Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 161

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waakye

the COI section has been removed ☆ Bri (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2020 (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.

There appears to be some COI editing going on on that page related to the Waakye in a jar. I cleaned it up a bit, but I have neither the time nor inclination to keep track of it. Particularly this IP edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waakye&type=revision&diff=965780441&oldid=964313926 comes across as marketing to me. 77.172.168.139 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the COI section has been removed. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2020 (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.

Fecal incontinence

Blocked by Orangemike ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2020 (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.

Company promoting its products. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright© 2020 Personally Delivered. All rights reserved. ?! ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2020 (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:Tom at Starshipit

Disclosure completed per Marchjuly ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2020 (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.

Is a user named considered an acceptable declaration for COI/Paid editing? The account originally was named User:Starshipit, but was subsequently changed to User:Tom at Starshipit; no other declaration/clarification of COI or PAID editing was made (I did add a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} to the article's talk page). The account is an WP:SPA, but isn't really active (only 5 edits). Its last edit was to add a logo to the article's infobox (which seems fine), but it also removed a prod tag and notability tag from the article (which may be a bit suspect). Since pretty much anyone can de-prod an article (even in bad faith), I only restored the notability tag and then added one of UPE. I don't think this is a case of a bad faith editor trying to "use" Wikipedia for blatant promotion of their company, but I'm not sure if the change in username is sufficient to meet WP:PAID. If it is, then any issues with the article can most likely be handled pretty much as such issues would be for any other article without any COI/PAID concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question has responded to a message I left on their user talk page about this and has added a {{Paid}} template to their user page and has also changed their username once again; so, this seems resolved and the thread can be archived unless someone wants to add something more to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2020 (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:Proseso/sandbox

Page deleted and user blocked, by Materialscientist Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2020 (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.

Lots of problems happening here. Mainly COI self-promotion, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTPROMO. The user lists his real name at the top of the page, and he is the founder of the company.

I don't know whether it should be tagged WP:U5 right away, or the user be given a talking to first. Also, the username is promotional. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2020 (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.

Draft:David H. Baker (animal nutritionist)

Rndilger recently created Draft:David H. Baker which was speedily deleted as WP:G11 and as a copyright violation. I left them a message about their COI and they responded correctly by declaring their connection on their user page. Since then, they have been in touch with me on my talk page to ask for advice. So far so good. But it is clear that they are here to create a memorial 'to honor his deceased mentor'. I have told them that this is not appropriate, but they are insistent. I would be grateful if you could advise the editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: I left him a message. He is far far to close the person and its beyond COI really. I'll move the article along out of draft. The subject is in the National Academy of Sciences, so no problem with the notable. See how editor takes, but he needs to withdraw. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ancestris, User:Yannig35-38

User edits for Ancestris, evidently on its AFD. HiwilmsTalk 11:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, although they have disclosed in the AfD, the disclosure hasn't been made in the required format. But I'm not sure how much this matters since it looks like the article will be deleted anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dr Basil Hunnisett

Harpysett has written a draft and was struggling to find in depth coverage elsewhere and good reliable sources. Some of the references they provided after my first review were uploaded scans of documents that only someone close to the subject would have, so I left them a message asking them to declare any conflict of interest. They have now disclosed that the subject of the article is their father. They have made a persuasive argument on my talk page that the father's work is widely cited and I will assess that, but please could you advise them on the COI aspect. My gut feel is that this editor is too close to the subject based on their determination that there should be a Wikipedia article about them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: are you more concerned about COI or notability? I have the article a little trim, and in doing so he does seem to be a widely cited authority (or at least his boook or books are widely cited). COI-wise, I would think the standard process of letting them edit the draft but requiring requesteedit after it is published would apply. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: On the notability front, in my initial assessment I thought the subject was not notable as there is very little in depth independent coverage about him. However Harpysett has put forward new evidence that they are widely cited even if Google Scholar doesn't show it (as we know, Google Scholar doesn't evenly cover all specialisms). So I will re-assess that at AfC. My concern is about COI and whether they are too close to the article to be able to be objective, and the level of original research that the draft currently relies upon. Compare with the COIN report about Draft:David H. Baker directly above this one. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes I agree they are a bit close to be neutral. But I have not seen anyone stopped from editing in AFC due to COI. They should be declaring it on their user talk page though. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Stony Brook University

The name rings alarms, but is not forbidden. The account, however, seems to only care about SBU. Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Orangemike: this edit makes the user sound like a paid employee: "We've tried to reach out numerous times on the old logo used for this page, but haven't heard from any editors on if it can be swapped out to the one that's being used now. There have been two separate updates to the logo since that one, so this hasn't reflected updates to the imagery. This page explains the new logo. https://www.stonybrook.edu/brand/design-visual-identity/logos-2/" ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The strength of the evidence that this editor is employed by this subject and violating WP:PAID makes me believe that he or she should be blocked until he or she directly and clearly addresses these concerns on his or her Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Which block template would you recommend? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the block templates to make a recommendation. If there isn't already a "there's strong evidence that you're violating WP:PAID but you are refusing to address the issue" template then it might need to be created. ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Orangemike: how about that fancy new pblock on the Stony Brook University page? The only problem seems to be them editing SBU pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Did you notice they refer to "our legal team" here? -- Bri.public (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: good catch. They also extensively edited the page for an SBU president here and in other edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Orangemike: Sorry. A bit late to the party, but noticed this thread. {{Uw-upeblock}} tends to be the template of choice for unpaid editing blocks, if you come across a similar situation again. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Karlie Kloss

User:Hipal keeps editing the page to make it positive and they keep removing any significant historical and noteworthy moments of her career that paint her in a negative light.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jaydoggmarco why is this a conflict of interest? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Jaydoggmarco, you added material based on crappy sources. You have a bit of a history of that. Maybe don't? Guy (help!) 10:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jaydoggmarco: Can you please withdraw your completely baseless accusations, stop edit-warring, and revert your addition of the poorly sourced trivia to the BLP article, and work to create consensus? Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated on the article. Discussion at Talk:Karlie_Kloss#Political_views. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't me who added the sources it was another user, Hipal keeps shifting the goalposts and no matter how good sources were Hipal would not allow the user to add the material. It comes across to me that Hipal had already made up his mind and is not going to let information about her political views get added to the article no matter how well sourced it is. And how do i have a history of "adding based on crappy sources". Hipal only contributions seem to be reversions and edit warring Jaydoggmarco (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
So you're not even going to attempt to support your accusations of a conflict of interest? Read WP:BOOMERANG. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I already have, I've stated that no matter what sources are provided and even if they meet RS you seem determined to not let information about her political views in the article, The link to the talk page i feel is enough evidence.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
There's no evidence at all. Nothing. Unfortunately, all you've done is attack me in an attempt to resolve a content dispute. Please rethink your approach. Such behavior could result in a block or ban. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Timothy Ballard

The user "operationundergroundrailroad" made edits to the page of Timothy Ballard, who is CEO of Operation Underground Railroad. Appears to be COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fubeka (talk • contribs)

I've reported the username Operationundergroundrailroad as it appears to be the same name as Ballard's organization Operation Underground Railroad.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This editor user:Mporenta added a whole bunch of promotional links without declaring. scope_creepTalk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ly Kimlong

The user was blocked because of shared promotional name. The user changed the username but did not disclose the WP:COI as explained by unblocking admin RickinBaltimore. The Ly Kimlong fails notability and thus was listed at WP:AFD. The user tried to remove the notices with un-acceptable explanations in edit summary. See here. Also, same message was posted in User talk:Hout Ly. See this ~ Amkgp 💬 09:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's actually paid editing. Hello, I’m the President of the Cambodia Chess Federation. The Cambodia Sports Ministry wants me to write 2 articles. One is for the CCF and one for our champion Ly Kimlong. And I suppose it's actually undisclosed paid editing, since they haven't disclosed this in the way required by the TOU. I'm not gonna spam their talk with even more messages (they have 3 about this incident from you). Let's just see if they respond to the COI message (which contains the paid part anyway). If they continue editing without proper disclosure it'll be up to the admins. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
And that's not to forget that they were told to disclose and use AfC as an unblock condition, they did use AfC, it got rejected, so they just created it in mainspace themselves. Pinging the admin who issued the original block (RickinBaltimore). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader In response to WP:COI notice, the editor has posted the following response on his/her talk page First of all, I’m just trying to write articles about cambodian sportspersons. I’m starting with this chess prodigy then I will move on to other people. I’m not trying to write an article for my colleagues or friends. The Cambodia Chess Federation as well as the Ministry of education, youth and sports are trying to list our national champions on Wikipedia and try our best to get ready for sea games 2023 which is host by Cambodia. Writing articles for our strong national sportsperson will make other countries know that Cambodia has good talents! Hout Ly (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC). Links here. The statements are not convincing. An admin and others should look on this ~ Amkgp 💬 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, again the editor has emphasized that Feel free to contact the ministry of education, youth and sport of cambodia. They want me to write articles about all famous cambodia national champion. I’m starting with this chess prodigy then I will move on to the old champions Hout Ly (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (reply). See diff
It suggests the editor is unwilling to comply with Wikipedia rules and regulations! ~ Amkgp 💬 11:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Since they're not really hiding anything, I think they're just misunderstanding how to properly disclose and follow the COI policies. Perhaps a friendly non-automated message pointing out the areas they're not getting would help. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I left another note on their page regarding what they need to do to edit with their admitted COI. Hopefully the get the message here, and follow what I asked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No this account is not a shared account. This is my personal account. https://www.chess.com/member/namtarn
https://www.facebook.com/108090605896115/posts/3298261826878961/?d=n
https://english.cambodiadaily.com › ...Search on for Cambodian Chess Champions - The Cambodia Daily
These are a few links I found in about 15 minutes. Ly Kimlong himself will join this thread later today Hout Ly (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
Hi I’m Ly Kimlong. I didn’t know about this until mr. hout told me yesterday. I personally don’t know much about wikipedia. I believe it’s Wikipedia rights to delete this page. Thank you for writing about me in the first page. I have submitted my own version of the page but got rejected too because lack of references. The problem is that we in cambodia dont use fide rating we have national ratings. All the tournaments here are national rated not fide rated and for articles there are a few on facebook posted by independent accounts not so much attention on chess in cambodia. This is why I think mr hout ly created this page. To get foreign attention and ready for sea games which will be my first sea games representing cambodia sea games 2021 in vietnam. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ly Kimlong (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
Please Dont ban mr hout. I believe he is just doing the work the government told him to do. I take all responsibility for all of this action. Thank you wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ly Kimlong (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)

Here are the final diff of the conversation.

@RickinBaltimore, ThatMontrealIP, ProcrastinatingReader, and Pawnkingthree: I think the above are enough. They are violating rules purposefully. Please visit User talk:Hout Ly to know the full incident. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy @331dot: for any additional input as he/she regularly interacts such cases at AfC Help desk ~ Amkgp 💬 09:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see what has changed since RickinBaltimore's message on their talk, they've made no mainspace contributions and agreed to have a paid editing notice placed (they agreed to someone else's offer to do it, as it appears they can't figure it out and/or haven't read WP:PAID). We're already aware he's a paid editor, he just appears to confirm that further in this message. The message by Ly Kimlong is on a separate account, so it's not a shared account violation.
This is messy, and I have a feeling at this stage that the articles being created will be unable to show notability and won't ever reach mainspace, but if they're willing to follow the AfC process responsibly I'm still not sure further administrative action is needed at this stage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur with ProcrastinatingReader; if they have declared and are using AFC, that's what we want and is allowed. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
331dot But then statements like The Cambodia Sports Ministry wants me to write 2 articles and he is just doing the work the government told him to do is a clear violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID. Isn't it ~ Amkgp 💬 10:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
They've declared, that fulfills their WP:PAID obligations; as long as they only submit drafts for review and avoid directly editing about the people they are writing about, they are fine as far as policy is concerned. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm perfectly OK with this as well. If they are doing what they are supposed to do, no need to do anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

Although this editor has only made two edits, they are both to this article and immediately follow identical edits made by another editor who self-identified as an employee of the subject (you have to look at the history of the article to see this; the exact edit was deleted as a copyright violation so I cannot link to it). I asked Amorcos on their User Talk page if they are connected to the institution and they have responded to me via e-mail in the affirmative. I won't say more to avoid violating WP:OUTING but this editor's connection is a clear COI and their editing of this article without a disclosure of their relationship would be a violation of WP:PAID. Moreover, in their e-mail messages - they continue to send me e-mail despite me explicitly requesting that they respond here in Wikipedia - they are also demanding that I cease editing this page because I am not "authorized" to do so by the institution. I think it might be helpful if someone else can open a discussion with this editor; they do not seem to understand what I am saying or welcome me saying it. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the duck test here is sufficient to show those two editors are connected, especially given they both introduce copyvios from similar URLs in a short period of time, on this otherwise dormant article. Offhanded note, to paraphrase DGG, it always seems to be the more 'noble' organisations (schools, churches, hospitals, etc) with more iffy COI violations than typical corporate orgs like startups. Anyhoo, left a template on their talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I have done some searching and I am satisfied that Alpopovici and Amorcos are two separate individuals working for the organization. The IP editor I listed, based on its history and behaviour, is one or both of the named editors editing while logged out. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

User:The Little Platoon

Dear Admins or other arbitrators. I'm here to ask for guidance. I am working in the Australian Parliament. And I am contributing to articles about various MPs, some from the progressive side, some from the conservative side. I am moved around a lot. Sometimes I write about the MP I may be working for, sometimes I write about MPs I know from around the place. I don't take instruction on what to write, no one approves what I write. As per my user page, I have disclosed the above, but I feel I can't disclose who I may be working for at any one time. It will stop me from writing freely.

Recently I decided to be brave and do a major re-edit of an article on a highly controversial MP, Angus Taylor. There have been all kinds of edit wars on this article, and some of it has got really nasty. But it was such a mess and I really wanted to fix it up. So, I jumped on Talk:Angus Taylor (politician) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) disclosed that I have an interest, but that I wasn't going to disclose who I work for in any given week, because that would ruin my anonymity and it would inevitably lead to a situation where some MP started telling me to change things. And I'm not okay with that. I want to write the truth. I get good sources. I keep it balanced.

If you see the talk page, I notified everyone who seemed to be interested, got some encouragement, and I proceeded with the project. Once I was done a few weeks later, I, of course, received a bunch of suggestions and corrections, all of which were very reasonable, and they have all gone through.

One of those editors @Damien Linnane: has been particularly helpful, pointing out where I was in danger of committing coat-racking (which wasn't something I fully understood until today) and a couple of other best practice things. Our interactions have been very respectful and productive.

But there's one matter where we may now be stuck. It's been suggested that today, with my employment situation, I may have an unacceptable COI. I thought a lot about that value when I started editing, and I set out on my user page what my situation is. I disclosed this when I began the edit and only received positive encouragement. But maybe it's not okay. I feel that I've disclosed as much as I can without messing up my actual role. I would probably have to leave off the project if it is unacceptable. Can I get a perspective on this?

I hope I have done this the right way. I am very new at all the conventions and so on. Thank you for looking at the material and for thinking this all through.

The Little Platoon (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Just responding to being pinged here. I'm impressed by The Little Platoon's professional response by bringing this discussion here. Something that made me initially suspicious was the fact someone has previously openly admitted to being a paid employee of the Australian parliament editing the article in question on the instruction of the article's subject. Additionally one of the subject's family members had a similar COI and even made legal threats: see here, and also see the COI tags at the top of the article's talk page. If there wasn't so much history with COI at this article it probably wouldn't have been an issue. I'm now, however, inclined to believe that The Little Platoon's desire to edit the article in a neutral manner is genuine, and that previous edits that were undoubtedly biased may have been unintentionally so. That being said this appears to be a rather unique situation so I think bringing the discussion here was the right choice. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Damien Linnane! Yes, looking at the history of that article, I can see there has been a lot of contention. I'm really glad to see the quality of all the editor interaction has seriously lifted. The Little Platoon (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The Little Platoon, thanks for disclosing and coming to COIN. I have a questions regarding your employment situation. You're not required to answer any, but any you can answer would help. Who exactly employs you? eg Is it a firm, that is contracted by the Australian Parliament or by MPs individually? Or do you work for the Parliament directly? Or are you self-employed/a freelancer who contracts for individual MPs? What's your job title (eg is writing your full time job)? Who decides which MP you're writing about at any given time, is it the MP/you, or some kind of central writing department? Do the MPs know that you (individually) wrote on their articles? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader:If I answered those questions everyone would figure out who I was in the Parliament! And people would start asking me to change things or to say certain things. Right now, no one gives me instruction and no one approves what I do. Look, maybe I've been a bit naive and maybe this isn't going to work. I think I've set my boundary as thoughtfully as I can. I've declared that I as a contributor to wp I have a connection. I could go further — like the remarkable @Damian Linnane: and identify myself completely — but then I just wouldn't be able to write about the subjects because they would want to exert an influence on the articles. My hope is that I keep declaring that there is a connection, to maintain my anonymity, and, more importantly, to stick to what's important - balanced views, good sources. If that's just not good enough, then I will accept that, as much as I enjoy editing, and am passionate about this subject area, this just isn't going to work. I will accept your judgement.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't possibly know your working situation, so if those questions would reveal your identity then you're free not to answer them (which is why I did begin with a disclaimer that you don't have to answer any). Per the WMF Terms of Use, As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. It's hard to judge whether you're in compliance without those answers. If revealing your employer, clients and affiliations automatically outs your identity, or even just your employer, then I'm personally not sure what to suggest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The Little Platoon, so this is quite the interesting situation. First, I'd like to thank you for being so forthcoming on this and asking for advice. My opinion on this is that since you are not taking instruction on what to write and do not seem to be doing this as part of your job, this is not a paid editing situation. However, you are still very, very close to what you're writing about. I think that as long as you continue to suggest edits on the talk page and declare your relationship (just declaring "I'm a staffer in the Australian Parliament" should be enough). And by all means, if you have concerns about whether you are acting in compliance with the rules, feel free to ask here (or post on my talk page). GeneralNotability (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader:@GeneralNotability: Okay! I was half expecting the coup de grace by coming here, and I felt just a bit sad that I would no longer be contributing. But I'm hearing you say proceed with caution - and with continuing disclosure. My particular thanks to @Damien Linnane: for prodding me along - the article in question is so much better for his interaction, and I feel better for having come to COIN.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @The Little Platoon: you are very honest to be disclosing your COI here. But I have to say, and this is not really a COI comment, You put yourself at the mercy of the press and the public in doing so, as this is a public discussion. This comment is not at all related to Wikipedia policy, but if I were you I would log out and never log in again while employed by the parliament. If someone in the press figures out who you are by deduction, I can't imagine that will be good for your personal situation (example 1, 2, 3, 4,5). Just my 2 cents of advice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

O'Donovan family

There's a bad case of WP:OWN here; IrishDonovan has claimed some sort of official title in the clan, and DEMANDED that nobody but an O'Donovan or their designee be permitted to edit the article. The IP starting with 2601 has recently added death threats to their edit summaries. (Yes, death threats.) Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Death threats???? I haven't given any death threats??? Were is that Orange Mike?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDonovan (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Orangemike may not-unreasonably have guessed that this IP is yourself? Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

quantum radar

It would be helpful to have external input and advice on the wikipedia article quantum radar. This article has been the basis for immense controversy within the US government about the existence of a technology known as quantum radar. Earlier versions of the article indicated that this technology already exists and could be used to detect stealth bombers. It has alarmed the military and intelligence communities because one of the first articles found when performing a google search of "quantum radar" is quantum radar. I have now played a role in reducing these claims, but it seems important to label the technology as "speculative" because it does not currently exist in any usable form. It is also important to reflect a wider body of research work on the topic, other than those of the researcher Stefano Pirandola. There is a user Spirandola who has outed himself on the page as the researcher Stefano Pirandola employed by Univ. York and who has a contract with the European Commission to perform theoretical and experimental work on this speculative technology [[1]] as indicated in [[2]]. My impression is that he qualifies as a paid editor on this topic, due to his financial interest mentioned above (thus an interest in promoting quantum radar as an actual technology). I'm trying to sort out the issues on the talk page but the conversation is failing to go in a positive direction. I am seeking the advice of senior Wiki editors who are in a position to help sort out this problem. The main thing is to stick to WP:NPOV. Mwilde (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mwilde: I have notified Spirandola as required (see the top of this page. I also added you to the list of editors above as it seems you are both accusing each other of having a COI. I have to say the discussion between the two of you at Talk:Quantum radar is incredibly hard to follow as both if you fail to indent your conversation, make huge long posts and several posts are unsigned. It's hard to see where one item begins and the reply follows. Would you care to sum things up in a few short sentences? If Spirandola can also say what is up here in a few short sentences that will also help. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, the discussion on the talk page seems to be about your respective expertise and opinions on the topic. Are you both aware that one does not need to be an expert to edit Wikipedia, since we rely only on independent published sources? The fact that you are experts helps some, but isn't necessary. It's the sources that count.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your reply. My main concern is presenting the technology of quantum radar correctly as a speculative technology, as well as presenting other contributions to this research besides those of Stefano Pirandola. We have been successful in editing many aspects of the page (compared to yesterday) but there are still these outstanding issues. I think that others who do not have a COI need to be brought in (and who could not be considered paid editors) and examine the page to be sure that it sticks to WP:NPOV and does not mislead the general public on this important issue. I will go ahead and indent my posts to make them easier to read. Mwilde (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I fixed the talk page indenting, and the indent on your post above. Do you consider yourself to have any COI on quantum radar? This sounds like a content dispute, with the added item that one or more of you may have a COI to deal with. We only deal with COI on this page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help. I do not take COIs lightly. I have written an important research paper on this topic in the past (published in Physical Review Letters) but I have not pushed for it to be included on the quantum radar page. So I am not sure if I have a COI but would prefer to err on the side of caution given that Spirandola accused me of having one. I am glad to see that a senior wikipedia editor has arrived to the page and has started making some edits to help resolve the COI issue. Thanks for your help. Mwilde (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: I have been trying to improve the page by removing the hype, and explaining the current limitations and challenges. However, in doing so, I have been accused of being a paid editor by user Mwilde, which I find rather surprising. Contrary to what claim by Mwilde, I am not promoting quantum radar as an actual technology. I was in fact using the terminology "debated" because I wanted to stress different points of views on the topic. There are researchers that do not think this is speculative. Indeed there are preliminary experimental implementations that are undergoing a great debate in the community. However, it seems that this debate should be hidden and the word "speculative" imposed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirandola (talk • contribs)
@ThatMontrealIP: I have been trying to improve the page by removing the hype, and explaining the current limitations and challenges. However, in doing so, I have been accused of being a paid editor by user Mwilde, which I find rather surprising. Contrary to what claim by Mwilde, I am not promoting quantum radar as an actual existing technology. Work is in progress in this area, as in many other fields of quantum information and computation (that we do not call "speculative"). In the page, I was in fact using the terminology "debated" because I wanted to stress different points of views on the topic. There are researchers that do not think this is speculative. Indeed there are preliminary experimental implementations that are undergoing a great debate in the community. However, it seems that this debate should be hidden and the word "speculative" imposed (so that only one side is wrongly expressed in the page). Another point is that user Mwilde does not like the presence of papers published by me and my collaborators in the page. I believe that most of those references were added when the page was created (I think these are likely to be considered as the the foundational papers). I have added a couple of references in the last 24 hours, one experimental from a Canadian group and a review of mine, Seth Lloyd and others which discusses the challenges and limitations of quantum radar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirandola (talk • contribs)
@Spirandola and Mwilde: Ok, both of you need to disclose any conflict of interest here. The content of the article and its neutrality are different issues form COI. Regarding COI, it might be a paid editing conflict, for example, to be taking research money and then adding that research to the article without disclosing it. Similarly if you are adding material that quotes your own work, that could be seen as a self-promotion COI. Experts are welcome here, but see WP:SELFCITE. So, ignoring the content dispute, do either of you think you have a COI? If so please disclose that clearly below. I have the sense that you are both well-intentioned, but one or both of you need to disclose whether you have any COI, in order to clear up the COI claim. After that you can go to the NPOV noticeboard if necessary. You can declare any possible COI below, skipping the article content issues as we do not deal with that here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your help with this. I don't think that I have a COI on this article. The grant of mine that User:Spirandola mentioned is expired now and its topic had nothing to do with quantum radar. The paper [[3]] that I wrote about quantum illumination is related to quantum radar, but I have not promoted it in any way on the page. Mwilde (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mwilde: Thanks. Ok then, Spirandola I know you have mentioned some COI on the talk page, but could you describe whether you think you have a COI on this subject? Are you completely neutral here?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: The paper of mine that I have added is a 2018 paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.01969.pdf published in Nature Photonics, well before the grant that Mwilde is mentioning and exploiting as a basis for making his accusations against me. That 2018 paper acknowledges completely different fundings, not related with quantum sensing and quantum radar. In fact, the paper acknowledges "...support from the EPSRC via the ‘UK Quantum Communications Hub’ (EP/M013472/1)" which was a grant on quantum cryptography expired a year ago. That being said, removing that paper would go exactly in the opposite direction of what we all would like to achieve here, i.e., the reduction of the hype. That paper covers the topic of quantum radar and, before of any other, discussed the limitations and experimental problems behind this technology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirandola (talk • contribs)
Alright then, to sum up, neither of you seem to have direct COI, although Spirandola has added a paper of their own authorship, which could be seen as promotion. It sounds like you two need to get it together on the talk page to discuss whether that paper is admissible, and engage some extreme WP:CIVILITY. Other than that this does not sound like much of a COI issue. Thanks for explaining yourselves. Take it to NPOV or some other noticeboard if you cannot work out the content dispute. And Spirandola for the umpteenth time, start signing your posts properly per WP:SIGN. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Thx for your help. I would appreciate if all the accusations of "paid editor" of Mwilde are removed by the talk page of quantum radar. I find these offensive, besides being incorrect. Also I would kindly request that he removes the claims that I would be promoting a speculative technology for financial reasons, which is clearly false and offensive. On the contrary, collaborators and I are currently exploring the limits of these research ideas both theoretically and experimentally. Research is just ongoing and needs clarifications, as is the case for all the other quantum techs.Spirandola (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Spirandola and Mwilde: Removing claims of paid editing isn't something we do here on this page, but if Mwilde agrees they could remove the entries on the talk page by striking through the claims using WP:STRIKE. Doing that kind of thing sometimes has the effect of showing good faith and reducing conflict.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks again for your help in resolving this issue. The issue remains that User:Spirandola is currently simultaneously funded by the grant [[4]] as indicated in [[5]] while making edits to a page related to the topic of the grant. As you indicated above, "Regarding COI, it might be a paid editing conflict, for example, to be taking research money and then adding that research to the article without disclosing it." It is not clear to me that this issue has been resolved simply if User:Spirandola declares that he does not have a paid editor COI.
@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for all of your help in addressing the COI concern. Spirandola has now removed all references to his work on the quantum radar page and so I consider the COI issue to be resolved. I apologize for taking all of your time with this and thank you again for your help. I think this has helped with the integrity of the quantum radar page.
off-topic SPI discussion
There is a further issue. There is a user User:QuantumTHEO whose main edits to Wikipedia during the past five years (as found at Special:Contributions/QuantumTHEO) have been to promote the work of Stefano Pirandola and to add detailed expert knowledge to Wikipedia articles on the papers published by the same person. Especially on the quantum radar page, a major edit [[6]] was made to the page before the paper "Microwave Quantum Illumination" was published in the journal. It is not clear how anyone but Pirandola or someone on his team would have such detailed knowledge of the publication process for this paper. Thus, there is a possibility of a strong connection between the researcher Stefano Pirandola and the Wikipedia user QuantumTHEO, and it is not clear to me that we have a full picture of COIs for the quantum radar page. Looking further into the history of edits on the page quantum radar, some of the other main contributions of QuantumTHEO were to add other references to the works of Stefano Pirandola and ones which have been funded by the grant mentioned above. So I am still concerned about a paid editor COI on this page. Mwilde (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mwilde: If you think someone is operating multiple accounts, then take it to WP:SPI where admins and checkusers will investigate. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Looking at the contributions added by User:QuantumTHEO. These have been the following: [7], [8], Quantum Radar, [9]. None of these is related to the grant mentioned by Mwilde. These are old references/links from 2015, not related to a grant started in 2019.Spirandola (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mwilde: I noticed that account: the complete rewrite of the stub quantum radar in 2015, comments on your articles in quantum illumination, an unsuccessful attempt to create a BLP, blanked today, etc. Perhaps an SPI report might be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP and Mathsci: Thanks for your advice. Indeed, I suspect that there is an unfortunate case of sockpuppetry here. I should add that there is an additional user User:Hub2307 whose sole contributions to Wikipedia over the past two years, listed at Special:Contributions/Hub2307, have been to add references and attempts at BLPs for Stefano Pirandola. It does seem necessary to begin a WP:SPI. Thanks for the heads-up. Mwilde (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP and Mathsci: Thx for helping with this issue. As you know sockpuppetry takes various forms. One form that seems to be used by user Mwilde is logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. This is against the policies of Wikipedia and should lead to ban the user. From the relevant page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry) we read that: "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sockpuppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse."

I invite you to check some of the anonymous contributions made by Mwilde either to covertly promote his book "Quantum Information Theory" on Wikipedia or to delete papers of mine from Wikipedia pages (besides the sockpuppetry there is a form of stalking going on from this user)


1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:A20:19E0:4462:29EB:C7C2:7943

From this address Mwilde:

- covertly added his group at Lousiana state university to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_information&diff=prev&oldid=818528557

- deleted my name from the Quantum Illumination page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_illumination&diff=prev&oldid=818528271

- deleted a paper of mine from the Quantum discord page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_discord&diff=prev&oldid=818526596

- deleted another paper of mine from the Quantum Illumination page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_illumination&diff=prev&oldid=818526139

- Moved his book "Quantum Information Theory" to the top of the references https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_information&diff=prev&oldid=818525947


2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.58.44.156

From this other IP address Mwilde:

- removed again a paper from the Quantum Illumination page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_illumination&diff=prev&oldid=836436737

- Made other edits around my name in the other two contributions

This IP 104.58.44.156 is from Baton Rouge, Lousiana where he usually lives and works.


3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.129.147.195

From this other IP address Mwilde: - Again moved his book "Quantum Information Theory" to the top of the references https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_information&diff=prev&oldid=859628546 - Removed a paper of mine from the Quantum Illumination page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_illumination&diff=prev&oldid=859627532


This IP 185.129.147.195 is from Moscow, Russia. In those days, he was visiting the Steklov Mathematical Institute (see http://www.mathnet.ru/php/presentation.phtml?option_lang=eng&presentid=19523).


It does seem necessary to begin a WP:SPI. There are also potential problems of CoI. Is it OK for him to promote his book on Wikipedia? I think this is probably now a problem of WP:Paid editor, because he clearly receives money from selling his book. Having visibility through Wikipedia will help him to increase his income.Spirandola (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the issues presented by User:Spirandola in item 1) above, the first one is no longer relevant. That page has now simply removed all groups working on quantum information science. The second one preserved the reference to the paper of Stefano Pirandola and just removed his name from the main text---the issue was his undisclosed self-promotion of his name on this wikipedia page and many others. The third one corrected the reference to include the proper reference to the literature on the concept given there. The fourth one corrected a misleading suggestion that a key result in the literature was derived from a paper of Stefano Pirandola's---no evidence was given to support that claim. The last one occurred after Stefano Pirandola repeatedly deleted my book from the list of textbooks in quantum information science. I have listed my book on my userpage User:Mwilde. It is a standard reference in the field of quantum information science, having garnered over 1000 citations according to [Google Scholar]. It has been used to teach quantum information in many leading courses around the world, and so it should be clear that it is of value. Given the fact that this book is posted online and available for free on the arXiv [[10]], let me indicate that I receive very little money from its sales. In many cases of pages where my book was listed on wikipedia, it is the arXiv preprint which was originally listed and someone else changed this to link to the published version. If it is necessary to change all of these references to the arXiv link exclusively, that is fine with me. I would receive no money whatsoever if someone downloaded the PDF from the arXiv. Let me also indicate that my contributions to Wikipedia are extensive as listed at User:Mwilde. As such, I believe that User:Spirandola's suggestion to ban or delete my account is completely unwarranted and would do a grave disservice to the larger community of scientists. Mwilde (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mark Wilde, it is not allowed to covertly use IP address in this way to promote your book. Your book was in the right position, below those of famous scientists whose books and reviews are widely recognized (with many more citations than yours, e.g., Nielsen and Chuang book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Computation_and_Quantum_Information which has almost 40000 citations.) Why did you covertly move it up using an IP address instead of your user account Mwilde? Did you want to show that someone else were putting your book in evidence? Even if there is a draft of your book on the arXiv, Wikipedia may represent a good place for making publicity and increase your income from the sales of the published version WP:Paid editor. This shouldn't be allowed and also represents a huge COI to resolve in the various pages where your book appears (besides your misuse of IP address). In various deletions mentioned above you were targeting relevant papers, such as the two-way QKD protocol that inspires all the following illumination-based protocols for communication. This is completely wrong.Spirandola (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Symon Sadik

UPE sockfarm repeatedly recreating the draft article about this Bangladeshi film and fluffing the articles of the principal cast. I'm not sure if that's the main focus of this promotion or not, but these articles at least should be reviewed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Tanjaret Daghet

A band and a music producer, contributing to eponymous articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've softblocked the band account (for a UPOL violation), hamdan has pretty clearly identified his COI while saying he doesn't have a COI. I've given him a direct warning about it. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, GeneralNotability. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Randomdragonpakistan

User's only activity is creating promotional articles. The user received a COI talkpage notice last year as well so its is very likely a paid editor because I also found him selling his services on Fiverr - don't know if its safe to share the link here due to OUTING. --Saqib (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

There are obvious COI issues on the McKinsey & Company page, with some edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The article 111k and needs to be shrunk. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
What a ridiculous response. You went to the article and helped the COI accounts by scrubbing ALL the negative information (scandals, controversies) from the lead and by restoring ludicrous puffery language such as McKinsey helping "the world’s leading businesses... and nonprofits"? As for the substance of your remark, the solution to the size constraints of the McKinsey is obviously not to reduce the lead to one paragraph (!) and conveniently remove text from the lead about the organization's controversies (which takes up most of the space in the body), but rather to trim the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Is this what's to be expected when one comes with obvious COI issues to the COI noticeboard? The editors here will promptly go and help the COI accounts puff up articles and whitewash negative content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a good article apparently. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

COI for Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

Hi, It was suggested that I explain my association to the topic the article draft: accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. I am a psychotherapist and I practice AEDP as one of my modalities. I am not paid by the AEDP institute for anything and I do not financially benefit by association to the aedp institute because I am not a supervisor or faculty. Since April I am associate editor for the internal journal, but I was not when I began writing the wikipedia article in 2016. I don't have a conflict of interest because I am wanting the same as wikipedia: to provide well-written articles on topics of curiosity to people and students. AEDP is listed in the different lists of sources where one goes to "find a therapist" such as psychology today and ZenCare. It has been mentioned in popular media such as new York times "on the couch" series. And in a New York Post article. So I have written what aedp is, how it developed, what an aedp therapy looks like. There isn't a one place that collects the information in a thorough and researched manner. Carrieruggieri (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Carrieruggieri: You started this draft four and a half years ago. The current reviewer message is "STOP". The extended time spent on the draft as well as the reviewer message strongly suggests this subject is not notable. While you are allowed to edit and submit via AFC articles for which you have a COI, but not to significantly edit them in mainspace, the COI issue on the draft is sort of irrelevant, given that it is strongly unlikely that we will publish the article. I see you have also extensively edited Diana Fosha. Do you have any conflict of interest there?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
PS: I see you did manage to get Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy published at one point, but it is now a redirect to Diana Fosha. It also seems like you have not disclosed any of your conflicts (e.g. I am associate editor for the internal journal) on your user page. On Wikipedia a conflict of interest is, broadly defined, a professional, personal or employment connection to the subjects you write about. You certainly have those and should be declaring them on your user page. Pinging Robert McClenon as he did many of the AFC reviews. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been instructed to describe the COI on the talk page, which I did. but it wasn't seen. so I was instructed to post it here. This is the first time someone tells me to put it on my user page. I hope it doesn't appear that I've been trying to conceal anything. I have answered the COI numerous times - each time I was asked about it.

regarding the notability - no-one except Robert McClenon has suggested the topic is not notable. I have asked again for someone from WP: PSYCH to take over the article. Some of you have a sort of reprimanding tone, like I'm trying to get away with something. Carrieruggieri (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I never intended to say that the topic was not notable. I did say that there should be an article, just not the article that was submitted. I am being quoted as having said that the topic is not notable because of the limitations imposed on me by a template. In order to Reject the draft, I had to say either that it was not notable, or that it was contrary to Wikipedia. The former is less wrong. The draft is not encyclopedic. I did say that there should be an article. However, the draft that I rejected is much too long, as well as being non-neutral. I suggest that this thread be closed. The conflict of interest has been disclosed and discussed. The issue is the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon! When I personally reject a draft about a fully-notable subject, I think I tend to write that it's contrary to Wikipedia. I think that rejection reason is less wrong. Still, I think it would be nice if AFCH could allow us to write free-text rejection reasons. If you wanted, you could suggest it at WT:AFC. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Smile Foundation

Only here to promote Smile Foundation with no efforts to follow WP:COIEDIT. They were asked to disclose their conflict of interest but unfortunately, there is no reply. GSS 💬 11:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotected Smile Foundation for three months. The fluctuating IPs never discuss. A note was left at User talk:2405:204:8B:8043:1897:ABBE:995C:1FBD by User:GSS but there is no answer. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Dear GSS: Perhaps the best long-term solution would be to nominate Smile Foundation for deletion. Even the draft acceptor wrote that it was a borderline case. Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul McAuliffe

Username alone is a clear evidence of COI. Editor seems to be a single purpose account. Has existed only to create the article for which the user's account name matches and edit it - the only two edits that aren't on this page are edits concerning Mr McAuliffe himself on the pages for his surname and his former political party. The COI warning was raised on the user's talk page in January 2020 - this went ignored by the user, who went on to edit this page around thirty times after this. Seems an evident COI to me and should be dealt with. ser! (let's discuss it). 19:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Red X Blocked as a username that matches the name of a well-known living person. Pmcauliffe can request an unblock after verifying their identity, and only if they agree to adhere to the conflict of interest guideline. Thanks for reporting this.​ — Newslinger talk 01:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dechert and Andrew J. Levander

Dechert is claimed by banned wikiprofessionalsinc.com homepage, with a customer testimonial from the law firm. A SPA has edited that article and created Andrew J. Levander as well. Another SPA has expanded both. For community consideration whether a) this is COI/UPE editing and b) whether the accounts may be connected to wikiprofessionalsinc.com and should be considered banned. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J. Levander. The law firm, however, is notable . DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Priya Darshini

Hi there! I'd like to request a review of the Priya Darshini article. Can someone tell me what the conflict of interest is, or what the voice or bias seems to be? Perhaps I can help remove the bias, or make it more appropriate for Wikipedia. I will propose my edits on the TALK pages then, because I understand that I have a COI as an editor due to being Facebook friends with the subject. (Apologies if I'm not doing it right! I'm still learning how to handle and help with COI notices appropriately here in the editing community.) Also: can I add a photograph of her, if I have all copyrights to that photograph, or is that a COI? Nickgray (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nickgray: Being Facebook friends is a pretty pervasive thing and not necessarily a huge COI. Discussing the article and possible changes with the subject, or collaborating on content, or knowing the person would be a COI. Do any of those apply?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, your only edit to the page was to update a minor detail with her Facebook info. (Facebook is not the most WP:RS, BTW). The COI tag refers to Pbjamesphoto, the creator of the article, who someone thought had a COI at the time it was tagged for COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: OK, thank you. I do not know who Pbjamesphoto is, but my question was more along the lines of: Even if he had a COI, how is the article wrong? I couldn't find any apparent bias in what was written, and I wanted to try to fix any if there was some. To your earlier question: None of those apply to my intent to remove the COI notice and this edit request. This was all started because I corrected her birthdate and place of birth (they were incorrectly listed in the InfoBox). And I can 100% confirm she never asked me to remove the COI, in fact she never mentioned it (and likely has no idea what it means), and it was only me poking around after fixing the birthday and birth location, trying to be a good helper to improve the article. I would also like to add a better photo of her via WikiMedia but I do not know if that will be a further COI for me, since we are Facebook friends and previously colleagues about 6 years ago. The subject did not solicit me to make these updates and I am definitely not getting paid for anything here: honestly I just wanted to help a Facebook friend and I hope I don't get in trouble for that! Thanks for helping me be a better community member and answering my questions. Nickgray (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nickgray: Thanks for that explanation. If you are former work colleagues then that is a pretty clear COI. The idea of editing to "help a Facebook friend" also indicates that, while well-intentioned, you would not be a neutral editor of the article. You are better off avoiding the article, for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality. If you want to make changes to the article, or question the COI tag, the way to do that is to ask on the article's talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: OK, that makes sense. I will bow out, then, and leave it be! Perhaps someone else will take up the cause. Do you think that adding a photo of her would be OK, though? Or is that a COI? Thanks again for helping me out here and explaining everything. Nickgray (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You have a pretty clear COI so you should not edit the article per WP:COI. You can suggest the addition of the photo on the talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
off-topic
@ThatMontrealIP: Good idea: I will add a photo on the talk page. But I have a question: once I add a photo on the talk page, how does someone find it and then promote it to the main page? Is there a place on Wikipedia where I can request an unbiased person to review my edits? Or do I just have to hope that someone randomly finds the article, looks at the talk page, sees my suggestions, and approves them? Just curious to understand + want to do it right. THANK YOU again for helping me here!! Nickgray (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nickgray: I would suggest uploading the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is the preferred location for files. Once that is done there is a button with some code that says "use this image on wiki". Paste that code into the talk page and ask if it is appropriate for the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Got it, will do. But: Who do I ask? Do I just leave a comment on the Talk page, and then hope that someone happens to visit the talk page with the authority to accept my suggestion? Or is there some place on Wikipedia that I can make requests to people like you, to sort of say, "Hey! Am I doing this right? Is this OK?" Nickgray (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I am going to reply on your talk page, as this isn't really the place for basic editing advice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@GSS: Sure! I have met them both through the internet and also in real life. Neither have asked me to create or edit their pages, and I have never received any type of payment for my edits on this platform (to their pages or to any others). I do not feel that the personal and non-vested knowledge of an individual, especially when a business relationship is not present, causes a COI. I welcome your suggestions as a trusted mod and volunteer for how I can be a better member of the community here! Thanks for your work and support of Wikipedia. Nickgray (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
and what about Noah Kagan whose draft you moved the same day you uploaded File:Noah headshot.jpg claiming "Emailed to me by the owner as a JPG file attachment" so, do you have any personal relationship with him too? GSS 💬 18:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@GSS: Yes, Noah Kagan is also someone known to me personally and we are Facebook friends (but no business relationship, and no request for edits was made). I emailed him asking for a photograph and full release of copyright so as to abide by WikiMedia photo release rules (which he granted). Please see my profile page for more information on me, or for examples of my writing on my personal blog. I welcome your comments or suggestions here! Nickgray (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nickgray: You can still have a COI without a business relationship. As the COI policy says, do not create or edit articles on friends or family members. We are not here for that, as it compromises the neutrality of the wiki. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: OK. I understand now that one can have a COI without a business relationship, and that I should not create or edit articles on friends or family members. That doing so would compromise the neutrality of the wiki. Nickgray (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch

Reverts / edits by Harringhome1977: [14] , [15], [16], [17], [18] (essentially whenever I attempt to restore a neutral version, I get instantly reverted)

Unsure whether this should go to COIN, Edit Warring Noticeboard, Sockpuppet Investigations, or just ANI. The article Kevin Deutsch has a steady stream of single-purpose accounts and non-logged in IP address edits show up and edit the article to flatter Deutsch and to downplay any criticisms of him, and aggressively revert any edits otherwise. This is problematic for a suspect who is mostly only notable due to the scandal they were involved with (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Deutsch). Originally they took the form of just removing criticisms, but Mr. Deutsch (or his meatpuppets) eventually switched to just burying the allegations in a wave of denials from Deutsch and including more flatting, irrelevant, fannish bits. Now, to be sure, negative aspects of living people is an issue of special scrutiny, and even an editor with a COI can bring up legit issues... but... the Deutsch SPAs go above and beyond, portraying articles talking about serious accusations of journalistic malpractice as if they were actually articles about how wonderful Deutsch was and how he actually proven innocent in the end. Now, to be sure, the article already includes Deutsch's denials, but Deutsch's SPAs would like to stick these denials front and center, and misleadingly write the Wikipedia article as if Deutsch's quoted denial is coming from the news article's author's slant, rather than the author merely reporting what Deutsch said. If you're bored, this Washington Post article is a reasonably fast read from The Washington Post that reflects the state of things - nobody bothered to do a deep investigation, but there's severe questions afoot. Disclaimers were added to the end of many of his articles that they could not be verified, rather than a full retraction (i.e. maybe they were real, maybe they weren't). He wasn't "convicted", but he certainly wasn't exonerated either.

See this old ANI discussions linked above wherein Deutsch's socks were indefintely blocked before. I decided to take a break from the article and hope someone else would "protect" the article against Deutsch's consistent POV attempts, but the bans haven't stopped him. Ideally, a very long semi-protection of the article would help as well, as Deutsch has simply switched to new sockpuppets in the past after being banned. Unfortunately, Deutsch has lots of time on his hands, and thus forces long time-wasting reports like this. He's long since forfeited any expectation of good faith discussion on the talk page, although I humored Harringhome1977 slightly anyway only to be met with the usual blather of "I'm right and you're wrong" without engaging with what the sources say or Wikipedia policy. See earlier sections on the talk page archives for the 2017 good faith attempts to work with Deutsch on including his side in the story that sadly failed (Talk:Kevin Deutsch).

Also note that the edit history of the article is confusing, possibly intentionally so. For example, an IP address the only ever edits about Deutsch switched up whether he was named after his mother or his father, I restored the original version, and then Harringhome1977 rides in to "correct" the flaw the IP address introduced (probably himself, yes) for counter-vandalism credit or something that he himself introduced ( diff ). Additionally, Harrinhome1977's most recent edits in this latest stage were actually harmless, merely swapping out the photo, but that hardly matters since he quickly switched to defending the pro-Deutsch IP address edits. He also outs himself a bit with saying "We've been through this", despite claiming not to have a COI: hypothetically Harringhome1977 is a newbie who just stumbled across this article, so no he hasn't been through this with me, but, well, WP:DUCK sockpuppet. SnowFire (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Does the article even meet notability guidelines? His "high profile" book Pill City doesn't have good sales records on Amazon. It looks and feels like a promotional page. --SVTCobra 03:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Deutsch. Deutsch is utterly non-notable as a freelance journalist and author, he'd have never gotten an article on that. (That's part of what I'm reverting on - apparently he's a freelance journalist for a Wordpress blog these days! Yeah, this isn't LinkedIn, get a secondary source that verifies this matters.) Only reason he has an article at all is the scandal where he was accused of fabricating lots of stories, and many of these storied failed verification after checking, and people who actually know Baltimore thought that "Pill City" is either a work of fiction or so heavily anonymized that it might as well be a work of fiction. Since the scandal, Deutsch hasn't been able to get any position of note as best I can tell. SnowFire (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear SnowFire:
The last semi-protection was 3 months, but it's expired now. Perhaps a new semi-protection, of a year or more, might be a good solution. Unfortunately, I'm not an admin, so I can't semi-protect anything.
By the way: Even if you're right and the other party is wrong, edit warring can annoy others and can erode Wikipedians' goodwill towards you. In the future, instead of edit warring with brand-new accounts, maybe a better option would be to list your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements?
Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and if you read the talk page archives, you'll see that I attempted to work with the person-behind-this-account in good faith for quite some time, which was difficult because the user was rather hostile and insistent on their version, but we did get a mild compromise through for a time before that fell apart. I'm about 99% sure this "new" account is just a sockpuppet, though. If nothing else, it's clearly a WP:SPA with no interest in anything other than Deutsch. If you're interested in attempting to help work toward a consensus on the talk page, I'd be happy to have you and be willing to listen to your input; it just needs to reflect the actual sources, which Deutsch's sockpuppets don't like to do (since the sources are, admittedly, hostile to Deutsch). SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
SnowFire: I'm a bit busy with other things, and would rather not commit to doing that. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, we've been through all this. A consensus version was hashed out months ago after much back and forth, without conflicted parties. Vandalism continues by single user intent on violating living persons policy and deleting high-value sources/articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harringhome1977 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Procedural comment: Note that I made the required notification of Harringhome1977, but he removed it, which is his right. No such "consensus" in favor of Harringhome's preferred version ever happened, as can be seen by checking the talk page (if it looks like I'm talking to myself sometimes there, it's because I had to respond to only edit summaries at the time), so this is just made-up. If you did want to develop a consensus, you'd have to actually make an argument for why your version is better, rather than simply state that it's the right version. SnowFire (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

As an independent contributor unconnected to the article subject, I remain committed to using accurate phraseology/terminology, as it appears there are malicious editors monitoring and revising this living article subject's page. I've used direct quotes and revised the article only in places where the language was inaccurate, the consensus version was ignored, or revisions violated Wikipedia's living persons policy. Please see the outcome of the 2017 Pill City controversy, as stated in a correction at the bottom of the Rolling Stone article/source. It states: "This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." RS is a major news organization and their description of the case's outcome could literally not be any clearer. Hence, my changes. I'm simply interested in the truth, nothing more.Harringhome1977 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

    • No, you're not an independent contributor, you (and the various banned other accounts) are single-purpose accounts who show up only to edit Kevin Deutsch. He's a quite minor figure, the odds of genuine independent WP editors popping up who only care about him are low. As for being a "malicious" editor, I've edited Wikipedia for 15+ years in lots of domains, and only ended up in this topic because I saw the disruption and whitewashing going on.
    • Rolling Stone added an addendum, yes, not a correction, due to Deutsch sending his reply and request for clarification. They did not retract the article; far from it, they say that the article now includes the clarification. So it's nonsense to act as if the rest of the article is meaningless and only the addendum matters; rather, the full article can be taken as Rolling Stone's comment, and the full article is... well... its subtitle is "Reporter Kevin Deutsch has been accused of fabricating sources in stories for major publications – so where’s the outrage?" Which is what Wikipedia's article talks about - the accusations of fabricating sources. Again, this objection is already reflected in the Wikipedia article, which never says he "formally" accused, and Wikipedia instead cites the actions that did happen - accusations from others, disclaimers put on articles, and some text retracted from already posted articles. The problem is that you are trying to present this one sentence as if some sort of commission investigated Deutsch and found he was innocent, which is not the case here. Deutsch wasn't "formally" accused of lots of stuff, but the article covers what did happen. Or should. SnowFire (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who takes the time to look at the Rolling Stone clarification will see it is quite clear and unambiguous. It states, verbatim: "This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." RS is a major news organization and their description of the case's outcome -- what the above commenter calls their addendum -- could literally not be clearer. And since it's the most recent/freshest journalism in the story, it becomes the the vital part of that story. Especially in a case like this, which appears to have been litigated entirely in the media/online.

You refer to Deutsch's comments in the article, which appear separate from Rolling Stone's clarification of its initial claim. The story makes clear the allegations of fabrication were made by MEMBERS of the media and others in the press/government/social media sphere, rather than in actual stories FROM major news organizations. Several news organizations including RS reported on the questions being raised about Deutsch's work, according to what I've read here, but none of the publications themselves actually went as far as to allege fabrication or state it occurred. Many sources cited in this article raised questions by giving accusers in press and government a platform to make their accusations against the article subject. And raising questions - not formally alleging crimes or unethical acts - is the press' job. It's an important distinction, and the key to understanding this clarification.

Rolling Stone in its clarification clearly states these publications never made any claims Deutsch fabricated. Thanks.

Harringhome1977 (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Mandatory user page disclosure?

I've posted the above question at the COI talk page. Hopefully that is the right place for a discussion?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Anil V. Kumar

Apparently self promotional account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Listed at WP:UAA, will likely be blocked per WP:CORPNAME. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Drm310. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well-organized sockpuppet ring on American politics-related pages

I'm bringing attention to the account Buzzards-Watch Me Work[19], which has likely been operating many sockpuppets on pages related to US congressional politicians. I'd really appreciate assistance in identifying other accounts who edit in a similar way as these socks. Many pages on House representatives are poorly patrolled, which means that a well-organized sockpuppet ring (I strongly suspect that these are WP:PAID editors) can do a lot of harm without anyone noticing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Good lead. I'll be keeping an eye out for politics-related UPE, which can involve both covert self-promotion as well as defamation. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
With upcoming election, have to be watching all political pages like hawks. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark Esper

The editor User:Smbalentine is obviously a COI account. A few weeks ago, I informed the editor they needed to declare a COI if they have an affiliation with the subject[20]. They have not done so, but are back editing puffery into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Snooganssnoogans: There's good news. Some hours after you made the above post, Smbalentine finally wrote: "I have a close association with current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper; we have known each other since college at West Point. Going forward, I will propose to the appropriate talk pages edits or changes to articles concerning him." Since then, he's made no further edits, anywhere. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

John Colianni

Promotional intent. The article needs cleanup to de-puff. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Faxon Atherton

This particular article had not received much attention until June 2020 and now only one editor has added and removed a lot of information from it. The username suggests it may be a family name. While it may be too early to post here, I wanted to make editors aware of this. The user has edited no other pages that do not contain the last name of Atherton in them. There is one exception which is Bill Hudson (British Army officer), however, the rolled back their changes as the initial entry was -62 the add entry was +62.

Thanks, Bakertheacre Chat/What I Baked 22:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Faxon Atherton was born in Massachusetts. He’s a historical person, with article worthy of expansion. There is no conflict of interest. I am not a relative. I am British. My recent edits are not limited to any Atherton last name. I created and researched a philanthropist called Atherton Curtis. Curtis being his last name. I frequently review other articles.
The Bill Hudson article I attempted to include a photo from Wikicommons that was on a foreign language article. I couldn’t get it to work. They had spelled Hudson wrong - Hadson... whatever they cause I couldn’t get it to work so rolled back my change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adin-Atherton (talk • contribs)
@Adin-Atherton:, this board is for conflicts of interest. Do you have any connection to the Atherton article subjects? Being a family member would be a connection, obviously, per our WP:COI policy. Also, please don;t forget to WP:SIGN your posts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Faxon Atherton was a US citizen who died in the 1800s. I am aware of COI policy. I am not a family member. I have researched and enhanced or created a few articles. All articles I research are historical. No living persons. All my efforts include citations and are based on solid facts. It is a hobby dig and find interesting characters. There is no financial interest on my part. Again I am British, not American like Faxon D Atherton (born 1800s). I share the same last name as do another 50000 people living probably. Please kindly remove the COI. Duly signed (I’m learning). Thanks, User:Adin-Atherton
@Adin-Atherton: thanks for that. First, when you sign, the easiest way to do it is to use four tilde (liek this: ~) symbols in a row, which will automatically provide your user name and the time of your comment. Second, thanks for your disclosure. I have to say these articles, or the couple I looked at, are really quite well done. Congrats on that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Adin-Atherton and ThatMontrealIP: Thanks for your statement. I recommend that maybe a username change may be in order so this doesn’t become an issue in the future. You can find out more at Wikipedia:Rename. Thanks, Bakertheacre Chat/What I Baked 03:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, using your real name is sometimes not a good idea, per the reasons at WP:REALNAME. Perhaps fanofallthingsAtherton? However keeping adin-atherton is allowed, just might bring this question over and over again.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The filer here was a sockpuppet of the blocked user Galendalia. Why am I not surprised.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Berrell Jensen

The article was created by a since blocked promotional/paid editor, and is now overseen--owned--by a family member. No response to messages, and is warring to include a list of non notable commercial gallery exhibits, taken from the subject's website. Article needs clean up; this isn't the place for a memorial scrapbook. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP user:
Hi!
A good-news update: It looks like Sandra Anne Jensen wrote her first-ever talk-page message a few hours after you posted on our noticeboard.
Anyway.
A) Is Berrell Jensen notable? (If not, we might as well nominate her biography for deletion.)
B) Why don't you create a Wikipedia account?
Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with 73's take on this. The original creation was a long time ago - the fact that that person since blocked is not relevant. Sandra Anne Jensen (daughter) recently became an editor, with an interest in improving the articles. Some typical newbie mistakes (adding content without referencing), but SAJ is showing intent to color inside the lines, including declaring her COI and working on the Talk page of the article. An editor has volunteered to help her with referencing. David notMD (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Alok Industries

This article is quite confusing. Looking at the contributions, you can see many, many IPs editing the page, infact the majority of recent edits are by IPs. Geolocating a few IPs shows almost all of them are from one place, Maharashtra, India, which is... the location of Alok Industries! The whole article is full of promotional rubbish (why is it neccesary for the first thing to be said is that it is Indian ISO 9001:2000 certified?) and there are some very similar IP ranges. Taking a look at the edits reveals much more. This IP literally says the company's owner is their dad, and some unsourced information that seems to be making the company sound better than it is because it seems to have more employees than the whole of Google. There seems to be some IP socking occurring and a clear COI. Wanted to get input and other's opinions on this as other editors have also found it suspicious. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 21:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Gave it a haircut and some CN tags. Not sure what we can do to fight IP COI editors other than to add the page to watchlists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I think {{refimprove}} is enough. But then again improving the article instead of tagging is better because there are universe long backlog on wikipedia. As for fighting COI IP editors, I think semi protection of the article in question because of "persistent COI sock puppetry" should be imposed if the situation gets worse. Ainz Ooal Gown (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi i am trying to update out of date information on a Council page. I've been told I can't do this as I'm demonstrating a conflict of interest. I dont have a conflict of interest. The page is now protected for 24 hours. Can anyone help me with this? The information is just out of date and needs to be fixed up. Amber muldoon (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi! Thanks for coming here to discuss. Are you saying you are not also User:Cityofmelbcomms and User:Emsywhite who made an identical edit to yours to remove sourced material from the City of Melbourne page? Apologies but it's a little hard to believe that three random strangers would all stop by this article in the space of an hour to redo an identical edit, especially where "cityofmelbcomms" states the edit was made on behalf of a senior city council official. Anyway: best step forward would be to discuss your proposed edit at Talk:City of Melbourne, including why you feel this material should be removed. If a consensus of editors agrees the change can then be made. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Update that the edit has now been posted for discussion on the article talkpage, and protection is lifted. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Suite of cryptocurrency creations

I'm not sure what's going on here, asking other editors to take a look. These are all recently created as shown above. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Imv, the crypto topic should have a 500/30 restriction to create articles just like IPAK and IPA. Way too much spam about crypto everywhere, not just on wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
As an active editor in the area: heck yes - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
all of these have been deleted except MetaMask, which has one NYT reference so probably isn't speedy material - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thomas A. Rando

This article appears to have been created by a paid editor. If you search the two names above you will see a very strong connection. They have disclosed COI, but the relationship is clearly a paid one. I've notified the user with the level 1 paid template and tagged the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User has posted the required Paid editing disclosure so this can be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail

Discussion continues at Talk:Daily Mail#Sourcing concerns

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to bring my conflict of interest concerns; however, this board seems like the closest thing we have to a board of ethics. If I've made a mistake to bring this question to this board, just let me know and I'll self-revert my edit. Currently, in the Daily Mail article, there are references to the internal debate Wikipedia had about deprecating the newspaper because it was unreliable. The internal editorial debate is being used to buttress the statement that the "Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability" in the lead.

We, the editors of Wikipedia, have a conflict of interest as concerns the Daily Mail article. In our backspace (noticeboards, policy pages, village pump, etc), we collectively determined that the newspaper is unreliable. However, on the mainspace (the article), we need to remain neutral and objective and not interject our backspace determinations. It is basic publishing ethics that there needs to be a clear wall between the backspace and mainspace. I have brought up this issue on the Daily Mail talk page.

What this means is that we cannot sneak our backspace determination (in this case that the Daily Mail is unreliable) through a Guardian article or other newspaper which reports on what Wikipedia concluded. Any mention in fact of Wikipedia's backspace determinations will color the readers perception of the reliability of the newspaper. In the Daily Mail article, we morally, and according to our policies, need to stick only to the sources in the article, and the sources cannot be used to dredge up Wikipedia's metaspace determinations. It should be noted that editors specialized with category tagging have already come to this conclusion here.

Then there is a quote by Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, that he agrees that the Daily Mail is an unreliable source. Wales is the nominal head and voice of the Wikipedia editorial community. This quote is once again causing the Wikipedia editorial wall to be broken. There are other conflict of interests involved with this quote. See the Daily Mail talk page here as concerns this topic.

I apologize once again if I brought this concern to the wrong place. I have brought this concern up on the Daily Mail talk page and will give notice there of this posting here. I am, however, not aware how to notify the whole Wikipedia community who is affected by this conflict of interest. And to be clear I'm being serious. What should I do about my conflict of interest concern? --Guest2625 (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Guest2625, the claim that we have a COI is absurd. Wikipedia reflects a real-world consensus that the Daily Mail is unreliable. We have no dog in the fight: if it was reliable, we'd use it, it isn't, so we don't.
Consider the effect if the subject of any article could magically drive away any or all editors simply by attacking them off-wiki, and thereby claiming a COI. Guy (help!) 09:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Guy. Wikipedia has no COI, and the determination of the DM as an unreliable source reflects their real life status. This would be better suited for WP:NPOVN, btw. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Using a reliable secondary source isn't "sneaking"; it's the standard way to support content in articles. If the secondary source considers a topic related to Wikipedia worth reporting on, then it should be treated no differently than any other topic. Including a secondary source's coverage of Wikipedia does not constitute a conflict of interest, since it is obvious that Wikipedia is written by Wikipedia editors – this is an intrinsic feature of Wikipedia that shapes every single Wikipedia article. The category deletion was on the basis of WP:DEFINING, a principle that applies to categories, not article content. — Newslinger talk 09:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The workings of a newspaper might help explain the conflict of interest. In a newspaper, there is a clear wall between the opinion section and the news section. The opinion section is equivalent to our backspace (the noticeboards). The news section is equivalent to our frontspace (the articles). The reportage of opinions of the noticeboards cannot seep into our articles. The article needs to stand on its own independent sources.
On the noticeboards, we might have used 30 sources to come to a conclusion. Or, we might have used the collective experience of 30 editors to come to a conclusion. Either way does not matter. We cannot use our summarized finding as reported in a reliable source in the article. The wiki article can only depend on the sources provided. And news summaries of Wikipedia noticeboards conclusions are not acceptable sources because of the required clear separation between noticeboard (opinion section) and article (news section). And, perhaps, this is more clearly stated as an issue of preserving news neutrality from opinion point of view. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Our policies and guidelines don't refer to any frontspace/backspace separation. (Additionally, your analogy is not quite right. Our noticeboards would be much closer to the newsroom of a publication than the opinion section, since the ultimate purpose of the noticeboards is to improve articles. Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion section.) The article on the Daily Mail does not cite the Wikipedia discussions directly, but instead cites reliable secondary sources. — Newslinger talk 10:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
It's reasonably clear that you have greatly misunderstood WP:COI and how Wikipedia works, which is surprising given how long you've been active as an editor. I'd also suggest concentrating on the substantive discussion on the page, rather than trying to come up with technical reasons to disqualify sources that don't agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Omni Air International

The editor User:PbobsonOAI3303 is edit-warring to scrub reliably sourced content from the Omni Air International article. The username, coupled with the editing behavior, suggests they are a COI editor Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

A little logical Google searching shows a strong COI for user PbobsonOAI3303. If what I saw was correct, then this is also UPE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
PbobsonOAI3303 disclosed their relationship to Omni Air International on File:OAI logo footer.svg, but needs to follow the paid-contribution disclosure requirement for their other edits. PbobsonOAI3303, please read the notices on your talk page and follow the plain and simple conflict of interest guide for your future edits on topics that you are associated with. — Newslinger talk 01:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
The user is currently denying being a COI.[21] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
yes but the denial is unconvincing as they first stated that they are an "officer of the company", when they uploaded the logo above. This is one of those cases where a pBlock would solve the problem quite quickly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Red X Blocked PbobsonOAI3303 indefinitely, as they are refusing to disclose their relationship with Omni Air International on-wiki, despite having done so on Wikimedia Commons on File:OAI logo footer.svg. — Newslinger talk 05:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

More COI editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.175.230.2 . The editor admitted years ago to being at the company: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omni_Air_International&diff=prev&oldid=716260198. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, it's a fixed IP for Omni Air International.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

College Abacus

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A112484011388.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

so, the article College Abacus was created by an IP which turns out to be a colocation web host and then further edited by a sock puppet(eer). Do we have any remedies specifically for that? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Reply to self: it has been WP:G11 nominated by Unforgettableid. That seems suitable. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC) speedy declined
Hi Bri! Here are some tools which can sometimes help:
Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Republic TV and Arnab Goswami

After making 12 trivial grammar changes to gain autoconfirmed status, Lisa.Corden made a series of promotional edits to the Republic TV and Arnab Goswami articles. Here are the two most promotional ones:

  • Special:Diff/968104669 on Republic TV: Promotional editorializing, adding phrases including "known for daring business deals", "smart business moves", "healthy balance sheet", and "appears to be well funded"
  • Special:Diff/968617102 on Arnab Goswami: Addition of "The Felix Scholarship Goswami received is meant for outstanding students from India to pursue graduate studies in any subject at the University of Oxford."

After asking Lisa.Corden in User talk:Lisa.Corden § July 2020, they claimed in User talk:Newslinger § Hello Newslinger that they are not a paid editor. Considering Lisa.Corden's editing pattern, including the trivial edits made to gain autoconfirmed status, I have serious doubts about the veracity of that claim. — Newslinger talk 16:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Newslinger:
Ms. Corden might misunderstand what "paid" means. For example, maybe she's an employee of Republic TV, and thinks that's not considered "paid".
Alternatively, maybe she's a friend of Mr. Goswami. That's a definite COI, though not paid.
I've now templated her with {{welcome-COI}}, which in turn links to the simplified WP:BPCOI and WP:PSCOI guides for COI users.
Anyway.
A.) Perhaps it might make sense to block Ms. Corden as a promotion-only account?
B.) Alternatively, we could try asking her what made her interested in writing about Mr. Goswami on Wikipedia.
C.) I wonder if it would make sense to try upgrading Arnab Goswami from semi-protected to extended-confirmed protected, at least temporarily.
Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, those are all possible scenarios. The behavioral pattern that is most striking is the fact that Lisa.Corden made just over 10 trivial edits to gain the autoconfirmed permission before editing the Republic TV and Arnab Goswami articles, both of which are semi-protected. This type of behavior, when accompanied with highly promotional editing, is strongly associated with paid editing. Lisa.Corden is invited to explain themself here.

I don't think the editing activity on the Arnab Goswami article is disruptive enough to justify extended confirmed protection at the moment, but unless Lisa.Corden stops editing promotionally, the account would be considered a promotion-only account, as you have noted. — Newslinger talk 01:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Newslinger: Ms. Corden is still at it. I've templated her with {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-advert1}}, and {{uw-npov1}}. —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing this, Unforgettableid. If this happens one more time, I will refer the matter to arbitration enforcement. — Newslinger talk 18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:J. Scott Plank

User keeps making the same draft, which is a heavily biased / obvious blatant advertising for 'Scott Plank'. Use has not responded to COI warning given by @Passengerpigeon: and has remade the article twice now to draftspace. (currently under CSD, may be deleted by the time this is vewed)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Eccesale

I asked user Eccasle if they have any conflict on Saša M.Savić, where they have added several personal photos of the article subject tagged as "own work". They didn't address the COI question in their answer, so bringing it here. In addition they're listed as the author of this newspaper scan on Commons, and are asking on their talk page about how to upload more. If you have personal childhood photos of the article subject as well as a clippings collection to upload, there is a good bet you have a COI of some sort. The editor has only worked on the two above articles over the past several years, and both are full of the kind of clearly identifiable bloat that usually accompanies COI editing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Mystery solved: the editor Eccesale on Commons signed this post about images "Saša Savić Eccesale". Tagging Saša Savić as an autobiography. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
this was pretty much solved by an administrator. As the user is blocked, one article is at AFD and the other moved to draft, I think it can be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampraday, BAPS, Morari Bapu, Vachanamrut

Discussion was initiated by sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Users Apollo1203 and Moksha88 have a history of trying to dominate users forcing editors into not making any negative or critical appearing edits to Swaminarayan Sampraday, BAPS, Morari Bapu, Vachanamrut and related articles. He has been accused as a sock in the past as well and tries to attack my ability to edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88/Archive. Also it is notable that this user has a biased towards baps and this statement from his accusation still stand true: "Most importantly, all of them are removing contents from Criticism of Swaminarayan sect, nothing constructive and opening unnecessary talks on the talk page and supporting each other. This makes single user to be very occupied for editing. Perhaps, a try not to add any criticism about one particular sect." If you look at the talk pages, the same few users try to draw out debates in the talk pages even though there are cited sources and are relentless in not having anything critical about BAPS with constant group attacks and edit warring.

Evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#WP:OR,_Recent_Lead_Paragraph_Edits_to_state_Founder_Left_the_Vadtal_Temple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya#Original_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morari_Bapu#Removal_of_Sarcastic_Dig_at_Swaminarayan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vachanamrut&type=revision&diff=968031849&oldid=968031601

This is a problem because his history revealed to me the intense conflict of interest and why certain articles are written to only espouse BAPS theology even though it is a breakoff group that was created a 100 years after in 1907 after a judge stated to the founder of BAPS to stay off the premises of the Swaminarayan Sampraday as he create a separate group: "The judge cited an affidavit from Shastri Yagnapurushdas to rule that he had succeeded from the Vadtal diocese, and was now the head of an organization independent of "the holders of the Vadatal[sic] or Ahmedabad Gadi. Ultimately, the judge ruled that BAPS swamis did not have the right to stay or preach in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and he restrained Shastri Yagnapurushdas from going to the temple." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/ODdqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=affadavit

Why isn't this fact that Yagnapurshdasji left the Vadtal temple in the lead of the BAPS article and look at the talk page how much they fight this to include it because of reasons below. They distract mods and other editors with civility and personal attack stuff because I use harsh words out of frustration but my frustration prove correct as you will see below:

. I went through the pages and editors entire history and he spend 15 years of his life editing the Sampraday article to make sure slowly that it is presented as BAPS is apart of the original sampraday. That is dedication. After I read that most wikipedia readers spend only a few minutes reading the lead paragraphs and I see why BAPS representatives are particular about controlling the narrative and removing any critical content as more mandirs are being opened and more people are googling the sanstha. My theory was that they are members of the group and are constantly working together to constantly remove items this is true. I wish more moderators took more interest in this topic as BAPS currently is the largest, most controversial sect of Hindiusm in the US and as they open more temples, they will have plentiful editors control the narrative online to portray their sect only in a unbalanced positive fashion. This should not be allowed. If you have time, I request you to look at the BAPS, Morari Bapu and Swaminarayan Sampraday articles and see the tactics they use to make sure sourced edits cannot be made and the same group of users patrol and edit over and over, sourced with BAPS books.

The results of this users history are below and I found that Moksha88 is a member of BAPS and discloses this fact in a earlier edit as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344. This editor has an extremely NPOV view point. The article and edits in question are heavily sources with biased BAPS materials. How so I report this conflict of interest and how to report this to get him banned from editing more swaminarayan articles? This user is unable to be neutral and make edits that are biased towards his group. All his early edits are pro BAPS and constantly fights with anyone that attempts to make cited edits to BAPS and related topics since 2006. I dug deepter into moksha88's history In his edits during his early years, he stated to other users with the greeting "Jay Swaminarayan" multiple times. This is a common way of a satsangi, member of the swaminarayn faith to began conversations. Next he states "as the representatives of the two largest groups with in the faith, we should try to present'.....The swaminarayan sampraday and baps are the two largest groups thus he is clearly is apart of baps. They need to disclose there conflict of interest. They only talk about baps in advertisement fashion, add baps links and have been constantly been accused by multiple users that they distort swaminarayan articles to BAPS ideology.

Evidence:

The editor has been warned on their user talk page earlier that there may be a conflict of interest, since they have a close relationship to the BAPS.Applebutter221 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Applebutter221: , as I already replied to your initial question (1), I do not have a COI. I have edited a variety of topics, including Hinduism and Swaminarayan Hinduism, using reliable sources and adhering to core Wikipedia policies. I have interacted with many editors with diverse viewpoints on these issues, and the vast majority have never questioned me of any COI. You have made a number of claims, and I will start by addressing the ones pertinent to this noticeboard.
First, in this edit(2), you are misrepresenting my words. I did not state I was a member of any group. When I wrote, After all, as the representatives of the two largest groups within the Swaminarayan faith, we should try to present a united image as opposed to a bitter, divisive front, I meant that the other editor and I were each bringing a different perspective on the topic and should therefore work together in a spirit of collaboration and civility.
Second, as you point out in that edit,(3) I used the greeting ‘Jai Swaminarayan.’ I noticed other users using the expression and learned it was a greeting used by members of the community, much like 'Jay Shree Krishna.' I thought by using it, I was fostering goodwill and meeting people where they are, in the spirit of collaboration. As I got more familiar with Wikipedia etiquette, I realized there are other ways of maintaining civility, so I stopped using the greeting.
Third, your claim [I] only talk about baps in advertisement fashion is unsupported as I have strived to maintain NPOV.
Of note, since Applebutter joined Wikipedia on 27 July 2020, this user was identified by uninvolved users as engaging in POV pushing and WP:NOTHERE (12) on Swaminarayan Hinduism-related articles. I suspect Applebutter is a sockpuppet of another user who was indefinitely banned for a number of similar abuses himself.(1) As I await administrator review of the SPI, Applebutter has been resurrecting the same disputes that led to the suspect puppeteer to being indefinitely banned, like posting material on Pramukh Swami Maharaj’s page in violation of BLP policy,(12) while harassing me.(123) In fact, this COI accusation is also how the suspected master reacted any time editorial consensus was against them, I don't now [sic] how else to prove that there is a conflict of interest. and One of the admins above pointed out that I accuse when I cannot reach consensus.1
In summary, my edits have been based on WP:RS and other core policies. In disagreements, I maintain civility and work towards consensus without resorting to forum shopping or tendentious editing. Moksha88 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response user:moksha88. I apologize for any edits or comments that I made that you perceived as ill will. I am not the final judge of your editing history and I will allow moderators to investigate your conflict of interest but please stop lying. Your early edit history shows only a push to incorporate BAPS in the Swaminarayan Sampraday articles and as much as you try to reword or try to lead us on that what you meant, the article reads that you are a member of baps and the other user was a part of the acutal swaminarayan sampraday -per your editing patterns for exclusively only incorporating BAPS materials and you told them we are representatives of the two largest groups with in the faith...that's an amazing coincidence.

Next, for someone to conveniently state an introduction of their early edits with Jay Swaminarayan with a passion about incorporating baps is a little more then fostering goodwill. Per COI, you are still allowed to edit as long as you disclose it. You don't have to convince me, I am nobody. I have noticed your biases and I will continue to call them out. I am humbly requesting a moderator to intervene and study your editing habits and mine.

The specific reason I am picking on BAPS articles for neutrality is because BAPS has a large temple opening in 2021 in New Jersey and I know from my knowledge that there is a BAPS team in a Yuvak Mandal and Premvati team that has specifically been dedicated to ensuring BAPS online presence is portrayed positively. I have seen BAPS members firsthand make edits on Amazon of BAPS books done to only leave positive reviews and systemically remove negative materials from websites as more and more people will google baps and swaminarayan as Akshardham and more temples are built. I received materials that show BAPS scandals such as the death of a BAPS satsangi from falling during the construction of the NJ temple, BAPS women instructed not to cover their hair to not appear in line with Islamic head coverings and instructions for BAPS members how to post social media postings to ensure that Pramukh Swami is shown only in a perfect manner. Additionally I have leaked memos from BAPS instructing their leading influences on how to specifically deter and defer from answering questions about the treatment of women, grandeur spending on extravagant temples and festivals, how to refer to other hindu gods with lower prefixs of dev and avoiding any questions about the original swaminarayan sampraday and the acharaya/blood family of Swaminarayan. Unfortunately, your editing pattern of trying to remove and reduce reference to the Desh Vibagh Lekh, constantly interject BAPS Akshar Purushottum Darshan, use BAPS books and draw out discussions for weeks and team up with other userd to remove the slightest bit of criticism fall into the umbrella that you are lying and you are a representative of BAPS. I don't even want someone to look at our recent battles but look at your and apollo1203 history and specifically the BAPS, Swaminarayan Sampraday, Morari Bapu and Vanchamrut articles and the talk pages and how you have influence them to twist and confuse and ultimately mislead readers. You and I both know BAPS succeeded from the Swaminarayan Sampraday about a 100 years after it was established and that article is wrongly titled and should be Swaminarayan Hindiusm. It took you 14 years to get control of the article and only a true BAPS member would believe that they are apart of the Sampraday when a judge ruled that the BAPS group is in fact a separate institution. This is cited and fact. You have taken only initiatives when it comes to removing cited critical materials and dragging out conversation and teaming up with the same users such as apollo1203 and sacredsea in the past such as Morari Bapu. It is clear that you are have a conflict of interest.

And finally, I am inspired by the edits from swamifraud as I stumbled upon them when I was googling the Pramukh Swami Sexual abuse allegation. When you search it on google, the archived talk page comes up but it was deleted and reroutes you to mirror sites. I restored it and saw you and other editors demolish someone who tried to post facts. I have used many of the similar arguments and synthesis and will continue to do so. From studying your biases and misleading edits and that users, there was a system employed to remove critical information and literally a battle to get information posted. For me being someone who is greatly familiar with BAPS controversy, scandals, leaked financial statements of property bids, and board of trustee details, I felt it is noteworthy that a corrupt sect like BAPS have a neutral point of view on public site such as Wikipedia as they will attempt to whitewash all perceived negative materials online as they instruct their followers to do so. But regardless of the information I am actively receiving, my edits and the several previous banned editors edits and many other people who have tried to write any criticism towards Swaminarayan as a whole have been attacked by the same group of users to remove that material. So please go ahead and try to link me, ban me and delete my work but it's not going to work in the greater scheme. Any person with common sense that looks at your guy's editing history to get rid of Critisism of Swaminarayan article, Mahatma Gandhi's criticism of Swaminarayan edits, Dayananda Saraswati criticism of swaminarayan edits and so much more will see that you are strongly associated with BAPS per your own words and edits. It's so obvious and out of control and since no one understands the severity, I had to reach out to other users I thought that may be able to help because BAPS members have teams planted to control the narrative and from your editing history many people are starting to see why.

I am going to edit the Jay Sadguru Swami arti article next. As you may or may not lol know BAPS does not use the original swaminarayan sampraday aarti and they use a newly manufactured version created in 2019. Since you are claiming you don't have a COI, let's see how long it takes for my edits to be tampered with. Even though I have access to sensitive materials outside of wikipedia similar to wikileaks about BAPS and other sects including Vadtal, all my edits have always been cited and sourced and it usually only you and a few select editors that throw cherry pick and vandalism allegations at me and when I was unregistered with some of the IP's. Keep calling me a sock. There is a goldmine of information in those pages and others that you and similar users have erased. The BAPS talk page is not archived correctly and it can be accessed through google but not wikipedia itself. Why is that there never has been any proactive measures to get that kind of stuff fixed but simply stating baps founder Shastriji left Vadtal in the lead of the BAPS article is a huge edit war and accusations of socking and not addressing the 13 sources that state that is? It almost seems like those talk pages might hurt BAPS perception and you guys don't want that kind of stuff to be visible. I hope this doesn't trigger you and associated editors but we will find out. Again I apologize for my harsh tone at times but it's frustrating when members of a group lie about their COI and then get caught in their editing history. Applebutter221 (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_161&oldid=1138418520"