Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 170

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wolfram refspam cleanup

While doing some clerking things, I just came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badtoothfairy; it appears that there is a substantial spam farm that has been inserting references to Steven Wolfram's work (and almost exclusively to his work) for years. Wolfram-related has previously come up at COIN in 2008, 2009 and 2019 and there are old accounts that appear to also be connected to this farm ([1][2]), so this appears to be a very long-running campaign. Between those accounts (and likely some others that we don't know of), we're looking at hundreds of edits that will likely need review. I've started to work on removing and reverting the most obvious refspam, but I'm not comfortable doing so in all cases because I lack the mathematical knowledge to evaluate the appropriateness of the sections and sources that the socks have added. Given that and the sheer volume of the contributions, I'm bringing this up here to ask for assistance in cleaning it up. If anyone knows of any active Wikiprojects that should be notified, that might be a good idea too. Courtesy ping JayBeeEll who filed the original SPI and definitely knows more about Math than me. Blablubbs|talk 20:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Wolfram-related pages are affected too and will likely need a look:
plus other related pages like List of educational programming languages.
Blablubbs|talk 20:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ha, looks like we had the same idea! (I also notified the physics project.) Is there any way to generate a dynamic list of edits-to-be-checked, so we don't all look over the same edits? --JBL (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's supported natively anywhere, but I think someone with good technical knowledge should be able to query a list of pages edited by any or all of these users. Ping MarioGom who might have some thoughts on the technical side of this. Best, Blablubbs|talk 21:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's a list of all diffs, sorted from most to less frequently edited:
diff list
--MarioGom (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks, Mario. :) Blablubbs|talk 22:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, that's amazing! I will strike things off as I check them. --JBL (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@JayBeeEll and MarioGom: I've moved this to User:Blablubbs/Wolfram and inserted a bunch of arbitrary breaks, which will likely help reducing edit conflicts if multiple people end up working on it at the same time. Blablubbs|talk 22:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks! --JBL (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to pop in here and mention that WolframAlpha and Mathematica (by Wolfram the comapny) are acceptable tertiary sources per WP's policy on such - thus inclusion may not be inappropriate, especially as an external link/source on articles which are otherwise short/lacking. I make no comment on whether each/any of these are appropriate, but that editors evaluating these usages should proceed starting with the idea that it is potentially/likely appropriate (leaning likely on articles about mathematical subjects, especially obscure/niche ones). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Neither WA nor Mathematica should be used as a source for anything, and the idea that they are tertiary sources in particular seems very confused. Also if you looked at the edits in question you would see that that's not what the problem is. --JBL (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
You may wish to search the history of the reliable sources noticeboard, as I did before I made this comment, as it says differently - there is a consensus based on multiple discussions that I see that identifies WolframAlpha and Mathematica as tertiary sources, which are explicitly acceptable on Wikipedia in certain instances (as sources and/or external links) per WP:TERTIARY and WP:ELYES (and ELMAYBE right below). I merely made this comment because I noticed at least a significant minority of edits identified above are citations and/or external links to these sources on mathematics articles which may likely be appropriate based on past RSN conversations and policy, and should likely receive much more scrutiny before any removal takes place, even if the person who originally added them did so as spam. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I have participated in many discussions over the last decade, certainly at WT:WPM and perhaps also at WP:RSN, about the use of computer algebra systems in general and WA in particular as sources; none of them reached the conclusion you state. Anyone who thinks they are tertiary sources either does not understand what they are or does not understand what a tertiary source is. (Do you think, when I ask Mathematica to compute an integral, that it goes and searches through a bunch of secondary publications for the answer?!) Perhaps you are confusing them with MathWorld (which is a tertiary source, albeit of mediocre quality)? But also, none of these edits involve linking to WA or Mathematica as a source. (I also notice that you don't actually link any discussions.) --JBL (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are the two relevant discussions I found on RSN (searching for "Mathematica"): 1 2. In summary: everything you've said on this subject is false. --JBL (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

On a different note, bing @Smallbones and Bri: You (and potentially the Signpost) might be interested in this substantial, multi-year UPE refspam campaign. Blablubbs|talk 01:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

UPE very likely

I've just had a look at this sockfarm's timecards. They all edit in an 8 hour window (e.g. [3][4][5]), Monday to Friday. In addition, there is this self-disclosure as a Wolfram employee by a CU-confirmed sock that, unlike the others, didn't touch Wolfram-related matters, so I'd say it's very clear that someone is being paid to edit here. I'll be tagging Wolfram-related articles that have been created or heavily edited by the farm accordingly. Best, --Blablubbs|talk 15:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Now all tagged, and explanations left on the talk pages of affected articles that point here and to the SPI. Blablubbs|talk 15:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Good thinking to check the timecards. Those editing windows would be consistent with regular business hours in Champaign, Illinois.... XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Self-published books used as sources in various articles

Books by Randy Bryan Bigham, published through Lulu.com, have been used as references in several articles. From what I can determine, e.g. in this profile, Bigham is not a scholar but an enthusiast who has published these books out of a love of the subject; the reliability of the sources should be discussed at RSN rather than here, but from what I can see, all the refs to Bigham's books have been added by the SPA Randy-bigham which does make it a COIN issue. The user had not edited for more than a year, until I removed one of the name drops of the book today [6], after which Randy-bigham reverted my edit with a WP:OWN type comment [7]. (It is unfortunate when people bring up donations to Wikimedia as if that has anything to do with whether an edit is acceptable.)

A related account is Gjsfca who has self-identified as a co-author of Bigham, and who has edit warred today (using multiple IPs as well as the account) to keep the text about himself, seen in the diff above, in the article. It is the edit warring by both these accounts, the fact that Randy-bigham has been adding himself to Wikipedia articles for years, and the accusations of bad faith e.g. here, that caused this report.

I think it would be reasonable to remove most or all of these references, since they appear in already well-sourced articles, and from the quick checks I've made it doesn't look like the sources are always relevant for the articles they appear in. Here, for instance, there is a name-drop of a different, unrelated company added in order to add a reference to Bigham's book. I'd appreciate a second opinion from other uninvolved editors, however. --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Moravcsik

Noticed CV like editing, it continues: [8] Acousmana (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I warned the user about possible COI, and checked the article. Also, note that "Scvarom" is a backwards anagram for "Moravcs"(ik).--- Possibly (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)!
Ha! good spot, never noticed that! Acousmana (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Anders Fager

User 81.233.142.217 has made several edits to the Anders Fager article and very few edits to other articles (and then only to articles with connections to the subject of the Anders Fager article). This has continued over four years: from [9] to [10]. I have repeatedly sought out the user on their talk page (first time: July 2019, latest time: today ). No replies whatsoever. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am new to this noticeboard, but I can expect at least some kind of response, can't I? CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi CapnZapp I am sorry that there wasn't a response to this report. It is difficult for admins to take action on an IP because a person can easily change their IP address. This IP user also edits sporadically so this might be a case of "watchlist the article and revert promo edits when they happen." I'll add the article to my watchlist to help revert unhelpful edits. Melcous did a copyedit of the article on Feb. 13, but would you like someone to do another copyedit of the Anders Fager article for WP:PROMO material? Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
How do you then stop somebody from editing their own article (without properly declaring) by simply not logging in? Isn't there a step where a report on this noticeboard blocks the IP just like on other noticeboards? After repeatedly declining to engage in talk discussion of course (both entering "no I'm not connected to the subject of this article" in writing, or acknowledging a connection would be fine). COI seems utterly toothless if all you need to do to evade it is to make all your COI edits while logged out... (Today the same IP made yet another edit, still without any talk engagement whatsoever) CapnZapp (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
CapnZapp, the edits don't seem that bad, unless I'm missing something. Subjects are not prohibited from editing articles about themselves and we shouldn't be too confrontational, see WP:BLPKIND. If there were disruptive editing we could semi-protect the page and/or partially block the IP, but it doesn't seem necessary here - simple verification and cleanup can handle the occasional edits. Fences&Windows 13:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I read WP:COIEDIT and its statements "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" and "you may propose changes on talk pages[...]" to be incompatible with continued anonymous editing (or while logged out) of your own article even when the edits themselves are "good"; that asking the IP editor to declare any COI was appropriate, and that "no answer" would eventually lead to an escalated response. The COI policy is super vague on actual sanctioning options - hence my report here after repeated attempts at communication. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I also invite anyone to examine my interaction with the IP editor on its talk page w.r.t the BLPKIND policy. In particular you will kindly notice I have only provided what I consider minimal reminders of COI, both using templates and free text; only posted once a month, and made sure to wait for several such messages to go unanswered before taking the matter here. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Very likely UPE and promotional edits

This IP address seems to deliberately hide their identity to avoid identification. They have made multiple edits (to the point that I feel like it's going to become an edit warring if continued) on the page Livi Zheng. I substantially edited the article to add controversies that have become major points of public interest based on credible and verifiable sources (even Zheng herself speaking on the topic in national TV). However, this user keeps making complete edits of the article to add unsourced and very flattering lines of the subject, which indicate to me that they either engage in UPE OR, quite likely, are Livi Zheng herself. In addition to this, many details -- where sourced -- are based on self claims made by the subject (which is the roots of all the controversies about her to begin with).CalliPatra (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Take it to WP:POVN. Firestar464 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - done so. CalliPatra (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sholom shuchat

I noticed that Sholom Shuchat contained an extreme amount of personal information (wife's name, birthday, early life, number of kids) that was not available in the cited sources. It was also self-promotional, containing career information that was not sourced and apparently exaggerating accomplishments. A look at the edit history showed the entire page had been created over the last three years by one user, who has never edited another page. 770 in the username refers to the headquarters of Chabad, with which the article subject is affiliated. I placed an Autobiography tag on the page, which was promptly removed. I then removed the unsourced BLP information and tried to straighten out the article, all of which edits were immediately reverted. The edit history shows that various editors have tried to edit the article, but one editor (under his name and it looks like a couple of IPs, probably by accident) keeps inserting unsourced, private, and promotional content without disclosing a COI. Diff of tag removal. Diff of edits reversion. (redacted) Many edits are clearly relying on inside information; see the edit summaries here and here, not to mention the personal info and the pictures of himself that he's uploaded. Gershonmk (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like an autobiography. Flyerman770 uploaded a photo over at Commons with "own work" as source and "Sholom Shuchat" as author. (Of course, even then, the metadata says it was taken by someone else.) --- Possibly (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
With some cameras, you can program your name into it with software and it gets written into EXIF by the firmware. It's not uncommon for cameras to get bought second hand, so I wouldn't really put much thought into the EXIF. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls: the metadata here isn't the important part. --- Possibly (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware. I'm just commenting that very little weight should be given to metadata for the reason I said. Graywalls (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I totally don't agree, but that's off topic :) --- Possibly (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Flyerman770 says on their talk page "Yes. Indeed I know him, we (used to) pray in the same synagogue, where I got to know him, and I asked him for information which he provided, and from which I made this Wikipedia page. I didn't know that counts as a COI." I advised him to use the talk page to request changes in future.--- Possibly (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm thinking of taking it to Afd, as I think he is notable for the one event. scope_creepTalk 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    Scope creep, As I've said on the talk page, inclined to agree. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education

Repeated unsourced promotional edits. Ignored COI warning on talk page. This edit included one "Goran Dakovic" in the staff list. -drt1245 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to add except Yup.--JBchrch (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
As obvious as it gets.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues, I would like to inform you that I will be editing the page of ENQA. I have noted on my personal page that I am an employee of ENQA and added the necessary disclosure. I would like to update the page with primary data since our Wiki page is 10 years old and full of wrong data (the Board composition is outdated, number of members and affiliates, list of activities is outdated etc.). I am writing this down here as my corrections got reversed three times so I really have no energy to deal with this anymore. Should you wish to keep the page that is fully incorrect, then I suggest you rather delete it from Wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoranDakovic (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Indus Hospital and Health Network

The editor concerned has declared on their talk page, finally, and after two attempts to elicit this information, that they are employed by the Indus Hospital and Health Network. Today they still went ahead and replaced the content of the article with their content despite acknowledging on their talk page however, I am unable to edit the content of the page as per your Wiki's community standards.

AGF fails to prevent my conclusion that this was an edit in full knowledge of our rules. It is evidence that this editor is WP:NOTHERE.

In case that is an erroneous conclusion, may I suggest that this editor be page blocked, allowing them talk page access to that article. That would mean that they might continue to edit Wikipedia while their commercial interest as an employee of that organisation is restricted to requesting edits correctly and formally. Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done a partial block, I think that is sufficient for now. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
331dot, I concur. Thank you Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Tanim17

Account(s) blocked; pages deleted; content on Commons dealt with. Hopefully this is the end of it and we don't need to file SPIs at some point in the future. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 18 March 2021 (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.


User seems only interested in creating their own biography [per username] - (their only edit outside of this was adding a wikilink to said biography), which was already deleted multiple times in the past (they seem to have ignored previous rejections at AfC and instead they've just moved it to mainspace themselves). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, sandbox tagged for SD. Firestar464 (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
An admin should be able to confirm whether it's also a duplicate of the previous... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fastily: You deleted that. Mind telling us if the deleted version was substantially similar to the previous ones? If so, likely the creator needs some form of ban or block given the extent of their contributions so far and their refusal to listen to valid concerns by other editors... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The version deleted via G13 and the most recently deleted version are about the same subject (presumably the author), but they're not what I'd classify as substantially similar. Agreed that a spam/NOTHERE block is order. -FASTILY 23:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fastily: Thanks for that. Except for the complaints on their talk page about unfair treatment (the usual) there's no hint of communication either... Let's leave this open for a while longer see if they wish to address these issues here, otherwise the outcome is probably predictable. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies and Fastily: Tanim Hayat Khan has re-appeared; now with an obvious sock... Can we get A) blocks and B) salting? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Both blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: Thanks. Just noticed the user page on Commons, [11] (I've tagged it over there), which I just noticed after looking through global contribs... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 18 March 2021 (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.

Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement

Missmac302 has twice attempted to cross-wiki upload the MESA program (Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement) logo as own work per this log. In this edit 19:28, 9 March 2021‎ (UTC), the user attempted to whitewash negative info about the program. In this edit 00:26, 10 March 2021‎ (UTC), after undoing 3 edits as largely unsourced and possibly COI (containing copyvio text from https://mesa.ucop.edu/about-us), I warned them with {{Uw-paid1}}. Per this log entry 12:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC), Diannaa "changed visibility of 2 revisions on page Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement: content hidden (RD1: Violations of copyright policy: https://mesa.ucop.edu/about-us)". In this edit 16:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC), 73.223.241.93 removed the same negative info. In this edit 16:12, 10 March 2021‎ (UTC), the user wrote in part "I do work for this program". In these edits 16:30-33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)‎, the user continued to edit the article without responding to my warning.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The last two edits are not terrible; in fact, the very last one replaces Wikipedia being used as a source for a better source. I get the impression that they are trying to update the page. The biggest problem I can see is that the page is a giant ad. I wonder if it is even notable enough to be here. It does sound like they should be page-blocked though if they can't commit to stopping their attempts to promotionally use the article. @Missmac302: can you commit to that? --- Possibly (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
On their talk page Missmac302 had also expressed their displeasure with this horrible section of the article, which they tried to remove but were reverted. They are entirely correct that it is "editorializing" and I have removed that bit.--- Possibly (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

COI, UPE and PAID templates nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_19#COI_article-space_templates. SmartSE (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The preferred colour for the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template is also being discussed here. --- Possibly (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael.I Artman

Since 2019 the user has mostly added Ocula.com (a publishing platform used by galleries to promote artists) as sources. That might be innocuous, but the user hasn't responded to several queries (from @Jooojay: and @Hoary:) on their talk page. --- Possibly (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Artman has been adding quite a lot, and a quick glance at it suggests that it's careful and often worthwhile. But every example of his work that I've looked at somehow manages to include a link to ocula.com, which is of little if any value to Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Austrian World Summit

The new user started with a promo addition here and then adds links here to what transpires to be their employer. These edits are reverted as obviously promotional. They then create Draft:Schwarznegger climate initiative with the edit summary of This is the first Wikipedia page of the Schwarzenegger Climate Initiative, which was edited by a staff member of the initiative. It follows the page dedicated to the Austrian World Summit, an international climate conference which very clearly self identifies them as a COI contributor. They are advised about COI here and again here but still they continue adding material without any declaration of any attention to the guidelines.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate disclosures have been made. I have also advised them of their edits on German Wikipedia and provided links on their user talk page there. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Chris Meyer

Gordonmeyer has been editing Chris Meyer since 2016. The account name and behaviour suggests a COI. A new account, Russiasfinest34, tried to propose deletion (which was invalid, as a prod was removed earlier this month) and then made a wrongly formatted post here, so I'm posting this here as a courtesy. Fences&Windows 19:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Subject does not seem to be notable so I have nominated for AfD. Melcous (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnny Tillotson

This is apparently Tillotson himself; he's been editing this article and other related articles here since 2008! Orange Mike | Talk 01:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor has denied being the singer himself or having any professional affiliation. However there could still be a personal connection yet to be disclosed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This edit at Talk:Johnny Tillotson is signed "Nancy Tillotson" and tends to confirm the existence of WP:COI. General Ization Talk 03:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Perkins

Standard COI, adding unsourced content, namedropping. Unnecessary, considering the subject's notability. COI message ignored. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I also left them a note on their user page. Gasp, it's Celia Hodes from Weeds (tv series)! But of course WP:IMPERSONATE might apply. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Reported to WP:UAA. They might be required to verify their identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, both. They've been blocked for user name violation. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

M.Zaid


Two users who are suspect in a sockpuppet investigation case are repeatedly removing AfD tags and recreating deleted articles on non-notable Youtuber. Repeated warnings have not helped. I would suggest salting M.Zaid, Muhammad Zaid (actor) and any other possible variations as there is a high risk of these undisclosed paid editors returning as they seem to be be using throwaway accounts. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's a new strategy! It's a temporary party though. These accounts will likely be blocked when the checkuser is run. At that point any remaining pages can be CSD'd with G5.--- Possibly (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I've bagged the lot of them as obvious socks. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Professionals associates

Resolved or inactive

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

A blocked editor who has been blocked as a Wiki Professionals proxy named two other accounts as associates. One is a declared paid editor but says they are freelance; the other has no declarations that I could see. We should get a clarification on this. -- Bri.public (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible the user was just using the term in a collegial sense? One hasn't edited since 2017, the other has disclosures. –xenotalk 23:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I am not linked or associated to anyone (and I don't know that guy) and I have been out of "paid wiki writing service" for more than two years already. And currently, my contributions are limited to local entertainment shows and other Philippine related articles. I don't even edit articles that much. :) --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Both of these editors have declared their status - Renzoy's a bit further down on their userpage (under "conflict of interest") but it's clear enough for my purposes. As for the Wiki Professionals link, I blocked that user for proxying for Wiki Professionals, but at least they declared that relationship, and I read "associates" as modifying WWB Too (that is, calling Biddolph and Renzoy associates of WWB too). I don't see any need to take action here. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, happy with this outcome. I will archive this thread in a bit. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2021 (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.

Vladimir Todorović (page move without AfC)

COI editor published the article without WP:AFC required for WP:PAID. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This was in error on my part, as I thought I'd already satisfied the conditions for CoI editors, and had not realised that you could not move to publish without going through AfC. Please do feel free to talk to me if there are any issues with the article arising from this. As mentioned in the article, I am aware of some problems already due to the lack of English language sources and the overall prevalence of Serbian ones, which I'm hoping some native speakers might help resolve.Chrishillflute (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bbarmadillo: you need to notify people when they are mentioned here. See the top of this page, where it also says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue"...--- Possibly (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Bypassing AFC with a clear COI is a very very bad idea. It would be better for you to move the article back to draftspace and work on finding better sources. I've trimmed most of the article, because it read like a CV... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Seeing as that left an unsourced one-sentence stub, I moved it to draft.--- Possibly (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Now the normal process can be followed. Absolutely staggering that an editor who seems to be doing a lot of COI editing would not be aware that, as a matter of common sense, this needs to go through AfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Technically, paid editors do not have to use AFC; it is merely strongly recommended.--- Possibly (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I said "as a matter of common sense". Though to be fair if one has a COI there's very little logical reason to not have more neutral eyes take a look; so despite NOTBUREAUCRACY, making the lookup by a different person mandatory would be a decent proposition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Agean Cymbals is maybe also a concern as it was moved directly to article space and does not seem ready. I removed some bad sources (wikis etc) and am not sure if this should also be sent to draft, or perhaps nominated for deletion. (What's it called when you write "my company makes amazing thingamajigs in the spirit of 18th century thingamajigs", then you give a source for 18th Century thingamajigs, which looks impressive but is not about the company? There is some of that going on.) The COI editor is quite reasonable; I have been talking to them about disclosure on their talk page. However that does not mitigate the notability/sourcing issues on Agean Cymbals.--- Possibly (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I sent it to AfD.--- Possibly (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I think Chrishillflute needs some kind of block now; after my edits and AfD of Agean cymbals they say they are now editing pages on competitor companies. Editing the competition's pages is an approach to COI I had not seen. --- Possibly (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
It actually is specifically mentioned in the COI policy (in WP:EXTERNALREL). That said, this is kind of a corner case, and they say they are not editing those pages at their employer's behest, so I've dropped a polite note on their talk page. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

FAW Jiefang

This SPA rewrote this article. Initial rewrite had no references, so I reverted and left COI info on user TP. They have now put back a similar version, mostly referenced to company website. It's not overly promotional but needs cleanup at the least. But no response on COI, although they did ask on my TP about the revert. MB 17:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@MB: they responded on their talk page to my query. They say they are not being paid. However, to me their edits look exactly like company-driven promotion. I have asked them about COI.--- Possibly (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I think the second version that you reverted was almost acceptably neutral (much better than the other version I reverted). But it is still mostly sourced to the company website and I agree they are highly likely connected and should come clean about that (except for your and my TPs, they haven't edited any other article). MB 04:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

COI policy discussion questions

Xeno has started a discussion that may be of interest to this board, over at the COI policy talk page.--- Possibly (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lobo Institute, help needed for cleanup

Articles
Users
  • Dozens, see SPI.

This sockfarm is already blocked, but it left behind a large amount of refspam/astroturfing promoting Mulroy, his think tank (Lobo Institute), and his colleages. I have reviewed and reverted a small part of it, but being spread across +800 pages, it's not something I can do alone. Following the successful review work recently done for the Wolfram sockfarm (see here), I have prepared a workspace to collaborate on the cleanup: User:MarioGom/LoboReview. If you want to participate, there are instructions in that page. If you do, it'd be great to receive your feedback. It could be useful to propose a more formal process for large-scale cleanups in the future. Thanks! MarioGom (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Damn impressive. Will pull my weight by doing a batch or two. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Great! There is only ~710 articles with pending reviews :wink: MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Biomass editing

The editor User:The Perennial Hugger fits a lot of characteristics of a COI account. The very first edits of the account were to a lobbying group for the biomass industry (Bioenergy Europe). All the users edits (aside from some edits to religious pages in the last 2 weeks) have been on pages related to the biomass industry. The editor has also been repeatedly dinged for violating copyright, which is a common thing that COI accounts do. The editor however rejects that they have a COI. The other users I linked to also appear to have COIs but are no longer active. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I have two or max three "dings" for violating copyright. All was un-intentional of course! I suspect Snooganssnoogans is targeting me because he/she is opposed to the content in the articles, but does not have the competence to contribute anything substantial. Going for accusations instead might potentially be an easier way to "win". He/she seems to have a history of doing so, check the talk page. And please check my sources, they are from the most respected research groups in the field.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@The Perennial Hugger: personal attacks on other editors don't help you any.--- Possibly (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The Perennial Hugger: Instead of deflecting questions, I'd suggest you to take some time and read the notice I posted on your talk page. You will find all relevant policies related to conflict of interest and paid editing. MarioGom (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Justin Brice Guariglia

This artist Guariglia appears to have a history of COI editor issues with single-use accounts, see talk. The user ArtArtBaby has disclosed on my talk page that they have a relationship with the subject and are doing original research on Guariglia in order to write their dissertation. They are insistent that their primary and secondary sources are best for this BLP, and take a stance that this Wikipedia article should reflect Guariglia's personal wishes (and that they think they have no COI). I tried to discuss this with them but we have not made much progress. It is unclear if this new user is related to the other accounts listed on the talk, they seem to have similar edits. Jooojay (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not true, I have never said that the Wikipedia page should "reflect Guariglia's personal wishes". Jooojay is aggressively removing facts that were cited with non-contentious primary sources -- multiple international recognized awards from the subject's page which I have cited in my work -- which is why I spoke up. A writer writing a critical dissertation that has in-depth knowledge of the subject does not constitute COI. Jooojay has a significant amount of negative complaints on their talk page for aggressive editing in a similar style. Please see my talking points on Jooojay talk page for all of my points, many which they have refused to respond to despite my patient, professional and considered responses to all of their points.ArtArtBaby (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
If you have talked to the artist Guariglia multiple times (as you had said) and are trying to express their wishes in your WP edits, that is a conflict of interest. It seems pretty straight forward in my opinion. Are you now stating that that's all false or untrue? I don't appreciate your personal attacks, I have tried to help and clarify multiple times now. Jooojay (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The article needs a serious copyedit. scope_creepTalk 19:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Katarina Majerhold

Self explanatory, though a host of edits by Slovenian IPs suggests the subject has been using this as autobiographical space for a long time. A block could be in order for the user name alone, for imitating that of a notable person. Of course, if they're not notable, then the article ought to be AfD'd. 2601:188:180:B8E0:B9E6:B41C:7BA4:6706 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The article could be draftified to give a chance to the user to go through AFC. MarioGom (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes. But I'm not sure we are best served by allowing this user to continue owning it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Pearl Petroleum, Crescent Petroleum, Gulftainer, Badr Jafar

All these pages (Pearl Petroleum, Crescent Petroleum, Gulftainer, Badr Jafar) have inordinate amounts of promotional content and puffery. The editor User:T1512 is likely a COI account and I'm sure there are more. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I do have an interest in these articles - where do you need me to declare it? Also you reverted content, but you did not mention anything on the talk page which I checked for before re-editing the text. Would have been helpful if you had mentioned something on talk. Thank you, T1512 (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@T1512: how you declare your conflict depends on whether you are being paid to edit, which also includes simply being on salary at a one of the above companies. Can you explain it a bit more?--- Possibly (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I haven't been paid to make the changes, and neither do I work for Badr or Crescent. I was asked if I could make changes as I know some people in these organisations and I agreed to help out. You would find that I have tried to meet Wikipedia's requirements on notability, independent third party sources, and referencing as far as possible to reduce conflict of interest and keep Wikipedia text as neutral as possible. If there is an issue with the text, please discuss it on the talk page - all of us are professional enough to come to a consensus I believe. Hope this clears my disclosure. T1512 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for letting us know the details. You definitely have a conflict of interest: you're acting as a proxy editor for the company. You should say something to that effect on your user page (I have a COI with X, Y and Z) and, preferably, stop editing the articles directly: use talk page requests instead. That will pretty much solve the current issue.--- Possibly (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
So how do we resolve this now? From your previous line, I do have a conflict yes, but having a conflict does not bar anyone from editing pages, and I haven't pushed any agenda or prevented anyone from editing articles. Would having a disclaimer on my page help moving forward? T1512 (talk)
I have added a COI disclaimer to my main page. T1512 (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
now that I have read the material below, it seems obvious that T1512 has been using multiple accounts to hide scrutiny of their edits, as well as their COI, over almost nine years.--- Possibly (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that there seems to be long story of socking around Crescent Pretroleum and related articles:

and possibly:

--MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

All the "T" accounts were me - I kept forgetting the password - that should allay your concerns. T1512 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I have added account edit dates to the above list. At least two of the accounts overlap, and there are 200+ edits over almost nine years. J5421 seems like the same editor. This all seems like a deliberate attempt to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. New accounts are created whenever editing is required, the COI is not disclosed on any of them. three of the above accounts have vague statements like "Just another user" (2013), "a wiki user" (2017) and "Another Wikipedian" (2018-2019) on their user pages. --- Possibly (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
If I was deliberately trying to avoid scrutiny, I wouldn't have my account names start with a "T" that could link me up. T1512 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am dissapointed that content keeps getting removed as COI vendetta instead of coming to a consensus. Please use the talk page for content removal. Thank you T1512 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That is good advice for your own editing additions and removals, actually.--- Possibly (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and I use the talk page. This is also against the guidelines of this COI noticeboard as it was supposed to have been discussed on the talk page first. T1512 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's a 5K change to Crescent Petroleum with no talk page discussion, by one of your sock accounts. You've been operating multiple accounts over nine years, and in the ninth year you decided to fess up to those accounts and also let us know you have been working as a proxy editor for the company. So, to be clear, you seem to be violating WP:SCRUTINY and also WP:SOCKING for your company friends who you say are not your employer... for nine years. Seven accounts, nine years of proxy editing. Let's wait a few days and see what more experienced users think. --- Possibly (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: I would be using the same account all this while had I not forgot the passwords to them. I would like you to assume good faith as my only reason to open a new account was the password loss, not to evade scrutiny. If I were trying to evade scrutiny, I would use random usernames, not ones beginning with "T" - I would have to be really daft to do such a thing so obvious. Yes, so I am guilty of not spelling out the other "T" accounts were me or that I did not put the disclaimer up. I accept that. Finally, I reiterate that they are not my employer. T1512 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I do assume good faith, until it's no longer possible to do so. Other editors will take a look at this. --- Possibly (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. T1512 (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I was asked to look at this by Possibly on my talk page. There are clear signs that this is part of a PR campaign. In particular, Badr Jafar has been carefully managed to remove all information the subject wishes to exclude. 1. Removal of information linking Badr Jafar to Kevin Spacey, following allegations against the latter, with a misleading edit summary "misc edits". 2. Removal of mention of Jafar's wife Razan Khalifa Al Mubarak (though she is mentioned in the infobox), despite her being independently notable. It's actually hard to find sources stating that they're married despite them co-signing the Giving Pledge and being on the board of Crescent together with her using the surname Jafar, but this Arabic-language newspaper from UAE notes she is his wife: [12]. Removing the "Personal life" section might have been done to discourage reinclusion of other content, though I'm not arguing for his former relationships with models to be included. 3. Mention of his uncle Jafar Dhia Jafar (see [13]) was also removed in 2016 after an OTRS complaint, see this BLP/N discussion. 4. They removed that he is of Iraqi descent, easily verifiable unless one wishes to deny his grandfather was Dhia Jafar. Indeed, there's no mention of his family at all due to "BLP concerns" after OTRS complaints, even though his father Hamid founded the business and his brother Majid Jafar is also involved and notable. 5. Nearly every single edit made by of those accounts since 2012 has been to articles linked to Jafar, and the claim of using multiple accounts due to losing passwords is weakened by the timing overlap in editing by two of them. 6. They uploaded File:META performance 1.jpg as "own work" so they are clearly closely associated with Jafar as he co-founded META, and they failed to declare this for 9 years. 7. Removed mention of his early career in fashion. That's further verified in a Times profile from 2018 linked to from his own blog.
The belated disclosure of a "non-financial COI" is too little, too late: I support a partial block and a topic ban from the Jafar family and all their companies, organisations, and projects.
OoBJ self-declared as Jafar's representative and doesn't seem to be the same editor. Fences&Windows 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

COI tags should be added to the relevant pages. The pages should also be fixed, possibly deleted if they fail notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Emaar Properties, Mohamed Alabbar

The editor Khadif shankar seems like a likely COI account. Most of their edits have been Mohamed Alabbar-related pages, included their main company. The Alabbar page has a tag that the page is written like an advertisement. This edit by the user is a brazen removal of well-sourced negative content which is obscured under a deceptive edit summary.[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of that removed content was improper synthesis as the references didn't mention Emaar. Fences&Windows 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Weizmann Institute of Science

I've opened this account after see some false claim about Weizmann Institute of Science in short this institute, which isn't even a university. I added some info which updates its status. In the recent years the institute has lost some of its reputation. All the info which I've added has been reverted. The info had refs to the leading sources in the subject (world university rankings). The user who reverted the info has ignored most if not all the sources, and censored my edits. Apparently, the reason that user has such an urge to protect the insitute name, it's because he works there. [redacted] He insisted keeping fallacies such as that the institute being in the 9th place globally in CWTS Leiden Ranking in 2018 (pretty impressive for such small institute no?) Though in realty it was in 464th place. https://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2018/list since then by the way, the institute has declined further out of the top 500 universities. He of course also insisted that no mention will be made to the position of the place in the last decade. I call the community to block the user from editing this article, which not once but twice replaced source based info with fallacies, which promote its interests. Of course reverting his changes. Wizmann (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have slightly redacted your comment for privacy concerns. Other than that, the COI is clear. MarioGom (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I assume you are refering to the other editor, I ask Wizman to disclose any coi of his own, and I have given an additional user warning with respect to tthe deleted material. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Numerical rankings depend on many factors, and the different indexes are every one of them contentious. (some are weighted on such as way. that a research-only institution will rank high, some low; many are based of measured output, which is not quite the same as quality. The discussion on User talk:Evgeny contains detailed description of some of the factors which may clarify some of the statements made, which I need not repeat here. I consider it WP:SYN and WP:OR to make a judgment about quality based on the indexes They are in a sense somewhere between primary and secondary sources of information, since they are based as is much research on the compilation of primary information, using the judgment of the compilers in how to weight the factors. I have therefore changed the text to give those rankinsg for which there appear to be a reliable source, without editorial comment. For judging such matters as quality, it's up to the reader . We can't include specific statements unless they have been published in reliable sources known for judgment in such matters-- I would even say, multiple such sources. . DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I must say that I possess no relation with WIS in past or present. I read this article, and tried to verify some of its claims and I was surprised how biased it is. I created this account, because I wish no revenge of WIS people. Regrading whether the conclusion that an institute, that is in a free fall in some if not all rankings is declining, I believe it belongs to WIS talk page. This page only handles COI. I don't see my action as harassment as Evgeny has made its public intentionally, and actually hasn't hidden its identity. --Wizmann (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

MontanaMendy

MontanaMendy has been creating COI articles for a couple years now. The first two got deleted, and the third one (Yung Flamingo Club) has just been created. They have not responded to two instances of the COI template and one instance of the autobio template being left on their talk page, over the past several years. --- Possibly (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a case for WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Nah, I've blocked them for longtime COI/autobio editing (though I'm not clear how Justin Ross Harris falls into those categories). GeneralNotability (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible impersonation or COI

Hi Admins, I found a user called Omollopeter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They added in a notable person in Koru, Kenya called Peter Omollo, referring to Omollo as a ‘man of the people’, and used language to refer to him which sounded a bit promotional to me. I find this odd since their usernames is Omollopeter. I fear that he may be either one and the same, and is trying to promote himself— that’d be COI, right? That, or the user is impersonating Peter Omollo, which is a problem in itself. What do I do? Should this user be blocked? HelenDegenerate (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate: this kind of thing is quite common. Since they only made one edit, which you have reverted, there is probably nothing more to do unless they come back to make more self-promoting edits.--- Possibly (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
HelenDegenerate, this is run-of-the-mill self-promotion. We generally don't block people for "impersonation" unless there is an existing article about that person and they've edited the article (there's some leeway here depending on how common the name is). I see you've given the user a {{welcome-COI}}, that's all I think is necessary at this time. If they continue writing promotionally about themselves, further action may be necessary, but right now we can see how they react to the notice. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yale Precision Marching Band

This article is completely beneath WP standards in at least a dozen respects, but it seems that COI is probably the lowest-hanging fruit among them. I don't care if it's Yale, or maybe my point is that this article would never have survived if it had come from Sam Houston State University. This kind of vanicruft self-aggrandizingly sly article is not appropriate for a global encyclopedia. I invite other thoughts, but, more constructively, other editors taking the time to get rid of the material that needs to be on some blog somewhere, but certainly not here. Thanks. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed some of the unsourced material. It does not sound like a COIN issue.--- Possibly (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I gave it bigger trim. There were embedded links and sections with no reference with a tag since 2015. No doubt there will be somebody in to update it. scope_creepTalk 08:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

David nesenoff

self promotion of their personal business using descriptions which show strong partiality and use self created references (YouTube account) as citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramahamalincoln (talk • contribs)

Gave them a COI warning, that should be enough for now. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I gave the article a wee trimming. Can somebody check the tags, see if they are still valid. He is notable, no doubt. scope_creepTalk 08:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Afe Babalola

Bosundipe has been blocked indefinitely (by Smartse) as a promotion-only account.

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.

Bosundipe has repeatedly rewritten the Afe Babalola article to turn it into a kind of hagiography rather than adhering to a neutral tone required by Wikipedia. He has been warned about this several times (see his user talk page) but has made no attempt to discuss the issue. Also, the adulatory text that is added appears to be copied from various sources, including his profile at the website of the university he founded. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:45, 6 April 2021 (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 Moving On With Brit

Reported user is a sock, now blocked ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2021 (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.

Moving On With Brit has declared a relationship with britonthemove.com [15], and appears to be the owner of britonthemove.com.

The editor has declared to including britonthemove.com as a reference to multiple articles [16], stating [17] Multiple is subjective 3/70 is little and "avoid" does not say or mean never

The editor appears to be a spammer and self-promoter, trying to obscure her spamming with other (mostly unreliable and largely promotional) references chosen indiscriminately with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for references. I've cleaned up much of it, and it appears @Praxidicae: has done subsequent cleanup. Prior removals were done by @Kuru:, @Schazjmd:, and @S0091:. Hipal (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The editor (me) is not a spammer trying to obscure her spamming with other (mostly unreliable and largely promotional) references chosen indiscriminately with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for references - this is an insult. I just found the page where you and Praxidicae reverted all of the edits - all of which were done over the last few days. Go back and check the sources! Do you want people to update references or not? Seriously, in some cases, all edits have been wiped out and there were hours of edits done! Those pages are now back to being citation-less. No spamming whatsoever. I was told about what constitutes reliable earlier (aka no other wikis, fandoms etc) the rest are legit ................. Nikki— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moving On With Brit (talk • contribs)
@Hipal: do you happen to have diffs for the link additions? I checked and could only see one instance out of many.--- Possibly (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Moving On With Brit admitted to adding three. I don't believe there were more. [18][19] --Hipal (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist?hidepreviousrevisions=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&limit=250&days=3&urlversion=2 all last two days only you and Praxidicae - the others you mention were because I added bad sources like fandom etc (before I knew). And, in some cases articles like Jerry Lee Lewis - the source is the same - his own website!

While I see some possibly good sources, on the whole they are adding blogs including their own as citations. If it's not already clear to Moving On With Brit, blogs are generally not reliable sources including your own, . Slywriter (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Except, in some cases there is no .gov, .edu citation to be had. I spent hours trying to find some of these - they don't exist on all of the sources you are specifying. This feels ridiculously biased to me and I would ask you to look through them all again. Nikki

This noticeboard is for addressing conflict of interest concerns. I strongly suggest you focus on those. --Hipal (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not being able to find a reliable source doesn't suddenly make blogs acceptable sources. reliable sources and are webblogs reliable sources? cover the issue. Slywriter (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, have you downloaded a list of all the citations on Wiki? First, of all the term blog does not apply universally and it certainly does not mean it is an unreliable source. Some websites deemed as blogs have as high of a DA as Wiki - so is it a DA/PA game or is it censorship of what the editors deem acceptable. If an editor wants to assess the merit of content they need to review it. Not a clean sweep of "opinions" on what's creditable vs. not. Moving On With Brit (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You can disagree with the policy all you want, doesn't change a thing. Top 10 lists, travel sites and other website written by those passionate about a topic are not acceptable sources by wikipedia guidelines. Exceptions exist for websites and writers that have become subject matter experts or a record of reliability which are recognized by other reliable sources as being informative and accurate on the topic. No evidence has been presented that the citations used have met this high bar.
And citing your own blog is a clear conflict of interest especially citing prior to disclosure. Now that it's been disclosed, it will still fail as a reliable source, as there is also no evidence provided that it meets any of the standards set forth in the two links provided above.Slywriter (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's move on. This is not a court hearing! Citing a website you are associated with is clearly not a violation per Wiki's guidelines. The legal verbiage needs changing for this to be absolute - it's vague at best. And, plagued with holes. This said I've been honest and I did hours of work and updated tons of absolute nonsense that needed help. I think it's best if all my contributions are undone. This way no one can accuse me of being a spammer or a self-promotion artist. And, given that in most cases the editors chose to revert every edit - it only makes sense to do this for all my edits. Would it be best for me to do this or would it be best for a wiki editor to do it? This way, we can be assured that I've not violated any rules, that my hours of editing will be universally lost vs. cherry-picking what suits.

I won't be editing anymore, there is way too much bias here. Far too much self-righteousness. And, if I were here for spamming purposes (which I am not) there are quicker and easier ways to do it than actually edit articles.

Moving On With Brit (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving On With Brit, adding references to reliable sources in articles is very welcome. Adding references to unreliable sources isn't. If you would familiarize yourself with what is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, you'll understand the objections to some of the cites that you added. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I did.......... read it back to front a few times. Objections are a bit like opinions. I'll leave it there :) Moving On With Brit (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(23:50, 5 April 2021 by Maravelous redacted --Hipal (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)) Yes Maravelous I most certainly am - but I'm over it. I've asked the group to remove all my edits. Only right considering this user and one other spend two days removing ALL edits of mine. And, have since gone back and undone even more edits. Moving On With Brit (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC) SIGNED Moving On With Brit (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC) - Happy community :)

I find that unhappy people tend to flex imagined power online and then pretend they matter. Sorry for your loss. Good luck. Maravelous (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Marvelous, I would strongly consider striking your second comment. Regardless, do not continue along those lines here. This thread and board are about Conflict of Interests. no personal attacks is a pretty bright line and you are swaying on it. If you feel you are legitimately being harassed then head over to WP:ANI to address the issue.
Moving On With Brit, you have been advised of the guidelines. Your unwillingness to accept them is not something anyone here can assist you with. You can log off and never edit again but be advised that your edits will remain, as they are now licensed to Wikipedia. You agreed to those terms when you clicked publish. Slywriter (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did you find something that touched a nerve in my posting? I will check out ANI as you suggest, but yeah, your advice is unsolicited. Also not sure about your "opt in" legal advice to the other user but you do you. Maravelous (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
You're likely to be blocked or banned if you continue to stalk, harass, and disrupt like this. --Hipal (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, they will - cause it suits the narrative. As mentioned time and time again total bias. I followed "the" guidelines. Let's not go back and forth on that. This is not a trial, and I need no assistance in defending myself. I cab represent myself. Now, perhaps the stewards of righteousness will look into the behavior and history of some of the "editors" that have ambushed people, made false and defamatory accusations, and have a history of diluting legitimate contributions. A little bit of research outside of "Wiki" might be of assistance here.Moving On With Brit (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • When I looked closer at the site being promoted in some of the links that Moving on With Brit has indserted (britonthemove.com) I see affiliate links and the odd thing for sale. That means the site is a money generator, making the insertion of links a financial COI. So there's that. Assuming there are no more links inserted form that site, as suggested above, we are fine. --- Possibly (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This can be closed, as it turns out Moving On With Brit was a sock and is now blokced.--- Possibly (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2021 (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.

Dhruva College of Management

Editor seems responsive to consultation on COI. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2021 (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.

The article was nominated to the AFD. The creator has disregarded a call for discussion on the article talk page and on the user talk page and is introducing advertising content and links which indicates some COI and hence this report. Vikram Vincent 13:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing this report post-discussion with the editor. Vikram Vincent 16:41, 28 March 2021 (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.

Westwood Park, San Francisco

I am reporting to this notice board after the admin Deepfriedokra referred me here. Originally I had a sockpuppet investigation underway for a user disruptively editing this page, and using two accounts and two IPs to remove content with no other explanation than “Biased”. I roped in Deepfriedokra to help with my investigation. They told me to come here because it looked like a conflict of interest, and that some of the edits by the accounts in question sounded a bit promotional. That’s why I’m here.

The user in question’s name was Reiksnza. Then they created another account called Reiksnzaw, and after being reverted using that, proceeded to edit from two different IP addresses afterwards. I’m not sure how else to explain it. If anyone could help, that would be great. HelenDegenerate (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_170&oldid=1138418546"