP:PAID states: Paid contributions on Wikipedia involve editing any page in exchange for compensation, including money or other incentives. (Again, my emphasis on other incentives).
If an editor is in receipt of lucrative fringe benefits for the duration of a trip where they are researching future potential articles in relation to those who provided those fringe benefits then under the definition above the editor is being paid. However, regardless of that fact, the existence of COI seems quite clear. Axad12 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The benefits listed were all used to produce articles and images for Wikipedia. There was no personal use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
That cannot possibly be true because the articles that were produced could as easily have been produced while sitting at home in front of a television and/or the internet. The images were taken by someone else so that is irrelevant.
As far as I can see it was just an expensive free holiday which had no bearing on the creation of article text.
The only possible exception would be the creation of the article on Alison Creagh, the president of the organisation who paid for the free holiday while you were an undisclosed paid editor... which leads us back to the obvious conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
That is not true. Being present is a vital part. The difference between what can be done when one is present and absent is stark. A lot of material was gathered which could be obtained in no other way. And I was not editing in exchange for anything. That was not my motivation at all. My concern was to expand the coverage of disability sports, particularly women's sports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
It is nonsensical to claim that it is necessary to witness an event to be able to write an article on it. Articles are based on material in published sources, not what someone saw with their own eyes or info received directly from discussion with a subject. Axad12 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Also would you care to share the details of the situation underlying the arbitration finding of 2011 where it was established (by a vote of 10 to 0) that 10) Hawkeye7 has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to LauraHale and should not be taking administrative actions on LauraHale, or at the behest of LauraHale. If I recall correctly, LauraHale was an editor who was also involved in producing large numbers of sports-based articles and had some specific relationship to netball. To what extent do the details there resemble the situation above (except in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest)? Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Just a brief update here... There is a marked similarity between the Australian Paralympic related activities of Hawkeye7 and those of the now dormant and WP:VANISHED user LauraHale. Both users seem to have created industrial volumes of Australian paralympic articles which were then swiftly nominated for good article status and inclusion in "Did You Know". Presumably this is some kind of joint endeavour, in which some form of conflict of interest was first demonstrated many years ago. Axad12 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I collaborated with LauraHale on Wikipedia:GLAM/History of the Paralympic movement in Australia in 2011–2012. This was a joint endeavour with multiple editors, not just us. She would research subjects and create an article in something like point form, and when I got home from work I would edit them into a readable and usable form. My practice with all articles I work on and not just Paralympic ones is to send them to DYK or GA on completion in order to get another pair of eyes to review them and correct spelling errors etc. Collaboration with LauraHale ended years ago, and I have not worked with her since. She vanished after a campaign of harassment by Fram. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago. Axad12 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Just because you said something does not make it a fact. It was not demonstrated years ago. It never happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, just to be completely clear...
Are you denying that you used admin tools inappropriately to assist another user with whom you had a conflict of interest on Australian Paralympics articles? That seems to have been passed by a 10 to 0 majority at arbitration and isn't just "something that I said". Here is the evidence [1].
Or are you denying the existence of some other form of conflict of interest in relation to the creation of Australian Paralympics articles?
I had only stated the former of those two things, but there is the interesting question of why the admin tools were used inappropriately. It has previously been suggested elsewhere on Wikipedia (and with some plausibility) that it was because of payments being received (by LauraHale and/or yourself). That is relevant to the discussion here as it indicates the long-running nature of the undisclosed paid situation. Axad12 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I never used the admin tools on Paralympics articles. The racepacket case refers to events before I became involved with the Paralympics project. This was over ten years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so back in 2011 you were sanctioned for abuse of admin tools (in relation to your conflict of interest re: LauraHale), but then presumably later in that year (as per your comment upthread) you began working on the large scale paid creation of articles on Australian Paralympians (with LauraHale). My apologies for getting the dates slightly wrong. Axad12 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The interesting point here is that LauraHale was certainly being paid for the creation and editing of Australian Paralympics articles from 2011 to 2012, that is proven here [2] where the work next to LauraHale’s name is indicated at being done at a rate of $100 per hour.
If I understand correctly, LauraHale was a Wikipedian in Residence at around that time, with (presumably) a declared conflict of interest – it’s hard to tell because her account was WP:VANISHED. You, however, were not a Wikipedian in Residence at that time.
Very helpfully you’ve added above that LauraHale would research subjects and create an article in something like point form, and when I got home from work I would edit them into a readable and usable form.
So, are we to assume here that LauraHale was being paid $100 an hour to create […] article[s] in something like point form, but that you were being paid nothing at all to edit them into a readable and usable form. Is that really at all plausible? And this is in relation to two editors who were found by ArbCom earlier that year to have some form of unknown conflict of interest between them. Axad12 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I believe that is an aspersion against Fram per ArbCom's findings during WP:FRAM. Also, viewing DYK and GA nominations as a means to get a copyedit is at best oldfashioned, and ignores the publicity aspect; wasn't DYK exposure a HOPAU metric back then? In the present, it seems to me that the fuss over HOPAU-sponsored editing in the past, when you were collaborating on it with Laura Hale, should have indicated it was important to scrupulously disclose all articles related to HOPAU sponsorship going forward. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Just because you may believe in the healing powers of wax fruit does not make it a fact. I may be oldfashioned but what I have said is a statement of fact. There was no fuss over HOPAU sponsorship. Ever. HOPAU articles are all categorised as such. And the majority of articles I have sent to DYK, GA and FA have been related to military history; I routinely send any article I work on along for review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I try to ignore the tired "attack the messenger" approach. They even accused me of making personal attacks against David Eppstein at the linked DYK discussion, despite me not commenting on Eppstein or their edits at all. Meanwhile, Hakweye7 still can't seem to admit to the basic fact of having an obvious COI here. One would think that after their Arbcom experience, they would be more scrupulous or careful now, but as they apparently deny that that Arbcom finding of fact ever happened, I guess this is to be expected. I hope they read and comply with all the Wikimedian in Residence rules, e.g. they "are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there" (WP:WIRCOI) and "there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution." (emphasis in original). Fram (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding the likes of Mary Major serves on the board at the International Rootbeer Chugging Society, and citing the society itself or her own website is quite common promotional articles. The fictional IRCS is likely authoritative and reliable that Mary Major is on their board, but I have to say that's probably undue inclusion. I'll leave it up to others to weigh in on this re-addition Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing the subject's board memberships is routine in biographical articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It seems very odd that a user would go on at great length in Signpost about the generosity of their patron, but not take the entirely reasonable precaution of making a simple CoI declaration on their user page re: all the generosity they have received. It is clearly concerning that instead of doing so the user is opposing unconflicted users' edits on the article they recently created on the president of the organisation providing the generosity. Axad12 (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Because WP:PAID clearly states except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Such grants have never counted as paid editing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:PAID also states that Wikipedians in residence who are paid must disclose which organization (GLAM or similar) pays them. Is there some mention of that fact somewhere on your very busy user page, or on the articles where you made the edits, or are you just another undisclosed paid editor? Axad12 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian in Residence, but I am not paid for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Surely it would be more correct to say that you haven't made the necessary declaration in relation to being a Wikipedian in Residence but that you have stated that you've been in receipt of benefits which are, under the definition in WP:PAID, equivalent to being a paid editor.
However, the lack of the required declaration means that you were (and still are) an undisclosed paid editor, pure and simple. You cannot possibly claim an exemption under a status that you hadn't disclosed in the appropriate fashion. Axad12 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Since I was not paid, I did not realise that such a declaration was required. No payments were received. I apologise for not putting a declaration on my user page. I did not realise that was a requirement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't directly related to the user discussed here, but I had a look at Paralympics Australia. Wow. The article looks as if it's company controlled social media profile and edited as if it was intended to be another social media platform to regurgitate contents from organization's own information. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  • My practice with all articles I work on and not just Paralympic ones is to send them to DYK or GA on completion in order to get another pair of eyes to review them and correct spelling errors etc. Seriously? Using DYK as a spellchecker is ridiculous, If you don't feel capable of writing an article without a second set of eyes, you should give up the autopatrolled permission that was granted to you as a courtesy like ten minutes after your desysop, as opposed to abusing DYK. That's of course assuming that really is the only reason... Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    I have written over 100 featured articles. How many are you claiming to have written? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    As soon as a user resorts to high score-ism, claiming that only those with an equivalent high score can scrutinise them, it's a clear sign that they are busted.
    (See also: Greg Henderson (another undisclosed paid editor), Doug whatever-his-surname-was, etc. etc.)
    This isn't about your high score. It's about your undisclosed paid editor status. Axad12 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Well that is resolved then. I was not an undisclosed paid editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Oh yes you were... because you hadn't disclosed that you had received benefits or other incentives in relation to work undertaken. That is perfectly straightforward. No money has to change hands for someone to be WP:PAID, as already indicated at some length above (and presumably accepted by you as you have now apologised above for not having made the necessary declaration for an editor in that situation). Axad12 (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    You presume incorrectly. I have not accepted that. I was not paid or compensated in any way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, well in that case you have still failed to disclose that you received benefits from a third party in relation to whom you created articles. So you are the definition of an undisclosed paid editor. Axad12 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    In relation to issues on whether or not you received some kind of payment for much earlier work on Australian Paralympics articles, I would urge you to respond to concerns raised in my earlier post here [3]. It would appear to be a topic of some importance that the matters raised there are resolved. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    I was not paid anything at all! I have always been an unpaid volunteer editor. Is that really so unusual? For the last ten years I have normally spent an hour a day working on some Wikipedia article or other, or performing administrative tasks for the Military History Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies but hopefully you will appreciate that it is simply not plausible that one individual was being paid $100 per hour and the other was being paid nothing at all, both for essentially the same work, while in collaboration on specific articles, and when a conflict of interest was noted between the 2 editors earlier that year. Axad12 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    I did write about it on the Signpost after the 2012 and 2016 Paralympics... I am not sure what you mean by "received benefits". Let me explain how it works. I apply for media accreditation for myself and other Wikimedians on the team from our National Committee (NOC) as a free-lance journalist writing for WMF or Wikimedia Australia (WMAU). The OCOG wants a single point of contact so that is me. I have to get WMAU to sign off on it. The NOCs have only have a certain number of accreditations to give out. Sometimes the IOC or the OCOG also wants WMF or WMAU to sign various undertakings. If your application is successful, they send you an id card, which is also your visa for that country. Now you are a journalist with the same standing as those from any other "non-rights" organisation! But it is all on your own dime unless you can get a grant from WMF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, so when you said that the General Manager of Communications [at Paralympics Australia], gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies, presumably that is over and above what you mentioned directly above. So, we have (at the very least) free tickets being gifted and we have presumably other forms of generous [...] support, so what did that consist of? Axad12 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    I have written over 100 featured articles. How many are you claiming to have written? This sort of contradicts your earlier statement that your primary reason for submitting articles to DYK is because you need help proofreading. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 06:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Quite so.
    When editors obsessed with high score-ism refer all their new articles to GA and DYK it isn't to do with proofreading. It is to do with metrics of some nature (either on-wiki or off-wiki metrics). Anyone with any doubt on that has only to look at Hawkeye7's user page, here [4] and look at the lines of stars, crosses and question marks on display (over a whole page of them!).
    Those are not all there in the name of proofreading. Axad12 (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    JSS: that's not completely fair to Hawkeye7's statement, which indicated the desire both for getting another pair of eyes and correcting errors. I definitely use the various DYK, GA, FA processes for that as well, as a second reader may spot small issues with neutrality if there are any. And even editors with a strong grasp of writing make occasional mistakes, which is compatible with the AP perm. Axad12, are you referring to the press pass as a free ticket? I don't think that's how it works, as you'd still need to buy tickets to an event even with a press pass? Possibly the id card as a visa means that some money was saved there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is some background in relation to paid editing in relation to LauraHale, paralympics articles and Hawkeye7.

Prior to the 2011-2 Australian Paralympics project, LauraHale (contributions history: [5]) was a 2-year WP:SPA in relation to the subject of netball and made thousands of edits on that subject, creating many rather obscure articles (Netball in Vanuatu, etc).

Then in mid 2011 her netball-related activity stopped and she became an SPA in relation to Australian Paralympians, an activity for which it has already been established above that at least from 2011-2 she was paid $100 per hour.

Hawkeye7 has said that they collaborated very closely with LauraHale on the 2011-2 Paralympics work, but rather implausibly denies having received any payment, despite the fact that Hawkeye7 was sanctioned for abuse of admin tools around that time in relation to LauraHale, a user to whom Hawkeye7 had some form of established conflict of interest according to ArbCom.

Fast forward to 2018 and the details of a further Paralympics Australia project from 2015 onwards can be found in a post here [6]. The project’s aims and activity continue those of the 2011-2 project. LauraHale and Hawkeye7 continued to produce large numbers of Australian Paralympian articles during the 2015-8 period and LauraHale can be demonstrated to have been a member of the project. Hawkeye7 cannot be demonstrated to have been a member of the project but their output of articles in that topic area strongly suggests that they were involved. It is clearly plausible that this was also paid activity of some kind.

LauraHale's activity on Wikipedia ended in mid 2019. Hawkeye7 continues to be associated with Paralympics Australia and continues to create and edit articles in that subject area. It seems to me that it is highly implausible that Hawkeye7 was not remunerated in some way for the work in 2011-2 and plausible that payment for such work may have continued over much of the last 12 years. Axad12 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you have no evidence for the paid editing accusations. Do you think it's appropriate to make these kinds of WP:ASPERSIONs? Wouldn't it make more sense and also create less friction to stick to COI accusations? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
In fairness, when it comes to COI/UPE we do not require outright proof, and indeed it is virtually never produced in such discussions. Demanding outright proof of COI/UPE activity would generally speaking be unreasonable (as inevitably it would require some degree of outing). Similarly, consistent denials by a COI/UPE user are irrelevant as they are commonly encountered from COI/UPE users (see, for example, three different threads lower down on this noticeboard). The issue is thus simply whether there is a plausible pattern of COI/UPE activity, which in this case clearly there is over an extended period of time.
User A was being paid $100 per hour to create new articles. User B was working in collaboration with User A and was actually doing half of the work. Clearly it is virtually impossible that User A was not reimbursing User B in some way, as User A’s $100 per hour was dependent to some degree on User B edit[ing the articles] into a readable and usable form. That is all the more the case when Arbcom had previously determined that there was some kind of off-wiki contact between these users. The same pattern of editing then continues for some years. Sorry, but that is enough information for there to be serious concerns than User B was a paid editor.
Also, I do not consider discussing the plausibility of UPE in the context of a COIN discussion to be casting aspersions. That sort of discussion is the purpose of this noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The notion that LauraHale would pay me a brass razoo is beyond incredible; it is completely fantastic. Never happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is the notion that you were not compensated in some way which stretches credibility.
I think it would be useful if you were to clarify the nature of the conflict of interest between yourself and LauraHale. Evidently it relates to something off-wiki, as pretty much all CoI inevitably must.
Earlier that year you had abused admin tools in some way in her favour, which was highly inappropriate (putting it mildly). That was evidently an extreme course of action which would not have been undertaken on the basis of a passing acquaintance.
Whatever the nature of the relationship which led you to abuse those tools, it was evidently a type of relationship in which it would have been entirely natural if, later that year, one party was to have compensated the other for work undertaken on their behalf, especially if the other party was being well-remunerated for her part in that work. Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
What does this years old LauraHale stuff have to do with Alison Creagh? Is it possible we are off topic? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
It relates to the length of time that the user may have been involved in UPE. The topic of this thread is COI in relation to Hawkeye7, so that is entirely on topic.
If a thread is started about COI in relation to one user and one article, it is absolutely standard practice for any further COI-related information to be introduced and discussed so that the scale of any issues can be established.
Similar practice is found on, say, ANI. Axad12 (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
On many occasions I've worked as a paid Wikimedian in Residence, collaborating with volunteer editors. On numerous other occasions, separately, I've edited collaboratively as a volunteer with paid Wikimedians in Residence. I suspect most Wikimedians in Residence have done the same. This is far from unusual. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but given the abuse of admin tools in favour of the known paid party earlier that same year (and the established off-wiki CoI between the two users) the likelihood of the situation having been as innocent as you’ve suggested is low.
Also, in your case I’m sure the WiR status was always declared. In the present case the appropriate disclosure was only made as part of a defence against concerns that activity had been WP:PAID, and was made very belatedly (4 days ago) in relation to activity from 2012 onwards (for which see the user's user page). Axad12 (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
The activity has never been paid. Your conspiracy theory is just plain nutty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies (someone who, like yourself, had a minor role in a well known controversy, albeit in her case off-wiki)... Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? Axad12 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Please be careful of bludgeoning. Not every comment needs a response from the same editor. Now would be a great spot to let fresh voices chime in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I had intended to leave the discussion until receiving the user's most recent and rather personal response, which I believe warranted a brief reply. I will now stand down unless someone addresses me again directly. Axad12 (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: We have certainly gone well past the point of casting aspersions. I notice in this thread OP User:Fram has been content to let another user to do all the advocacy. Suddenly the onus is on proving the negative: On the contrary, it is the notion that you were not compensated in some way which stretches credibility and the likelihood of the situation having been as innocent as you’ve suggested is low are both unqualified personal attacks against Hawkeye7 and should be struck. Dragging the now vanished Laura Hale in from twelve years ago is another purely unfounded attempt to broadbrush the subject unfairly. I consider the timing of this COIN report to be obvious negative political campaigning against one of Wikipedia's most productive and respected editors, a career military man who studies the most granular aspects of warfare, and a kind fellow who has donated uncounted and unpaid volunteer hours over the last 13 years to support the Australian Paralympic committee as an unpaid Wikipedia in Residence, facilitating the bonds linking our community to theirs, and has been long trusted by both. [struckthrough as besides the point, not as inaccurate] In this thread he stands accused of writing an article about the president of that committee (just one among his 546 page creations, 484 DYK notices, 370 Good articles, 146 A-class pages, 110 FAs, 96 TFAs), attending the Paris Paralymics on his own dime (pleads guilty), and getting passes, internet access, and food assistance as volunteer press (ditto). Am I missing anything? Oh, right: specific allegations of wrongdoing with proof some evidence for each allegation. None has been presented. As far as I can tell, Hawkeye7 had demonstrated themselves a remarkable representative of our en.wiki community, has proven himself trusted over many years of active contributions, hasn't been shown to have done anything wrong, and no amount of aspersions is going to stick without diffs. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    FYI, by granular aspects, I meant boring details (logistics). Anyone want to refute the premises of my assertions (he's productive, respected, a professional military scholar, donated countless and unpaid volunteer hours as PA's publicly disclosed WiR, wrote a good faith article about the charity's president and turned it in for DYK, like he always does)? Anybody have any documented reasons for us to believe he's done anything at all wrong? No? Because that's the entire purpose of this thread on this noticeboard. BusterD (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that demonstrates a misunderstanding of this noticeboard.
    As I said above, when it comes to COI/UPE we do not require outright proof, and indeed it is virtually never produced in such discussions. Demanding outright proof of COI/UPE activity would generally speaking be unreasonable (as inevitably it would require some degree of outing).
    If outright proof was to be required before action could be taken, this noticeboard might as well be closed down.
    The points that you've made, however, have no bearing at all on whether the user has engaged in UPE. Axad12 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    I enjoy it when editors who claim to be relatively new at H7's RfA discussion (diff) attempt to point out the purpose of various noticeboards to two-decade Wikipedia veterans, while all the time recklessly conflating the bare minimum standard of documented reasons for us to believe you with outright proof of COI/UPE activity which nobody (especially the OP) has provided. BusterD (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • "I notice in this thread OP User:Fram has been content to let another user to do all the advocacy." I try to avoid bludgeoning and have stated my case. I am not "content" or responsible for what others write, no matter if it comes from Axad12 or from you.
"I consider the timing of this COIN report to be obvious negative political campaigning against one of Wikipedia's most productive and respected editors". The COI tag was placed on 27 September 2024, long before they became a candidate at the election. That Hawkeye only responded there after becoming a candidate, and that his answer lead to this COIN report, is not "political campaigning", and it would be good if you kept your WP:ABF aspersions to yourself.
"Anybody have any documented reasons for us to believe he's done anything at all wrong? No? Because that's the entire purpose of this thread on this noticeboard." Uh, yes, they deny having a COI and haven't followed the guidance for such situations (e.g. WP:WIRCOI). This discussion is not about the result (the article), nor about his other creations, which are completely irrelevant for this discussion. You have not demonstrated at all how they wouldn't have a COI wrt to the CEO of the organisation he is a WIR for. He creates an article for the boss of the organisation which arranged for him to have a press entry and other perks at the Paralympics. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Fram (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Clear as mud. My bar for success is demonstrating how they wouldn't have a COI? Nobody's made a reasonable case or brought ANY evidence to support such an allegation. As such, these are aspersions brought to the correct noticeboard for discussion. Just as the accused is running for admin. On the day. BusterD (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: you seem to have misunderstood the intention of COIN and this thread. As said at the top, this is to determine whether someone has a COI with an article, and "There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request" none of them matching your close of "nothing actionable". This isn't ANI, I didn't ask for action against an editor, I asked for a determination whether they have a COI or not, nothing more. Fram (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Here I agree with Fram that we need clarification in the close: whether Hawkeye's open relationship with APC had any undue impact on his willingness to write an article about a notable individual in the org's leadership. Hawkeye7 has NEVER EVER denied having a connection with the organization. He's had a long and openly documented relationship with the organization on behalf of the Wikimedia community. He just presented this in a spectacularly visual way to the community to through the linked Signpost article. By this report, Fram has inferred (without accusing and without evidence of any kind) Hawkeye7 has done something improper. I'd be satisfied with a statement that while Hawkeye7 clearly does have a well-publicized institutional connection with APC and now PA, there's no evidence this motivated his actions any more than a good faith desire to see the org well-covered. I'm not great at brevity here, but Fram is right; we can't just let this hang. BusterD (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If Hawkeye7 failed to put the right notice on this DYK nom (and if reviewers caught it), that's a much different hand slap than this unspoken accusation. Even the best contributors make errors occasionally. That's why we have a page history. BusterD (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to overturn my closure. But my warning to Axad12 stands. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Overturn is exactly the wrong word to use, IMHO. I agree with your closure 100%. I'm not requesting a change of any kind. I concur Axad12 intruded themselves in a somewhat volatile and distracting way. Fram wants a determination convicting or exonerating Hawkeye7; only three outcomes apparently. My comment was pointed towards obviating any such determination. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited:, I'm not a fan of elements like I'd also advise you in your close. The role of a closer is to summarize the consensus reached in a discussion, not to give the closer's impression of it. Sdkb talk 14:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Reopened, with the permission by OhanaUnited above. Fram (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Their closing statement in full read: "Plenty of accusations without evidence. Several shifting goalposts. Nothing actionable at this point. And User:Axad12, I'd also advise you to refrain from making entirely groundless personal attacks against people (to use your own words). OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)"

User:AKS.9955 and regional airline articles in India and Kyrgyzstan

I am making a very unorthodox decision to bypass talkpage warnings and communication in favour of a COIN discussion. Normally, I would view this report as inappropriate without at least some warning, but AKS.9955 holds the autopatrolled right and the new page reviewer right. They should know the COI rules by now - and yet have, on multiple occasions, failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest. This issue first came to my attention in the second AfD for IndiaOne Air, when @Ratnahastin: commented that they suspected a COI. For the sake of this discussion, AKS.9955 has posted a picture of themself to Wikipedia, their full name (Arun Kumar Singh), and links to several of their social media accounts. I will only be posting links to social media accounts and news stories they have linked to on-Wiki, or webpages they very publicly linked to from a webpage they control and also linked to on-Wiki.

As stated on their own userpage, editor AKS.9955 can also be found on Twitter [7] and Instagram.[8]. The Instagram account's bio also links to a LinkedIn account- [9]. (The rest of the Instagram account is private- the LinkedIn thing is the only piece of information we get from it)

In the bio of the linked Twitter account, AKS.9955 self-identified as the CEO of IndiaOne Air. This appears to be confirmed by this news source, which AKS.9955 added to the IndiaOne Air article. Despite being so forthcoming about their identify, AKS.9955 has not been transparent about their potential for having a COI. They did not disclose their COI when creating the article in 2022. They did not disclose their COI in the initial AFD, again in 2022. In the initial AFD, they were one of the only two keep votes. The other keep vote, however, was made "per AKS.9955". They also have not disclosed during the current AfD discussion, despite Ratnahastin pointing out the potential COI in their nominating statement. However, in a response to a question about sourcing posed by @CNMall41, AKS.9955 did sum up the AfD by saying "the real question is, does the airline exist and has scheduled flights OR the effort here is to just delete the article????" (emphasis original).

Arun Kumar Singh has not been the CEO of the airline since late 2023. AKS.9955 has confirmed this onWiki, but failed to provide a source. Not directly relevant, but noting it down for timeline purposes.

Additionally, On AKS.9955's LinkedIn account (one of the non-private posts [10]), they self-identify as having a management role in TezJet. This appears to be confirmed by a news article- I can provide a link if needed. AKS.9955 created the TezJet article in 2019 and has continued to edit it until now. They did not disclose their connection to the company when they made the article, or any any point when they edited it. The article did not go through NPP either, because AK.9955 holds the autopatrolled right.

I've done some more digging, and I believe they have a COI or potential COI with many aviation articles - either because they have worked for them, or they work for a competitor. (For an example of their editing the article of a potential competitor, they voted delete in this AfD last year. (The AfD discussed Fly91, a regional airline in India - they don't currently fly the same routes as IndiaOne Air, but the potential COI should have still been disclosed). I am seeking further input on this matter to figure out exactly which areas they should not be editing. I'm not an expert in our COI guidelines- but it doesn't take an expert to figure out that the community needs to set some very firm boundaries when it comes to AKS.9955 and their editing of airline articles, and creating articles on businesses they own(ed) without proper disclosure. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this report,AKS.9955 has autopatrolled right since 2015. They have been creating articles on airline related topics since then [11]. All of them will have to be checked for potential COI, meanwhile it might be worth revoking the right as they have clearly abused it. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I was pinged regarding the AfD which I have no comment on. However, based on the information provided by GreenLipstickLesbian, there appears to be a clear COI with AKS.9955. As the user has failed to disclose their COI with IndiaOne Air, I will assume that there are other aviation related pages they have a COI with that they have also failed to disclose. Would love to hear feedback from @AKS.9955: though. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for flagging this @GreenLipstickLesbian:. This is indeed concerning that an airline CEO has been editing pages related to themselves and their competitors. I'm not sure if their autopatrolled rights can be removed yet, as we still need to assess whether the articles they created meet WP:N. However, their NPR rights should definitely be revoked now since they were granted in 2016, and I haven't seen them used. I’m also interested in hearing their thoughts on this report. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Guys, this is the talked about Arun Kumar Singh, and yes, I have been CEO for several airlines in South Asia for a very long time. Contributing in Wikiepdia was my hobby (thousand of edits and hundreds of pages created), that I continued to do despite my busy schedule. All these James Bonds getting a high after pointing out a COI, can anyone tell me one single "wrong / paid" update that was done? I think Wikipedia has reached a point where it is no longer possible to contribute constructively without some sore losers sitting in their basements and preaching the world how things work. Can some admin delete my entire account altogether? I have no desires to contribute anymore to this website, which is fast becoming a cartel of "know it all". Let me find the place where I can request my account deletion. Do whatever the hell you guys want to with the pages; it does not change the business and real life at all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
"James Bonds getting a high"... "sore losers sitting in their basements and preaching the world how things work" — Such remarks against other editors are absolutely unacceptable, I would advice you to retract them or you would be risking stringent sanctions. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I've removed all advanced rights/tools. See log for details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the most recent creation by AKS.9955, which is Sky FRU. It was created last month with three references, one of which was to an "About Us" page and the other two were to websites that did not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG at the very least. That isn't the content standard expected of a "clean" article and as such I have unreviewed that page to let someone else at NPP evaluate it for notability. Haven't examined the other article creations but might look later. I think removal of autopatrolled and NPR was the right call here. Fathoms Below (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I kind of went just a little maverick, and closed the AFD procedurally, and moved the article to Draft space at Draft:Sky FRU. You can't move an article at AFD to Draft space, per policy, so this solved that issue. Likely, that would have been the outcome anyway. They exist, there is a reasonable expectation that they will get notable in due time, but they lack the sources to stay in mainspace now (fails wp:corp/wp:gng), so we incubate them. If any admin thinks I've overstepped and decides to revert, I understand and won't argue, but this seemed to be the logical way to handle it. Just put a note on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    Probably for the best- given what just happened with the creator, it is unlikely that anybody would have put the effort in to find any more-hidden sources to prove the subject notable (if it even currently is). But this way, if anybody does want to do that in the future, they won't have to battle a pre-existing delete consensus. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think it would have ended to drafity, else I wouldn't have done that, but the stigma of a previous AFD wouldn't have helped. And on paper, it is a perfectly legitimate draft that fits the criteria for drafts. The author of the AFD thanked me for the edit, so I'm guessing they agreed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

User:עידו כ.ש.

All the entries he created involved in conflict of interest and probably paid. Please check also his disclosure and contributions in Commons.

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 2A0D:6FC7:33B:81FA:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you notified them? Can you explain what the actual problems are and list some examples? See WP:DIFF. What interaction have you had? Have you ever edited using another username/IP address? Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I have never had edited on any other IP or username other than this. I do sometimes upload articles under payment, tho not most of the time, and I always disclose those I do via a template on the talk page after such payment has been received, per Wikipedia’s rules. Most of my paid articles were on Hebrew Wikipedia, and out of the articles I’ve edited that are currently on English Wikipedia only Aleph Farms was paid. If the article about Barack Rosen is the one who raised suspicions, I’m happy to confirm that I was not paid to create it.
I’m here for any additional questions :)
עידו כ.ש. (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
It looks to me as if everything is probably in order here.
The user has only ever created one article (Barak Rosen). That article has a significant problem in that large portions of the text are entirely without sourcing, but that does not seem to be something that an experienced UPE would have allowed to happen.
User, would you be able to add sourcing to the various elements where it is currently missing (as per WP:V)?
That article does not seem to me to be particularly promotional.
The user has already declared a paid COI in relation to a different article (Aleph Farms). If they had a COI in relation to the Rosen article then it seems reasonable to assume it would also have been declared.
Looking at the user's edit history back to the start of this year they appear to be a normal unconflicted user (except where declared on their user page). Axad12 (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. I’ll start to work on adding the sources per WP:V. I don’t have much experience on English Wikipedia rules but I’ll do my best based on reading and what I know from Hebrew Wikipedia. עידו כ.ש. (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Stuart_Campbell_(blogger)

Editor in question indeffed by ToBeFree for repeated personal attackings and borderline threats. (non-admin closure) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

A new account presumably registered to subject of article has changed section headings twice and removed direct quotes from his Facebook account. User was given a COI notice prior by another editor. I restored the section heading an first sentence of the paragraph as the wording aligns better with the third party sources, but I did not restore the quotes, as they were lacking any 3rd-party sourcing. Seeking additional input. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I am, openly, the subject of the article, and was forced to create an account to address defamatory and plainly malicious recent edits. Quotes have been attributed to me which were demonstrably written by other people - namely Graham Linehan - and a highly incomplete account of a court case involving me added/edited in order to create a false impression of homophobia. The false accusation was also made, without proper sourcing, that I "oppose transgender rights", which I do not. I greatly dislike being made to edit my own entry in this manner, but do not see any other option given the failure of other editors to properly defend it against partisan smears. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The Graham Linehan quote misattribution was a bona fide stupid mistake on my part. It is gone from the page, and I have apologised on the user's talk page.
The broader COI issue predates my addition of that passage, though (as a quick glance at the page history will confirm). AntiDionysius (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Yet you continue to attempt to force the inclusion of an obviously deliberately incomplete and misleading account of my "Views on LGBTQ+ issues", which you refuse to justify. If the court case is the evidence of these supposed views, it is strikingly obviously inaccurate to selectively remove the judges' extremely pertinent comments on that matter. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Your views seem pretty clear to me. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Do they? How very fascinating. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Gender and politics are both extremely messy topics to delve into. Each person's view of what is right and wrong is unique after all, and quite frankly, mixing the two together creates a recipe for disaster regardless of who's on what side. My recommendation would be for you to find comments or blog posts you have made in the past that back up your "history of supporting and promoting equal rights, including gay rights", and also do the same for content you've made that others would (easily or otherwise) interpret as attacks or opposition to transgender rights and such.

From my personal assessment of this situation, I reckon the best case scenario is the addition of something along the lines of "Campbell has since clarified his position on gender identity... XYZ", and with a sufficient neutral source that backs up the statement. If you can prove it and write it neutrally, then it can be added. You've come onto Wikipedia trying to make a point, nothing wrong with that, but now you have to prove yourself with sources and citations. It's just how things are here. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I did not come here to "make a point", I came here to correct a deliberate attempt to mislead and smear. As to a "sufficient[ly?] neutral source": the judges' findings and comments, made after three days of hearing evidence presented by senior experienced counsel in a court of law, provide easily the most comprehensive and impartial assessment possible of my views on the subject, which were the entire subject matter of the case in question.
I provided a link to the complete appeal judgement so that people could see the full context, as well as including the most relevant quotes to illustrate the key facts.
When placed next to the professionally-neutral, solemn, detailed and legally-binding assessment of several of Scotland's most senior law lords, the personal grudges of some random jealous and embittered minor blogger would appear to any reasonable observer to carry zero weight. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
For more detail, I would suggest you examine both the original judge's findings as highlighted and linked here https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-severed-baby/, and the appeal court's findings as highlighted and linked here: https://wingsoverscotland.com/of-no-materiality/
I trust that you will agree both that judges are a neutral source, and that their findings with regard to my support for equal rights are unequivocal. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly an interesting read, especially considering I'm an Australian on the other side of the world who's view of Scotland has primarily been that of bagpipes and Demoman from Team Fortress 2. Jokes aside, I don't really have much to say about this. It looks solid at face value as a court statement, but it certainly doesn't help that gender stuff is the area you chose to make an insult with and that text makes it incredibly difficult for many people to tell if you're being sarcastic, serious, or derogatory. I don't know much about the politics over in Scotland, but it looks to me like Kezia Dugdale did what any politician does: find a hill to die on and find some ammunition to use against her opponent, regardless of its quality.

Look on the bright side, at least you're not ScoMo who had 5 years of relentless jokes about him because he allegedly shat himself at a McDonalds before that finally got cleared up. If your position is genuine, then there's a good chance an independent reliable source agrees with you on it. Secondary sources always trump primary sources in terms of reference quality on Wikipedia because it's not the subject talking about themselves, it's someone else stating their assessment of the subject. Everyone has a bias, and even Wikipedia itself has been found left leaning, but that's where community consensus comes in.

If you really want to continue defending your position, I recommend you read up on a few of the big important Wikipedia editing policies so you can familiarize yourself with "why are my edits being reverted?" A good one to start with is WP:NPOV and the WP:WEIGHT subheading. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but I know fine how Wikipedia works, and why (Personal attack removed) There is a very limited amount of time I'm willing to spend on it, but wished to be seen to have at least tried. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
This user has made a potential legal threat at this link. I have reverted it. GSK (talk • edits) 01:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, if this was an AN/I case it would have already ended with an administrative action. Am I not allowed to ask for someone to block the user in question from the article (not the talk page) until the user can understand what is the issue here and what isn't? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I made no legal threat. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
You said "Kindly desist from making defamatory edits to the entry about me or I will take whatever actions are available to me"; I can see why someone would think that was a legal threat, though it probably doesn't quite cross the line. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Re-upping and endorsing the request for a pageblock as the user continues to edit in defiance of clear lack of consensus for their changes and despite their COI. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
And given they have said they "know fine how Wikipedia works" they should know that to restore changes reverted by three different users is disruptive. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
If you wish to debate your proposed edits, kindly do so on the Talk page like you're supposed to. You cannot simply keep ignoring the arguments and reverting the malicious and inaccurate sections. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Would suggest also that the extremely unsavoury comments about fellow editors above, especially when read in the context of talk of "debate" and "arguments" over edits as opposed to consensus-building suggest something of a WP:BATTLEGROUND problem. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
This user is devoting an enormous amount of time to complaining and attempting to lock the page in a vandalised state rather than making any effort to discuss the matter. I have repeatedly made calm and reasoned arguments on the article Talk page and elsewhere, as per proper procedure, which this editor steadfastly ignores and refuses to engage with, instead merely edit-warring and reverting the malicious and inaccurate edits. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Reverend Stuart Campbell, You should worry less about whether others are following 'proper procedure' and focus on following it yourself. Edit warring against multiple other editors is not the proper procedure, and it is putting you on a path to being blocked entirely. No one wants that to happen, but you have to work with others and not against them. MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
"Edit warring against multiple other editors is not the proper procedure"
No, it is not. I have followed proper procedure by attempting to resolve the issues on the appropriate Talk pages. These other editors have not, and have repeatedly simply reverted edits with no attempt at discussion or consensus, which is contrary to the rules. It is most peculiar that you therefore direct this criticism at me, rather than them. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
They're not new here, they know what is expected of them. You are still getting benefit of the doubt - but if you insist you know the rules as well as anyone, do not be surprised when they are enforced in the usual way. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
If they know what is expected of them, then it is surely all the worse that they are failing to do it. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Despite claiming to "know fine how Wikipedia works" and stating we're all "gangs of friendless losers living in their mothers' basements", this user continues to edit pages they have a conflict with - now blanking sourced sections from the article on their blog.
If a page block is enforced, it should be for Wings Over Scotland also. OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I am fully entitled under Wikipedia rules to edit the page to remove a material inaccuracy. Despite being described as "Comments made by Campbell on the blog in 2012", the comments referred to DID NOT APPEAR ON WINGS OVER SCOTLAND AT ANY TIME and therefore have no business being discussed in the Wings Over Scotland entry, as I noted when removing the section. This was a material inaccuracy and removing it is entirely proper and permitted. We can of course resolve this easily - all you need do is produce a link to those comments on Wings Over Scotland and I will withdraw my objection to their inclusion happily. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I have p-blocked @Reverend Stuart Campbell from the article. He retains access to the Talk page and all other pages. @Reverend Stuart Campbell, I see from @OXYLYPSE that there have been problems with your edits to other pages. Please do not test the limits or yourblock will be broader. Star Mississippi 01:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)
Thank you for confirmation. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting to consider reaching for WP:ANI as partial blocks seems ineffective against this case. A COIN and 3RR thread with several lengthy talk page discussions are enough of a timesink. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The personal attacks and continued accusations of bad faith are a problem, and post page-block the user seems to be indicating that they're not really interested in trying to work towards a consensus. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Accusing you of bad faith is like accusing Hitler of anti-semitism. It might not be nice, but it's true. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I left a note at the COIN thread, @AlphaBetaGamma. I'm not going to extend the block as I'm about to log off, but have zero objection to one being implemented. Star Mississippi 02:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Got it. AIV filed, probably will nac this later because I'm sure this wouldn't be affected by my coi on this incident. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::::this edit is nothing but a obvious threat openly claiming you're ready to perform off-wiki actions against Wikipedia volunteers. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Looks like the link is pointing to the wrong version

I do wish more people would focus more on the quality of our content. My analysis of this situation has been brief, curtailed even. I see: "Campbell has been outspoken about his opposition to transgender rights" in our article and this is followed by a reference which says nothing of the sort. No one should be restoring such a poorly referenced statement, especially in a BLP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking some degree of interest in the actual facts of the matter. Would that other editors were so conscientious. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
There are multiple references, and one of them certainly says that - it says it in much stronger language than "outspoken about his opposition", too. But I don't want to get too mired in the substantive content discussion here at COIN. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
You don't want to participate in substantive content discussion at all. You still have not done so on the article's Talk page, which is the proper forum, despite having been requested to do so repeatedly for over 24 hours. I request once again that you do so, as per proper procedure. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ranjha Family

BLOCKED
Mandi News was blocked. No further action required. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

This newly created user has created articles for almost the entire Ranjha family within a few days. I have put COI warning on there talk page but I have my suspicions that this could be paid editing. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Further potentially relevant background here [12] and here [13].
When users begin to become very animated about their articles not (yet) showing up on Google searches and treating it as a matter of great urgency I always wonder why.
In the latter of those 2 links the user is asked for their connection to one of the article subjects, without response.
Note also, in the second link, Why isnt article Chaudhry_Ikramullah_Ranjha been displayed on the main page as we search it through internet mediums. My emphasis on 'we'. The implication would appear to be either that the account is a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT or that 'we' refers to the creator and the subject being in direct contact after both conducting Google searches. Or, perhaps, both scenarios apply and the account is directly linked to the subject.
A Google search for 'Mandi News' and 'Ranjha' seems to produce quite a lot of results but I am unable to discern the significance. Is 'Mandi News' an organisation of some kind? Axad12 (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Ranjha family is mainly from Mandi Bahauddin District. I think Mandi News could also be from the same area/city. Wikibear47 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
See Mandi Bahauddin District#Notable People Wikibear47 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Axad12,
Thank you for your thoughtful questions regarding the visibility of the article on Chaudhry Ikramullah Ranjha and the implications surrounding the account. I appreciate your diligence in examining these points.
Regarding the article's visibility on search engines, it's possible that the page hasn’t yet gained enough traction or backlinks to appear prominently in search results. This can happen with newly created articles as they gradually become indexed and recognized by search engines.
As for the suggestion that my account may be a shared account or linked to the subject, I want to clarify that my contributions are made independently, and my goal is to provide unbiased, well-researched content. I understand how it might appear otherwise, especially given the timing of edits or the focus on related topics.
To address your question about "Mandi News," it is a username I’ve chosen for my contributions here on Wikipedia. It does not represent any formal organization, but rather my personal initiative to engage with and improve articles.
I truly value your input, and I’m committed to maintaining transparency in all my contributions. If there are specific concerns or further questions, I’m more than willing to discuss them.
Thank you for your engagement on this matter!
Best,  
Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Subject: Clarification on Article Contributions**
Hello [Wikibear47],
Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I genuinely appreciate your vigilance in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.
I understand that the creation of multiple articles about the Ranjha family in a short timeframe can raise suspicions, particularly regarding potential conflict of interest or paid editing. I want to assure you that my intentions are purely to contribute meaningful and well-sourced information to the community.
To address your concerns, here are a few points:
1. **Neutrality and Sourcing**: Each article I’ve created is based on reliable, verifiable sources, and I strive to ensure that the content remains neutral and factual. I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.
2. **Open to Feedback**: I welcome any specific feedback or suggestions you have regarding the articles. If there are areas you believe need improvement or additional sourcing, I would be more than happy to work on those collaboratively.
3. **Transparency**: I am fully aware of Wikipedia’s policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. If there are particular aspects of my edits that raise red flags, please point them out, and I will address them promptly.
4. **Collaborative Spirit**: I value the Wikipedia community and am eager to engage with other editors to ensure that these articles meet the high standards expected. If you or any other editors would like to discuss the content further, I’m open to that dialogue.
Thank you for your understanding and for your dedication to Wikipedia. I hope we can work together to enhance these articles for the benefit of all users.
Best regards,  
[Mandi News]
---
Feel free to adjust any parts to match your style! Mandi News (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, gpt.zero currently seems to be down but the response above appears to be 100% AI generated. See for example the final line (re: adjust the style) and the fact that the text includes commitments to transparency without actually addressing whether a CoI exists.
I can only say that it seems very odd for an SPA to be creating multiple articles for members of the same family, plus working on a draft article for the family as a whole. In the absence of any response from the user when previously directly questioned on whether they have any links to the family, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that some link does indeed exist.
I do note, however, that one of the sources in the article for Chaudhry Shahnawaz Ranjha seems to include very negative coverage, e.g. As per ACE sources, MNA Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjah, his brother Hasan Ranjah and their father Shahnawaz Ranjah are accused of causing millions of rupees loss to the exchequer by evading property transfer fees. On the face of it, it doesn't seem clear why an outright pro-Ranjha account would have chosen to link to such a story, even if it is being used to support a claim in our article that the subject has a great influence in Sargodha politics. Axad12 (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Of course, the apparent contradiction directly above might be resolved by the idea that the article was created to some extent by AI (which it seems abundantly clear that the user has employed in this thread - see also the fact that the 'to' and 'from' names in that post apparently had to be populated). Axad12 (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Axad12,
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding the Ranjha articles. I appreciate your diligence in ensuring our content meets Wikipedia’s standards.
I’d like to clarify that the articles are based on reliable sources that provide a well-rounded view of the subjects. While I understand the concerns about potential conflicts of interest, I assure you that I have approached this work with a commitment to neutrality and thorough research. The inclusion of various perspectives, including any critical coverage, is essential to presenting an accurate portrayal.
Regarding the articles’ content, they reflect established facts about the family's political influence in Sargodha, supported by credible sources. If there are specific claims you find questionable, I’m open to discussing them further and providing additional sources if needed.
I believe that with transparency and open dialogue, we can collaboratively ensure that these articles are comprehensive and balanced. If you have any suggestions on how to strengthen the content or address concerns, I’m all ears!
Thanks again for your engagement on this. I’m confident that with our combined efforts, we can produce quality articles that serve the Wikipedia community well.
Best,  
[Mandi News] Mandi News (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Axad12,
I appreciate your keen observations regarding the potential use of AI in drafting the article. You raise valid points about the importance of clarity and authenticity in our contributions.
While I have utilized AI tools for generating ideas and organizing content, I want to emphasize that the final article is thoroughly reviewed and based on credible sources. My intention is to enhance the writing process, not to compromise the integrity of the information presented.
If there are specific elements that seem inconsistent or unclear, I’m more than happy to address them directly. Ensuring that our articles are accurate and well-supported is my top priority, and I value your input in achieving that goal.
Thank you for your continued engagement on this matter. Let’s work together to ensure we maintain the high standards of quality and transparency that Wikipedia is known for.
Best,  
Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey Axad12,
I appreciate your insights on the Ranjha articles. It’s important we maintain the integrity of our work, especially when it comes to potential conflicts of interest. I understand your concerns about the SPA creating multiple articles for the same family without clear communication about any connections.
That said, I think it’s worth considering the importance of thorough documentation and multiple perspectives in these articles. If the contributor has focused on presenting the family's influence in Sargodha politics, it would be beneficial to include the negative coverage as well. This balance would help ensure the articles are fair and well-rounded.
I believe that reaching out to the contributor again to clarify their ties to the family could be very helpful. Transparency is crucial, and I’m confident that once they respond, any lingering suspicions can be put to rest. If they can confirm their neutrality and acknowledge the importance of including diverse viewpoints, it would strengthen the case for publishing the articles.
Let’s continue this discussion and work together to ensure that our articles reflect the full story while maintaining Wikipedia’s standards.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Best,  
[Mandi News] Mandi News (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Mandi News, can I suggest that you refrain from further lengthy AI generated responses which do not address the central point, which is the existence of any link to the Ranjha family. For you to have instead responded saying I believe that reaching out to the contributor again to clarify their ties to the family could be very helpful. Transparency is crucial, and I’m confident that once they respond, any lingering suspicions can be put to rest would appear to be gibberish in this context as you yourself are the contributor whose CoI is in question. Axad12 (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Axad12,
Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your directness and understand the importance of addressing the core issue regarding any links to the Ranjha family.
I realize my previous response may not have adequately addressed your concerns, and I apologize for that. It’s essential for us to have clear communication, especially when it comes to potential conflicts of interest. I assure you that my goal is to maintain transparency and uphold Wikipedia’s standards.
If you believe it would be more effective for someone else to reach out to clarify these ties, I’m open to suggestions. I want to ensure we’re all on the same page and that the articles reflect an unbiased view.
Thank you for your patience, and I look forward to working together to resolve this matter constructively.
Best,  
Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the situation here is going to be improved by the further generation of AI responses (which thus far do not seem to have advanced the conversation in any meaningful way). Axad12 (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Dear Axad12,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the visibility of the article on Chaudhry Ikramullah Ranjha and the implications surrounding my account, "Mandi News."
Regarding your question about the article’s appearance on search engines, it is common for newly created articles to take time to gain visibility and ranking. Various factors, including backlinks and search engine indexing, can influence how prominently an article appears in search results.
Concerning your suggestion of a potential shared account or direct connection to the subject, I want to clarify that my contributions are made independently, with a focus on adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and reliability. I understand how the context might raise questions, and I appreciate your attention to detail.
As for "Mandi News," it is simply my username on Wikipedia and does not represent any organization. My aim is to contribute to the platform by improving articles based on credible sources and thorough research.
I value your insights and am committed to ensuring transparency in my contributions. If there are any further questions or specific concerns you would like to discuss, please feel free to reach out.
Thank you for your engagement.
Best regards,  
Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Mandi News If you are unable to communicate with us without using an AI, you should probably edit a verson of Wikipedia that is in a language with which you are more familiar. We want to talk with you, not an AI. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi 331dot,
I appreciate your feedback and understand the concerns regarding the authenticity of my contributions. I want to assure you that I am not using AI to communicate or edit articles. My goal is to engage meaningfully with the community and contribute to Wikipedia to the best of my ability.
I value the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and want to be a part of that. If my writing style has caused any confusion, I’m open to suggestions for improvement. I’m here to learn and grow within the community, and I welcome any guidance on how to communicate more effectively.
Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to working together!
Best,  
Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, if you genuinely wanted to to engage meaningfully with the community then I'd suggest that at some point over your previous 8 lengthy contributions you would have addressed the central issue of this thread. The fact that you have not done so does little to support the idea that you are not using AI. Axad12 (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Axad12,
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns about my previous contributions not addressing the central issues clearly, and I appreciate your patience as I work through this.
I want to assure you that my goal is to engage genuinely with the community. If my responses have come across as lengthy or unclear, I will strive to be more concise and focused moving forward. I’m committed to ensuring that our discussions remain constructive and directly relevant to the topics at hand.
If there are specific points you believe need addressing, please let me know, and I’ll do my best to clarify. I truly value your input and want to contribute positively to our shared work on Wikipedia.
Thank you for your understanding.
Best,  
Mandi News Mandi News (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, what I was hoping for was that you would address the central issue rather than getting AI to write a response to apologise for not having done so. You've already used AI to say that you aren't using AI, so further communication is apparently pointless. Axad12 (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Axad12 looks like @Mandi News is using AI to hide the fact that they are unable to answer genuine concerns raised by the community and are just wasting everyone's time. Wikibear47 (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Quite so. Plausible COI concerns, demonstrable WP:CIR issues and a time waster. See also here [14] for more of the same. Axad12 (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I've now blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

They've now decided to create socks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mandi News. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems the end user is rather persistent and had previously been blocked on 25th Sept, 2nd Oct and 22nd Oct. Well done to those who have been removing the user's creations via Speedy Deletion criteria WP:G5. Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

121Fam

BLOCKED
121Fam was blocked. No further action needed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Promotional editor who continues to move articles into the mainspace, objecting to draftication and often winding up deleted. I would like to assume good faith, but looking at the access dates of the creations, it is possible UPE in my opinion. I have asked the user four times to explain why access dates vary (and are often way earlier) than when they are added, but only received one response (which was "found at the source page"). I asked the user again yesterday (5th time now) and still received no response despite them editing after my request (which is the same editing pattern with the access dates). CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This area is heavily affected by sock and UPE and looking at 121Fam's edits, I suspect they might be involved in similar activity. They're either creating articles on non-notable Indian TV series or editing ones that have been previously heavily edited by sock farms such as Deewani and Draft:Dangal Oriya. Sometimes, they seem to be repeatedly moving drafts to the main NS to avoid AFC review such as Draft:Gudiya Rani (TV series). I suggest that @121Fam: refrain from moving drafts to the main NS and instead seek approval through AFC. Also, there're suspicions about them being a sock of Entertainment4Reality. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the suspicion. The main purpose of this thread is to elicit a response from @121Fam: who, despite being notified of this thread, still refuses to address the issue.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
User 121Fam blocked indefinitely by Floquenbeam. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: DavidRJD

BLOCKED
DavidRJD was blocked. No further action needed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion

This self-declared WP:SPA with an existing COI with Nexperia has started making edits directly to Nexperia after the same edit requests were declined on Talk:Nexperia. This took place after repeated warnings on their talk page and past discussion here. - Amigao (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF. @Amigao It seems you have a pattern of asserting WP:COI without declaring that you have a COI. -- even after you have repeatedly had your account suspended. Please declare your WP:COI. You've made 49 edits today alone, taking a particular political stance -- either you never sleep according to the time stamps, or you are violating WP as you are using a shared account. DavidRJD (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
either you never sleep according to the time stamps, or you are violating WP as you are using a shared account
I don't think you're reading Amigao's contributions log correctly. I see 9-12 hour breaks each day in their editing. (Also, your reply is a deflection, not a response.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
If you spend 14 hours a day editing content that reflects a political viewpoint, you are WP:COI.
At most, there is a 9-hour break, with some days no break. @Amigao is even making simultaneous edits to articles with edits made to multiple articles almost simultaneously. @Amigao is either the fastest editor known to man (making 80+ substantive changes a day) or part of a pool. I'm going to look more closely at the logs, but on Oct, 21st there were an astounding 81 edits made, almost exclusively to Asian topics. DavidRJD (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
While trying to avoid WP:OUTING, there is off-wiki evidence of the user's direct connection to Nexperia, which they have been consistently evasive about disclosing. DoubleCross (‡) 20:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I met the threshold and was honest in disclosure. You may not like it, but my answer was deemed sufficient by my mentor. Does WP:AGF only apply when you agree with a viewpoint? DavidRJD (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I met the threshold and was honest in disclosure
Assuming that the off-wiki evidence in question is correct (and it appears to be) - then no, no you most certainly did not and were not. DoubleCross (‡) 21:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Given that this is said user's second time on this noticeboard for this same COI issue, it now appears to be a WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE issue. - Amigao (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@Amigao Please declare your WP:COI. DavidRJD (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
If, as in this case, a user has edit warred over a particular element of an article, has then been asked to declare COI and made a COI edit request, and then ignores the negative result of the COI edit request and returns to edit warring, there must be a reasonable argument for them to be blocked from directly editing the article.
Worth noting also that the same situation has played itself out at the article for Wingtech, owners of Nexperia, where the user also made a COI edit request a month ago and has today decided to resume edit warring in mainspace despite the edit request not having been answered.
In that regard I had previously [15] notified the user that the COI edit process will take as long as it takes and you must wait for it to run its course, it isn't a question of waiting a certain amount of time and then implementing the changes yourself. So they were aware that pursuing this course of action was wrong.
Also, when the user previously edited in relation to the unresolved COI edit request I requested that they [16] Stop editing the article directly [while the edit request is outstanding]. Any further abuse of this point (on either this article or Nexperia) and I will ask an admin to block you.
My impression is that the user is an WP:SPA specifically on the very narrow topic of whether these companies are Chinese state-owned. Axad12 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
"State owned" is not "publicly traded". There are are dozens of cites from WP:RS, but the focus seems to be to maliciously label. 2600:1700:2B0:197F:C4C7:31DD:D520:6C95 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Declaring a COI doesn’t give someone free rein to edit however they wish. As noted above and on their TP, DavidRJD clearly violating our P&Gs and is engaging in what could be considered WP:DE so it may be best for them to block from editing pages where they have a COI, such as Nexperia and Wingtech. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Edits were made citing WP:RS. I would urge anyone to look at the edits. @Amigao edits do not conform to the conditions and instructions in the P&G, particular on the ownership side.
I'd be far more concerned with people with a clear COI who don't declare it editing pages with free rein. 2600:1700:2B0:197F:C4C7:31DD:D520:6C95 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry are you David RJD editing while logged out or a sock or meat puppet account posting in this thread in an attempt to give support? I assume from the reference above to "state owned" that it is one or the other.
At the end of the day, one of the edit requests was turned down and the other one is still awaiting a decision, and David RJD started to edit war on them again after being warned not to do so. I really can't see how that is anything other than disruptive editing. That's all the more the case when there seem to be suggestions (which I've not looked into) that a full disclosure of COI has not been made.
When I deal with COI edit requests a common theme is companies who want to remove reference to Chinese, Russian or Israeli ownership. I take no side on the broader questions involved there, but those are sensitive political/reputational issues which need to be approved by an independent editor before being implemented to check that what is claimed is correct. Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
When you start your message with "meat puppet" you are taking a side. 2600:1700:2B0:197F:C4C7:31DD:D520:6C95 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
No, I am not. Your IP address geolocates to Dallas, Texas, where Nexperia have their US operations. Are you DavidRJD? If so, edit while logged in. Axad12 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
User has now been indefinitely blocked by Star Mississippi. IP range blocked by ToBeFree. Axad12 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ganbatte_Convention

User Ganbatte Michelle was blocked, article Ganbatte Convention moved to draft namespace. —OXYLYPSE (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Based on the name and promotional edits, this user has a COI. Other editors have advised them of the COI policy, but they have not disclosed their COI as per Wikimedia's requirements and continue to edit the article. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

They already mentioned on their tp that the organization is their friend's. Given that they created the draft and considering it was reviewed and declined twice, their unilateral decision to move it to the main namespace to bypass the AfC review process is concerning. I suggest they cease editing to this article, as they are not adhering to P&Gs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I have moved the article back into draft space. Melcous (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
There are other pages too(Ex - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Anime) which has same problem of not providing enough references for proofing there notability. So why there page is still valid...do they are paying the Wikipedia reviewers in any way so they don't remove there pages, i also have this question last time but the reviewers looks not in mood to solve the things, they just sitting here to remove pages Ganbatte Michelle (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Ganbatte Michelle, If you believe this article G-Anime doesn’t belong on Wikipedia, you can nominate it for deletion. However, arguing that this article exists so mine should too isn’t a strong justification. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ganbatte Michelle Nobody is paying Wikipedia to have articles. The issues with Ganbatte Convention is that a) you have a conflict of interest b) you bypassed the draft approval process and c) it's probably not notable enough to be here.
You raise a fair comparison with G-Anime, I believe it falls under A7 for speedy deletion and have tagged it as such, but that may be challenged by any editor.
Nobody is here to be difficult, but there are processes you have been informed of several times that you refuse to follow. OXYLYPSE (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Like every anime convention page i created this page, nobody is here to help, I even found the reviewers here is not fair. You still keep pages who don't follow rules but who are genuinely trying you just removed there pages Ganbatte Michelle (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio

BLOCKED
Damjana12 was blocked. No further action needed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

A new editor has made three quality edited connected articles: Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio, and constantly removes all UPE/COI tags from them. I strongly suspect that this editor is connected with these subjects and they are all promotional to the work of Mark Kotter. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Damjana12 (talk · contribs) has created a total of three articles here, all related to Mark Kotter, which strongly suggests a COI. I recommend that Damjana12 declare this COI if they haven’t already. However, based on their tp, it appears they have repeatedly refused to disclose it when asked. I also found that Damjana12 has reversed the draftification of these articles to bypass the AFC route and has consistently removed the COI/UPE tags, which they should refrain from doing in the future. I’m sure that it’s not Mark himself writing these articles, but likely someone connected to him, such as an employee or a paid editor. For example, this Babraham Institute based IP 193.34.186.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently edited the bios for both Mark and Bit.bio and given Bit.bio is also headquartered at the Babraham Institute, it wouldn’t be surprising if Damjana12 is an employee from Bit.bio. Just my 2cents! Anyway, we’ll get to the bottom of this soon! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Saqib. I saw this partolling a while back and tagged it. I suspect that the skill-level of the editing strongly hints to a UPE (i.e. beyond the editing level of an employee trying to get their company on WP). thanks again for your attention. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Aszx5000, You might be right but the reason I mentioned it could be an employee of Bit.bio is that Damjana12 also created an article Spondyloarthritis (SpA) (redirected) that a typical paid editor usually wouldn’t be able to create because they aren't not an expert on the topic. You see my point, right? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I do, but when you patrol a lot of B-rated articles, you come across the tradecraft of advanced UPEs (i.e. who make very high quality articles), and one of their actions is to take a make a cut-out of an existing Wikipedia unrelated technical article (or import one from another WP-language) which they do in a single edit to create a more diverse editing history. Regardless, all things are possible and I have - unfortunately - seen all permutations :) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The UPE has returned and removed all COI tags (again, for the third time now). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
User just needs to be blocked surely? Axad12 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Just a note to say that off-wiki evidence indicates very clearly that the user has an obvious conflict of interest in relation to these subjects.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume that talkpage statements such as the following are false:
I chose to create the page on Mark after I watched this series on BBC where he is performing the operation
I have not receive any payment for creating pages
I have not made money by making any of my contributions on Wikipedia
The user may not have been specifically paid for their edits, but they are certainly an undisclosed paid editor with a strong conflict of interest in relation to bit.bio and Mark Kotter.
It never ceases to amaze me that users don't just admit their conflict of interest, make the relevant disclosure and follow the COI edit process, rather than making constant misrepresentations, wasting volunteers' time and taking themselves to the brink of an indefinite block. This is all the more the case when they provide details that make the reality clear in about 5 seconds to anyone wanting to investigate further. Axad12 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I will not remove the tags until this is resolved.
However, there needs to be a fair discussion. On the topic of notability, Wikipedia guidelines propose the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[ secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. In addition,
This applies to Mark Kotter as follows:
There are multiple published secondary sources that cover his achievements. These range from state media (e.g. Austrian Broadcasting Company), to commercial media, e.g. Forbes, and also include articles in scientific journal articles that summarise his achievements. Recently, Mark features in a 45 minute documentary on his life and contributions from the Austrian Broadcasting Company. I believe that very few people can claim this.
In addition, any biography where the person has received a well-known and significant award or honorary/ been nominated several times.
This is the case, Mark Kotter has won several national and international biotech and entrepreneurship awards. I am happy to update the list and find the links to the primary source.
These include: Great British Entrepreneur Awards, Mediscience Awards, Cambridge Independent Business Awards etc.
In addition, the following applies to academics - many scientists are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being subject of secondary sources. A good metrics is therefore their h-index based on their publication record. Further evidence is the establishment of guidelines, including international clinical guidelines, NIHR James Lind Alliance Research Priority Partnerships, OMERACT minimal data sets etc. Mark Kotter has and continues to lead a number of such initiatives. 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I want to address the recent claims made against my contributions to the articles on Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, and Bit.bio, as well as the suggestion that these pages be deleted on the grounds of undisclosed paid editing (UPE) or conflict of interest (COI). I believe these claims are unfair and do not accurately reflect the situation. Please allow me to explain why:
Quality of Contributions: The articles I have contributed to, including Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, and Bit.bio, are all well-researched and adhere to Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, notability, and reliability. These articles cover important topics in biotechnology and medicine, which are of genuine public interest. The quality of an article should not be equated with promotional intent. These subjects meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and have been crafted to provide valuable, verifiable information.
Without wanting to go into my personal medical history, the reason I wrote something about Spondyloarthritis is because I suffer from the condition. And while I do not have a medical background, as a person affected for more than 10 years I do have a perspective.
Lack of Evidence for UPE/COI: While I understand that suspicions may arise when an editor creates multiple articles related to the same subject, I assure you that there is no undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest involved. I have already clarified that my involvement with these topics stems from my professional experience and personal interest. I did intern at Bit.bio in 2020, which is openly disclosed, but I have not been paid or asked to create any of the pages. These contributions were made voluntarily out of a desire to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of notable subjects. There is no hidden financial motivation.
Reason for Removing Tags: I removed the COI/UPE tags from the articles because I genuinely believe they were unjustified. In the absence of any direct evidence of paid editing, such tags could mislead readers and create an unwarranted sense of distrust in the articles’ content. My removal of these tags was done transparently and in good faith, not as an attempt to obscure anything.
Professional Expertise Does Not Equal COI: It is important to recognize that editors who have expertise in a particular field, or connections to a subject, are not automatically disqualified from contributing to Wikipedia. Expertise often leads to high-quality contributions, and the Wikipedia community benefits from such knowledge. My professional background allows me to write accurately about these subjects, but this should not be conflated with promotional editing.
Notability and Relevance: The subjects I have contributed to, particularly Mark Kotter and bit.bio, are notable and have gained significant recognition within their respective fields. bit.bio is a leading UK biotech company, and Mark Kotter is a well-known figure in the medical community. These are not fringe or obscure topics but ones that deserve a presence on Wikipedia. Deleting these articles would deprive the platform of valuable, factual content.
Anyone who knows anything about the European biotech scene will undoubtedly know that bit.bio is one of most visible companies in this area. This is well demonstrated by independent journal articles, including from Forbes, Endpoints etc., press releases, mentions by government; bit.bio has been twice visited by the Minister for Science (both from the conservative and the labour parties). Third party press releases, e.g. from BlueRock Therapeutics mention their collaboration with bit.bio. (BlueRock has been all over the news recently for their Parkinson’s transplant).
Moreover, the board and SAB comprises some of the most visible and important people, and includes Hermann Hauser, Nobel Laureate Sir Greg Winter, SAB member Thore Graepel etc. I find it very strange that these people have been removed from the respective articles - it seems like there is an agenda in trying to actively undermine my contributions.
On the other hand, if the error is on my side and if I have failed to link the right sources to back this up, I apologise and am committed to work on this further.
Mark himself is a highly visible neurosurgeon and scientist. He is world renowned for his work on myelopathy; the charity is the only and largest charity that exists and has over 4000 patient members. If you look at his Google Scholar page, you will find very few other neurosurgeons in his field with a h-score approaching 50. He is the chief investigator of several international trials, leads the international RECODE Project, etc. It is just not right to mark this as ‘unimportant’.
Further evidence comes from independent press outlets: recently the Austrian Broadcasting Company (ORF) created an independent 45 minute documentary on his work: https://tv.orf.at/program/orf3/treffpunkt1796.html - this alone speaks to his notability; I am sure that you will struggle to find anything along these lines for 99% of the scientists who have Wiki pages.
Open to Discussion: I am committed to ensuring that my contributions meet Wikipedia’s guidelines, and I am more than willing to engage in constructive dialogue about any concerns raised. However, I believe that calling for the deletion of these pages without sufficient evidence or justification is premature and unfair. If there are remaining questions about the neutrality or accuracy of the articles, these should be addressed through discussion rather than through punitive measures like deletion. 86.139.243.27 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I missed Mark Kotter because I've been reviewing articles near the 90-day cutoff, but Bit Bio is actually on the list of articles I was planning to review for NPP. I have mostly completed my BEFORE now, so expect to nominate it for deletion shortly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
AfD for Bit.bio here: [17]. Axad12 (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, [Cut and paste copy of IP's previous post removed] 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I hope you will agree that there is nothing wrong with my articles and I have removed the tags again. 2A00:23C6:549E:9801:561:CFAF:F70C:6AA6 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Following on from my earlier comments, there is abundant off-wiki evidence to indicate very clearly that you currently have a long running conflict of interest in relation to bit.bio.
The reasons for suggested deletion are not punitive based on COI/UPE but relate to a basic failure to fulfil notability criteria (WP:NCORP). There is also a marked lack of independent sources and an over-reliance on press releases, which is clearly highly inappropriate for articles in the medical area.
Also your response above is 100% AI generated according to gptzero.me, so you really cannot expect readers to believe that it represents genuinely expressed sentiments or truth. In actual fact the response demonstrates a very faulty understanding of notability guidelines and the deletion process, and the material in relation to your conflict of interest is transparently untrue.
I will shortly replace the tags and would ask you (as other editors have done previously) not to remove them again. Axad12 (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The explanations provided are simply not credible and I have therefore blocked the account. SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I am late to the party here as I did not see the COIN thread until after reviewing the bit.bio deletion discussion. I heavily trimmed Meatable and unless WP:NPROF can be shown, I do not believe Kotter would be notable. AfD will figure that out though. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disclosing stock investment?

This is a general question, not about a specific user or article. WP:PE mentions "being an … investor" as an example of a financial COI. Does this mean that people who own small stakes (well under 1%) of publicly traded companies need to disclose their holdings on their talk page? I haven’t seen this discussed on this noticeboard before, and I tend to avoid writing about companies in which I own any stock, but I am not sure if small stock holdings are considered a COI. White 720 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Fuzzy line. I think even a 0.1% stake in a publicly traded company would be enough to keep most of us awake at night worrying about fluctuations in the share price, unless it's also less than 0.1% of your personal assets. Would your assertion that your small holding was not a COI pass the MANDY test? Safer to use the WP:ERW to keep the article's integrity intact, and your own integrity too. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Noted, thanks for your response. For certain megacap companies, a 0.1% stake would be worth over $1 billion; a more realistic stake for an individual investor would be closer to 0.000001%. White 720 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I seem to remember Dennis Brown encountered this a while back. No idea what, if any, result emerged. SerialNumber54129 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
There was some split in the community on this, and there is no clear consensus, although one or two admin will go rogue and try to block anyone they can in these cases. I personally am not going to divulge my stock holdings, regardless of size, out of principle. My edits can be examined by anyone and are clearly not for financial gain, so it isn't anyone's business. Common sense says that if you own a substantial amount of a stock (my personal opinion means it is ~10% of your net worth, or you get ~10% of your income from it) then there is a clear COI, and should act as you would with any COI. It isn't about the dollar amount, the COI is about the influence it might have on your editing. If you do edit solely to benefit yourself, expect to get blocked; it doesn't matter how much you own. We can't verify your holdings, we can only judge your edits and most people have enough common sense to know a COI when they see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what the other commenters seem to be saying here, that the percentage of someone's portfolio or net-worth is more important that the percentage of the company. If you knowingly own a single share Berkshire Hathaway, but your whole ability to retire depends on its success or failure, I think it is going to impact your editing a lot more than if you owned 25% of Microsoft but that were only tiny fraction 0.1% of your total investments (although if you're so wealthy that you own that much of a major company, and it's only a tiny percentage of your portfolio, there's probably an article about yourself that you need to avoid the temptation to edit). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you and the other editors on this, what matters is percent of your own portfolio not the percent of the company you own with the exception of the truly stupendously wealthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Snowleopardman

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but User:Snowleopardman/sandbox seems suspect given the subject's nickname and the user's name. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: It is too soon to raise this here. At the top of this page, the instructions say: "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." This editor has two total edits, and no discussion about their problematic sandbox content was ever started, beyond the automated speedy deletion notices. I left a {{uw-coi}} notice for them, and that might be enough to get them to stop posting self-promotional content. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Artists Repertory Theatre

This article is essentially being controlled by the organization. There are numerous WP:SPA single purpose accounts being used, but it's quite obvious that the organization itself is literally curating the article. Needs to be pared down, possibly re-done from scratch so that it's not written around the way the organization wants to present it. Graywalls (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, I think you should mention some active editors who you believe have a COI with this article. I’ve checked the history and most of the accounts accused of COI are stale. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
There aren't any active ones. Read through the edit history. They use a fresh burner account with each series of edits. Look in the talk page tag. I think those only represents some of them. It's obvious, because they make no other edits. Graywalls (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, I believe the article should be semi-protected for at least a year. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
@Saqib:, also see TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley). I see it. Do you see the pattern too in the edit history? PR editing is glaringly obvious. Graywalls (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
It looks to me as though there is potentially a great deal of WP:COPYVIO in the Artists Repertory Theatre article from material on their own website (specifically the 'Organisation History' section, here [18]). That ought to allow a large amount of material to be stripped out immediately. Axad12 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Further examination indicates that a large proportion of the text has been lifted directly from the sources indicated in the text. Typically a sentence ends with a reference from where that sentence has been lifted. I'm happy to go through the whole article later today, compare it to the sources and strip out all the copyvio, but isn't there an easier way to do this (e.g. with Earwig?). Axad12 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I've now removed all WP:COPYVIO material from the article, but I am having trouble applying the copyvio template to request revdel. Could somebody more familiar with that template/process do the honours? Axad12 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Revdel now requested at WP:CP. Axad12 (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Axad12, Thank you for your efforts on this. Why don't you install this script? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Simple answer: because I'm borderline computer illiterate and I don't understand it. To be honest, I find that looking into COI issues quite effectively only really requires time, persistence and Google (and I can get by without scripts - whatever they are).
There are some things that I find impossible to do here, like setting up SPIs, but usually if I ask nicely someone else will do that if they are convinced by the evidence I've located.
Apologies if that all sounds a bit Luddite. Everything I've learned here was picked up by looking into how someone else had done the same thing and then copying it (that was how I did the WP:CP referral a few hours ago). I get by okay with that, but if I have any strengths (opinions seem to differ on that point) they lie elsewhere. Axad12 (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Don't rely just on Google. Do a "second opinion" with DuckDuckGo, Bing and others as you often uncover additional information not found in Google. Graywalls (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Definition of self-published sources

Please see:

These discussions could have wide-ranging implications not just for non-profit advocacy groups, but also for political and corporate websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

None of these discussions has any implications for the use of sources: corporate websites are bad sources, just not for the confused reasons you propose. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Actually, corporate websites are excellent sources for some statements because Wikipedia:Primary does not mean bad. If you need to include a statement along the lines of "The company said _____", then the corporate website is a good option for supporting that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
But, it should be used sparingly. Article should not be a place to voice what the company said. A company announcing it has reached net zero carbon footprint status citing the company, or Churnalism source is undue. Graywalls (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
In principle, articles should be mostly WP:Based upon sources that are independent, and sources that are secondary (and ideally sources that unite both qualities and are also high-quality in other respects). That would still leave room for an occasional brief mention of things that seem relevant. For example, if the company is known for an eco-friendly marketing strategy, then adding a sentence saying that "they reported Net-zero emissions in 2022" might not be unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
If it's not discussed by secondary source that is NOT churnalism, I strongly disagree. The article isn't a place to parrot self aggrandizing contents issued by the company PR. As an acceptable use of primary source, if a reliable source announces company intends to close sometime in 2022, then there's a statement on the company's official page that they closed in January 2023, we can use it to cite the closure. For anything that's remotely boastful to the slightest degree, no way. Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm never sure whether you actually mean secondary source when you say things like that. IMO if you have a notable business and you have an independent source saying something like:
  • "The company's detailed plans for environmental stewardship are extensive. The company is embarking on a project that will save the whales, restore the wetlands, and reduce their carbon emissions. All of this ethos is reflected in their plastic-free packaging. Their environmental credibility is the most important factor in their company's marketing strategy. A public commitment to environmentalism has been good for profitability, but an oft-overlooked advantage is reduced risk of liability for ground contamination..."
and a few years later, the company issues a press release (or posts on their website) that they reduced their carbon emissions down to zero, then I've got no problem with the article mentioning their claim. The sources directed our attention to their environmentalism; the net-zero thing is merely an example of what the sources focused on. Simple examples are a good use of WP:PRIMARY sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Personally I’d say that company websites are an acceptable source for certain basic info such as company location, names of CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe some basic historical details such as date founded.
Beyond that, no, because there is little meaningful difference between (a) how a company presents itself on its own website, and (b) a press release.
I don’t see any merit in the idea that if a company slightly rewords a press release and places it on its own website then somehow it becomes an independent WP:RS compliant source.
Also, the idea that content may become so because it was drafted by one member of staff and placed online by another is fanciful. In many companies the individuals who decide on website content are the same as those who draft press releases. Even if that were not the case, both individuals would have an identical paid conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
the idea that if a company slightly rewords a press release and places it on its own website then somehow it becomes an independent WP:RS compliant source. Zero people in any of the discussions taking place have suggested this. (That's why I object to the misleading framing by WAID in their first post in this thread.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Quite so, I agree with you 100%. Axad12 (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Axad, putting their content on their website wouldn't make it independent. Nobody has suggested that. The question is whether it would make it stop being self-published.
There are three qualities that need to be kept completely separated here:
  • Is the source independent?
  • Is the source primary?
  • Is the source self-published?
A press release saying that Bob's Business sold a million widgets last year is non-independent, primary, and self-published.
The same statement, made by the same people, but posted to their website, is IMO still non-independent, primary, and self-published. But a few editors at WT:V are arguing that the content of the website is non-self-published, at least for larger organizations, because probably 2+ different humans were involved in writing and posting it. According to these editors, putting that information on the corporate website makes it non-independent, primary, and non-self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
In that case I agree with you too.
I stand by my earlier comments that (a) the input of more than one individual with the same paid (or unpaid) conflict of interest does not resolve concerns about whether a source is self-published, and (b) it does not seem reasonable to assume the involvement of more than 1 individual.
Others may have a different view but I very much doubt if it would carry much weight at, say, COI edit requests (especially not the COI edit requests that I respond to, where any such argument would be firmly rejected). Axad12 (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I think that this: the input of more than one individual with the same paid (or unpaid) conflict of interest does not resolve concerns about whether a source is self-published is a nice way of putting it. For example, Girl Genius is a webcomic written, illustrated, and published by a husband and wife. It's two humans, and they have also hired various colorists to help out (and a few of their things have been published in the traditional fashion), but the mere fact that there is more than one human involved doesn't mean that they aren't doing it themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_214&oldid=1258191702"