Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 183

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hundreds of RNA motif pages

The AfD in question closed as "no consensus" so it is unclear whether this issue actually requires clean-up at this time. We have no consensus on whether individual RNA motifs are notable, and such a consensus would be required before enacting any large scale changes on these articles.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:07, 26 December 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.

In the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif it was noticed that there are many similar articles created by the same user. The user provides enough information on their user page to confirm that they are part of the group that published the article that is the sole reference. The user's contributions to this (and the other pages I'm about to mention) were long enough ago that it is not an issue of continued user behavior, but rather a big cleanup problem.

Turns out there are over 200 pages with a title that includes RNA motif that were created by this user and rely solely on several research papers published by this group. All the pages that rely on a single paper present the issue in WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that there isn't confirmation that the finding is confirmed or significant, so all the pages at the least need review to see whether they should be deleted, and perhaps should all be presumptively deleted.

However, none of the participants in the discussion up to now (including myself) have enough expertise in the field to ask for all the pages to be deleted without review. Someone who is conversant in the field may be able to confirm my suspicion that these 200+ pages represent findings from an individual lab and are either not significant or WP:TOOSOON without confirmatory work by other investigators.

In short, I'm looking for help in sorting this all out.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 04:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


Thank you for alerting me to this discussion on my talk page, rsjaffe. As I understand it, you have two related concerns. First, these RNA motifs appear to be based only on primary literature, and not secondary literature. Secondly, they indeed derive from my own research, and so there appears to be a conflict of interest in my writing Wikipedia articles on them.

What is perhaps not made sufficiently clear in these articles is that the relevant RNAs were included in the Rfam Database. Rfam (see the citations in the Wikipedia article) is a database of different types of RNAs with a conserved structure, and its content undergoes significant curation by expert bioinformaticians, both in deciding which RNAs merit inclusion and what data about those RNAs to provide. It also provides data necessary for further scientific analysis of the RNAs.

With regard to the apparent lack of secondary source: The Rfam Database seems to me to qualify as a secondary source, since it is essentially a hand-curated encyclopedia of structured RNAs that meet Rfam's criteria (as I understand it, essentially that there is evidence of biologically relevant structure and function and that the data are meaningful). Therefore, I believe these Wikipedia pages are supported by a secondary source. You can confirm their inclusion in Rfam for yourself by looking for Rfam's information box in the relevant pages, introduced with the {{Infobox rfam ...}} tag in the markup. All data in this info box comes from the Rfam database. Beside the term "Rfam" is the accession for the given RNA and a link to its entry in Rfam. For example, on the Drum RNA motif page, you can click on the accession RF02958 (lower, right part of the page). Such links should be provided for all RNA articles I have added to Wikipedia.

With regard to the apparent conflict of interest: The Rfam Database is maintained by a group at the European Bioinformatics Institute and this group was previously located at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. I have never had any affliation with either of these institutions, nor do I have any power to make Rfam incorporate specific RNAs into their database. Indeed some of the RNAs I have published were not included in the Rfam Database, and these RNAs do not have corresponding Wikipedia articles. Thus, I did not really decide to put these RNAs into Wikipedia, rather the Rfam group did. I just did the work to create the Wikipedia article in many cases.

In terms of resolving this issue, perhaps it would be helpful to have an "External links" section in the affected articles that explicitly links to Rfam, although I'm not sure how to practically do this with hundreds of articles.

I have alerted the Rfam team to this page, in case they want to weigh in. I will also link to my text here from the Articles for Deletion entry for the Drum RNA motif page, since I see that the same issues are being discussed there.

Zashaw (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are methods to edit large numbers of articles to emplace similar edits, so that’s not an impossible task if that would resolve the issue with lack of secondary references. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment As the current head of Rfam, I would like to voice my support for keeping the articles authored by Zasha Weinberg (Zashaw). These articles accompany the entries in the Rfam database of RNA families that capture the data reported in the scientific literature and create computational models to enable identification of these RNAs in any sequence. Rfam staff include trained bioinformaticians and RNA biologists who carefully review all entries and provide additional verification that these RNAs are important (Rfam is not affiliated with Zasha Weinberg or his institution). For example, a Wikipedia article about the Drum RNA is part of the Rfam entry RF02958 and includes an infobox showing metadata from Rfam. Many RNAs discovered by Zasha Weinberg have been later shown to serve important functions, so it is important to have Wikipedia entries that describe what these RNAs are. Having scientists like Zasha Weinberg provide starting points for Wikipedia entries about different RNAs is valuable because these pages are then edited and expanded by the community. In fact, Rfam pioneered the integration with Wikipedia over a decade ago (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3013711/), and we found that connecting the scientists and the community through Wikipedia has been very successful. Antonipetrov (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a significant COI issue here. Yes, Zashaw could mention Rfam on their userpage to be clearer that there's a connection to it, but the actual work they're doing isn't particularly affected by their professional connection to the topic (and the self-cite is probably reasonable in this instance given the topic. The discussion of notability of the articles is a separate (and much broader) issue, so I'll add more at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Drum_RNA_motif which I think is the main location for that discussion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As someone involved in the beginning of rfam/pfam, I would also like to voice my strong support for keeping these articles! Magnus Manske (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Help wanted We're continuing to discuss whether Drum RNA motif should be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif, and I suspect the outcome of the discussion there should inform what happens here next. I came to the COI notice board for help, as I realized that we needed a lot more scrutiny of this issue, as it affects hundreds of pages, and this noticeboard seemed to be the most relevant (though not a perfect fit to the issue at hand). I invite administrators and other knowledgeable people to review the deletion discussion and weigh in if appropriate. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • @Magnus Manske: Any chance you could take a look at this, having been involved in the early bioinformatics integrations? It's pretty clear that these articles don't meet our current notability standards and to me, the solution could be that there is an Rfam wiki where reseachers such as Zashaw can write about them, and then if they then become notable, we can copy from that wiki to here in the future. If a Wikipedia article existed, then that would take priority over the Rfam wiki i.e. there would only ever be one version of an article. Is this something that might be feasible for you Antonipetrov? I admittedly have no experience in WP:TRANSWIKI but I am sure someone does. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I am afraid that I do not agree with the point that these articles do not meet the notability standards. These entries describe RNA genes that are found in many different organisms, including human pathogens. Even if we do not yet know all of their functions, these RNA have evolved over a long time and do play important roles that will eventually be revealed. The Rfam team works on a wide range of RNAs, including viral RNAs and RNA motifs found in Coronaviruses. Several years ago one could have argued that those entries and the corresponding Wiki articles were not important enough, which would have been misguided as recently these RNAs turned out to be rather notable. Many of the pages that are being discussed here have been improved over the years by Wikipedians who are not necessarily scientists but who wanted to contribute to a valuable resource. Relegating this important information to a separate wiki would create a barrier between the public and the scientific endeavour. Antonipetrov (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
      • @Antonipetrov: They unequivocally do not meet the general notability guideline at present if they are only discussed in a single publication and that is the only yardstick of notability relevant here. From a random selection of pages created by Zashaw, I can't see anything to support "Many of the pages that are being discussed here have been improved over the years by Wikipedians": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
        • @Smartse: The first example that immediately comes to mind is Fluoride riboswitch. The page was started as crcB RNA motif and many years later this RNA was shown to act as fluoride riboswitch. I can look up other examples like this if it helps. I do appreciate the need to weed out irrelevant articles that do not serve any purpose except to promote the author(s). Zashaw's case could not be further from this - if anything, it is a great example of collaboration and open science. Rfam database serves as a second publication supporting these pages because we publish bi-annual updates in the Nucleic Acids Research (since 2002!) and we could have easily included a table listing all of these RNAs and new information discovered about them by our team at Rfam. We did not do it because it would be redundant with Rfam itself and it never occurred to us that the notability of this work would be questioned but we could have satisfied the formal criteria with ease. Antonipetrov (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
          • @Antonipetrov: Thanks for the example. When it was created that article had only a single journal article reference like most of the articles under discussion and assuming that was all that existed, did not meet GNG. When this and the corresponding article in Science was published, it became notable. Now there are hundreds of articles mentioning it. Wikipedia isn't into cataloging things which might become notable at some point in the future - if it did then every person and business would merit an article as they might one day become Bill Gates / Google etc. Personally I don't see that COI is much of an issue here, as you are all clearly trying to benefit the project rather than yourselves, but that doesn't change the fact that this content doesn't belong here. SmartSE (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
            • @Smartse: I am afraid that I do not agree with the analogies between RNA genes and people, movies, or other items that may or may not become notable. The genes - be it RNA or protein - exist in the living beings around us. They are notable regardless of the number of scientific papers about them. Importantly, we are not talking about every single gene - we are talking about a high-quality, manually curated subset of RNA genes that have been discovered by Zashaw and then manually reviewed by me (Antonipetrov), my team, or our predecessors at Rfam, who are all trained biologists. Our review is not superficial. We perform a lot of quality control steps and analyses, and in some cases we change the data submitted to us by Zashaw. As a result we produce entries in the Rfam database that are linked to the corresponding Wikipedia entries and are represented by the Rfam infoboxes. I am not sure I understand why all this work does not qualify as a secondary source, and I continue to express my support for keeping these Wikipedia entries. Antonipetrov (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • This is notable basic biology. There seems to be some misplaced concern that there are too many articles, being added indiscriminately. I think the situation is, rather, the very rapid progress in molecular biology that makes identifying significant structures much more feasible. Most of them are being discussed further, and if we start having discussions over each of them, by the time the discussions and the likely appeals and subsidiarty dscussions are finished, there will be sources. Some areas in science move faster than AfD and other WP processes . DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Request to close this issue Discussion concluded on nomination for deletion as No consensus with recommendation to open RfC to resolve the issue.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    No need for an RfC. I do not see any issue whatsoever. Actually, this is excellent work by a number of contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 00:30, 15 December 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.

Tim Eyman

This is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting tax protester Tim Eyman. There are a lot of contributions, most of which seem to me to be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@82.20.240.157: You must notify users when you report them here. I have gone ahead and done so on your behalf this time. Chanjagent is indeed the definition of SPA, but luckily, they really haven't been active since 2020. The user also has a very bad habit of marking everything as a minor edit. --SVTCobra 01:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Australian Defence Forces

I'm not sure of what this article says as it's behind a paywall but the blurb was concerning enough that I thought I'd share it here. Anyone know what it says? Is this being discussed elsewhere? https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/defence-force-wikipedia-cleanup-operation-to-rid-internet-of-army-scandals/news-story/2e774a202274ffcc0537ca33b0686a72 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I just access the article and it pertains to edits made to Sydney University Regiment between November 12-15 by an anonymous editor. The editor deleted controversial sections in their entirety. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The IP edits appear to have been reverted already. One of the IPs does appear to be from the Australian Defence Forces which would be obvious COI. I cannot, however, access the Telegraph article. To follow protocol, would you please list and notify the suspected IPs of this discussion, MaskedSinger? If it recurs, escalating to ANI might be advisable. --SVTCobra 01:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: The IPs in question appear to be 203.6.77.2 and 220.240.238.58. Do you agree? Want to confirm with you first. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not for me to say; you are the one bringing the allegations. But, if we are talking SUR, you just might be right. And no, you needn't confirm with me first. --SVTCobra 09:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
That said, 203.6.77.2 has been tagged publicly since 2015. --SVTCobra 09:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
And 220.240.238.58 was tagged in November. Anything else to do here @SVTCobra:? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I mean tagged as being registered to the ADF. 220.240.238.58 just looks like a random Australian IP. --SVTCobra 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Navjit Buttar

The subject editor created Navjit Buttar in article space. Reviewer User:Onel5969 moved it to draft space, with the notation "Segregate UPE". The originator then moved it back to article space without discussion, but with the move reason "No Proof of UPE". This was not an actual denial of UPE, and can be read as weaseling. The subject editor should answer the question of whether they are being paid explicitly. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Where were they asked that question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I am guessing here, Andy. --SVTCobra 23:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sennheiser

Seems like there's some COI/Paid editing going on here with this user- all of their edits seem to be made with the intention of promoting Sennheiser, and they recently came back after about a year of absence. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am basically sure that the editor has a COI with Sennheiser based on a google search of the editor's username. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like an obvious case of COI. I've rolled back their recent edits on the page. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 14:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
So it would seem, although it could be a Sennheiser fan. scope_creepTalk 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I doubt it, as a quick Google search of their username shows that a person with the same name happens to be the the Head of Global Public Relations at Sennheiser. I’m going to rollback to an older unaffected version of the article and do some further cleanup tomorrow. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 19:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I recall having done some cleanup on this some time ago, but this is apparently a longer-term spam/PR campaign and will need a close eye kept on it. I have started cleaning up some of the puffery which existed even in the older version which wasn't as bad, but it certainly needs more work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade: does it also happen in their product pages? If so, I'd be willing to add those to my watchlist and help out. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a good thought. The only product page I can readily find for them is Sennheiser MD 421. Apparently that was translated from a German Wikipedia article, and while my ability to speak German is pretty minimal, I don't straightaway see evidence that the German article was spammed in the same way. That said, the current version of that could probably do with a trim of some fluff, but it was nowhere near as bad as the company article was. If anyone knows of articles on any of their other products, those should probably be checked out as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

User's talk page was a red link until after their last edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

NB Mareike Oer has been blocked. --SVTCobra 00:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Samsona

See my post at User talk:Samsona. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

After talk message from both me[7] and Opabinia,[8] Samsona made another predatory journal, COI edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


Please help me. I am trying to add relevant information for my students. I am not a predatory journal. Please do not remove all my hard workSamsona (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I made some comments on Samsona's user talk to try to explain why they're being reverted. This is clearly academic citation spamming. Even setting that aside, I've checked a bunch of their edits and the sources being cited don't meet WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Is Jangpbest one of your students? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also a WP:REALNAME issue. [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

REALNAME would be an issue if you think this is a case of impersonation, but I don't think that's the allegation here. --SVTCobra 00:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Samson AO is the author of the journal articles in the citation-spammed edits. Samson AO is indexed in Pubmed and identifies a real person: [10]. Samsona created an article about the real Samson AO, and Jangpbest created a draft about the same person. Samsona mentions his students. But Samsona says they are not AO Samson, but that they know AO Samson. Then why are they using Samson AO’s name to citation spam Samson AO’s publications? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And now, making the same posts using still predatory journal from an IP: [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am curious, why do you keep saying 'predatory', Sandy? Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
See the edit summary linked above (“ Tags: use of predatory open access journal “ … this is also explained in more detail at Samsona’s talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
They're citing an article in the journal 'Aging'. See a review of that journal here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, but it might have been quicker to link to predatory publishing a concept which I had not hear of before. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It is linked, in the edit summary of every edit where that journal is added, and in the diff I referred you to above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Then it should have been easy to put it somewhere or anywhere in this discussion. Anyway, I don't want to get combative here. Let's focus on Samsona and their cry for help. --SVTCobra 04:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Its on Beall's list [12] scope_creepTalk 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

GalavantEnchancedMoon has today, 25 December 2021, re-started editing Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RPSI) per [13]. While purporting to address the balance between North and South operations the wording continues to make subtle poke's between the north and south of the society, with emphasis on the how the Southern operations (Dublin/Mullingar) have been "hard done by" the north. This is consistent with previous contributions such as Special:Diff/1022135389 "However, some members regard this as a waste of money and effort that would be better used on their existing locomotive and carriage fleet." The discussions on Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland/Archive 1 NB I inserted "talk" in this link to fix it. --SVTCobra 03:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)) are unsavoury; there has been need to delrev various articles on the main page. GalavantEnchancedMoon backed off from discussions at the time, but has re-emerged, and there is a question of COI, althougth previously denied. I was a member of the RPSI from 25 August 2021 until I resigned my membership in 22 November 2021 (more because RPSI email bulletin communications were reminding me of by pblock on the article by Mjroots and if I attended an RPSI event I might slag of WikiPedia admins handling of the matter. I accept my pblock has to remain becuase I was a member for a short while). There remains a question in my mind if GalavantEnchancedMoon should be allowed to use Wikipedia to air his disdains relating to the RPSI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Is everyone contributing to this article a member or former member of the society? --SVTCobra 04:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: - GEM states that he is not a member of the RPSI. We have to AGF that is the case.
As for the issues raised here, as I see it the RPSI has bases in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Both should be covered. Any major disputes between factions should also be covered, but in a neutral and non-partisan way. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mjroots Because GEM has used the RPSI journal to support some of those claims using poorly embellished (and in one case syntactically incorrect) and offline resources I have removed the old wallet from its watertight hole and attempted to re-join the RPSI if they will choose to have me (Its always horrible when a browser screen says Whoops, looks like something went wrong. after one has entered the credit card details!). Obviously we can unending amounts of AGF ... except perhaps on my motives ... I'm a tad sarky because I just may have burned £30 so I hope people will AGF about that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: - Although I don't know the situation re the RPSI, many heritage railways do sell their house journal to the public. That GEM has used such a journal is not, in itself, evidence of membership of the RPSI. A different concern, which is valid, is that the journal is a WP:PRIMARY source insofar as it covers matters relating to the RPSI itself. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mjroots:: Its reasonable for primary sources to be used for certain facts, but its use by GEM surely deserves scrutiny? Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
A "major dispute" should be covered only if reliable secondary sources have published on the topic. Whatever the journal says about its dispute is immaterial. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
OK. Are you able to do that, Mjroots? I am at a loss, quite frankly. Nevertheless, I am aware of larger rail clubs who do not have a Wikipedia page, so maybe TNT is an option if they can't agree. I cannot speak to the content of the article. --SVTCobra 08:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Please indicate larger rail clubs in the British Isles that do not have an article and are also a Train Operating Company? Also please think about the fact the publicly open Whitehead Railway Museum effectively requires that it has its own section. And before yet another TNT or stubify can anyone please tell me what is wrong from a neutrality viewpoint (yes there are spelling mistakes and there is expansion needed) with This 19th December 2021 version? However a key issue with a more recent addition such as [14] and determine if the and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead. if factually correct it is non neutral in tone. It is not to decry probable good/great Mullingar, situated somewhat in the centre of the Island of Ireland, has done; but I suspect the 1985 closure of the Mullingar line to Athone and access to Galway, Ballina, Westport, and former Great Southern and Western Railway other than via Dublin. Totally worth of mention, but probably a History section item rather than what I read as sour grapes. Take look at Dublin operations section. The Society has extensive operations out of Dublin which are said to bring in the lion's share of income, according to Five Foot Three issue 43. Does that undated? RS? look neutral? Now I am far from denying it may be true (Especially from earlier times but as the previous issue of Five Foot three was (No. 42) was in 1996 and that looks like a cherry picked claim. It not like Dublin Operations might still be generating most revenue, even with Covid, and it certainly needs a mention, but in this form of biased fashion? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I shouldn't have said that about TNT'ing. Anyway, to clarify, I was not speaking of the British Isles and also not about clubs that operate real trains. Basically, just a couple of US-based clubs with larger membership numbers. Kindly disregard those parts of my message. It was really late at night for me. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor (I've never even set foot in Ireland), my understanding is that this is a long-running dispute, and essentially all major contributors to the article have a COI. Which makes sense, because everyone else doesn't want to wade into the middle of a war zone (I certainly don't). I don't know how to resolve this beyond banning everyone with a COI from making direct edits to the article entirely and having someone neutral rewrite it (I am NOT volunteering to do this). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings:: I'm am going to again, and I repeat again due to SVTCobra, cover the matter of why a rewrite is unnecessary. I was not an RPSI member prior to 25 August 2021. Per Special/Diff:1040560446 I declared I had just joined the RPSI (ie gone COI) and removed my contributions since a stubification. Independent contributor who took over mediation role for a while reviewed those contributions and confirmed they should be reinstated at Special:Diff/1040663068. Subsequently I have requested two {{request edit}} which were eventually were implemented. Yes I have had prose and spelling issues in those contributions. The format of the Rolling stock was to satisfy Drmies who seemed unhappy with a tabular format, while linking to relevant articles relating to stock. In totality there should be no need to revert back further than This 19th December 2021 version; what is not to say it could not be improved. But you vaguewave claim of a rewrite needed? No. A neutral rewrite of content added beyond that date given the totallity of GEM's contributions - definitively in my view. And your suggestion of Pblocking all COI editor's (especially perhaps those who have avoided formal mediation?) - yes I would sau that is a good idea but I would wouldn't I given the circumstances. My argument for that would need to be pretty involved and is slightly complex ... I have claimed GEM is a connected contributor based upon an independent admin's assessment - Mjroots has claimed we must AGF his statement he is not. I have insufficient time to do so at present ... I must concentrate on a Hospital Visit to a relative I am booked for this afternoon and various related matters ... being particular cautious to make most due diligence to minimise infection transmission risk either in or out of that establishment. Obviously it would be better in other than mental reasons not to visit, and I have made the reason to visit after due consideration. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • DJM, if you feel the bit about Dublin bringing income needs mention but is in biased form, maybe there's an alternative way of phrasing we could suggest here and see what people think? :) GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@GalavantEnchancedMoon: This forum is really about whether your COI is valid. Mjroots, if I am not mistaken, has claimed about needing to AGF you do not having a COI. In contrast Drmies at Special:Diff/1038917193 used to the phrase "interested parties" with your name being specifically mentioned. ( At this point, and I should have dont this earlier, I should mention that while being an RPSI member from 25-August-2021 to 22 November 2021 and from 29 December 2021 my actions on Wikipedia are my own and I do not claim to represent the RPSI etc, etc,). Of course from my point of view I think I have seen prolific POV pushing, some of it of a most serious nature. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Philippe1226

Probably a sock-puppet, scarce contributions, half od them to remove COI tag

IP, you should notify the relevant user at their talk page. Contributions (Israeli BLPs) might indicate some Israeli PR firm, and I agree with some (especially Alon Korngreen's BLP) articles being indicative of a COI. Regarding the sock-puppet allegation, I'd recommend you start a thread at WP:SPI. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I assume the editor the IP suspects is the puppet master would be Ovedc, who has disclosed paid edits in two of these three pages before. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Tks, Alon Korngreen is a paid article. in the entry history I have noticed that the reviewer who acccepted the entry is banned from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.83.105 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
IP, the reviewer was banned for reasons unrelated (to my knowledge) to the article. Korngreen was created by Ovedc, who I have listed above. If you or other editors believe Philippe is a sock of Ovedc you must go through the proper channels (namely, WP:SPI) in order for that to be discussed. Not that I think it's unlikely (Ovedc has been previously banned for using multiple accounts, although unbanned later), just that this is not the proper noticeboard for sock investigations. Regarding the COI of Philippe, I think the best action is for those who feel the articles are still in need of a COI tag to re-add those and discuss this matter with Philippe themselves before coming here again. It is quite hard to determine if an editor has a COI when they only have 5 minor edits, especially if they edit once every few months.
TL;DR: Reviewer banned for unrelated reasons, this is not the proper noticeboard for sock investigations, and I don't see any action that can really be taken here as of now. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Hurst

Just a bit of context, Glenn Hurst is running in the election above. The user then created a draft and article about the person above. From their activities of editing only on themself and the candidate to the much more obvious giveaway of "Lou McDonald for Glenn Hurst" listed as the author at File:GH Launch Capital MainShot 2-scaled.jpg, I think this is a clear-cut case. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 22:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the article above was AFD-ed and closed as Redirect. Also adding other users (Aaafram and Sanity0050) as they use the same flowery language about the candidate and has been editing on similar articles. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Blocked the lot. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks GeneralNotability for the quick action and correct decision given the obvious COI and other concerns described above. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiIslam

Context

The Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA), the parent organization of WikiIslam, has a long but mostly overlooked history of conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on EXMNA and related articles of its leadership to promote the organization and its projects on Wikipedia that has been noted since 2014. There is at least one account on the history of EXMNA page that is easily linked to a senior leader of the organization. In compliance with WP:OUTING, those details can be provided via email.

In 2020, the page on WikiIslam was created. The wiki has garnered quite negative coverage from reliable sources, which have described it as anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, and even Islamophobic. A series of IP addresses from the same range promptly began editing the page to frame Wikipedia's description of WikiIslam much more favorably:

When confronted with the possibility that the IP user had a COI, the user stopped editing. A few months later in January of this year, Editor atlas (talk · contribs) performed a couple of edits before shifting their focus to the WikiIslam article and editing in a similar fashion to the IP user. When provided with a COI notice, the editor responded not by denying the COI but by stating "I object, I'm trying to maintain the neutrality of the article." The account was soon abandoned after.

User Underthemayofan

User Underthemayofan accumulated about a dozen edits before initiating a very heavy focus on WikiIslam, editing along the same lines as the IP addresses above and user Editor atlas, in an attempt to cover WikiIslam more favorably. He has demonstrated an intimate familiarity with the wiki and EXMNA, being able to identify the organization's employees, among other things. User RubiconForder, an apparent meatpuppet, had a handful of edits before editing WikiIslam and also popped up in support of user Underthemayofan, quickly declaring that a consensus existed in favor of changing the page to cite WikiIslam itself while de-emphasizing reliable sources.

User:TrangaBellam, User:Doug Weller, and I have all asked about user Underthemayofan's conflict of interests or relationship with WikiIslam. Thus far, they have denied any relationship or COI. Snuish (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a meatpuppet? what? I've been following the wikiislam page on wikipedia for some time and was just waiting for someone else to make a move on updating it. Lazy? Sure. Meatpuppet? lol no.
I also want to point out that anyone who follows the Islam/ex-Islam internet wars will know all about what you describe as constituting the "intimate familiarity" of Underthemayofan. The EXMNA employee you mentioned is on twitter and has a large following within those circles: https://twitter.com/AlanSmith8859. If you aren't following this stuff, then it seems you are exceptionally out of the loop and probably need to do more digging before you accuse random wikipedia editors of COI just because they disagree with you. RubiconForder (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Right, multiple experienced users who've suspected a COI here are doing so "just because" you disagree with us. It must have nothing to do with the fact that there is a lengthy history of COI editing along the same lines. Snuish (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
"Lengthy history?" You haven't proven that any of those account were COI! I can tell you I had nothing to do with them, and an analysis of my IP and those IP's will lead to that conclusion.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what standard of proof you would need for this argument, but it's probably not the same as would be required by the community. You being a meatpuppet would not require you to be the same editor or have the same IP address as editors we've come across before. Snuish (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
So then which "standard of proof" are you operating from, besides "everyone who disagrees with me is part of a conspiracy?"--Underthemayofan (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The duck test. Given the number of editors I haven't named above, you have an excellent strawman argument there. Snuish (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Snuish2: If you possess evidence which WP:OUTING is preventing you from posting here, you should email it to [email protected] ... There are also other options which can include this. --SVTCobra 05:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Snuish2: please either present some evidence or stop making this accusation. So far all you have is that I was aware of information that by your own admission is publicly available. @SVTCobra: do I have any recourse to appeal to or defend myself here? This accusation is baseless and aimed only at silencing me because I disagree with Snuish2 on a topic in which he is apparently personally invested. I have also had a baseless accusation of edit warring aimed at me. Is this how Wikipedia welcomes new users to the platform?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Underthemayofan:, to be honest, I do not know. But I'd expect them to contact you if the evidence is not incontrovertible. If it is bullshit, I don't think any of us will ever hear of it again. Again, that's if there's a report and I don't know if there's anything to report. So for now, I'd just relax if I were you. I am sorry if you felt it unfair that I laid out options for Snuish2. --SVTCobra 05:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I have no complaint with anything you have done, it seems you're just following protocol. It just seems that the fact that Snuish2 even posted here and dragged me into defending myself on the basis of such lousy evidence is harassments designed to silence me and keep me from participating in the editing of the article.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Underthemayofan: Well, I don't know what the evidence might be other than your interest in WikiIslam and perceived POV thereof. And to be fair, your edit history looks a little obsessed with the topic. --SVTCobra 06:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I grant that, but the recent history of every user including User:Snuish2 looks like that if you check it recently. I have been editing for almost 6 months now and this is the first topic I am jumping into where I have seen what seems to be to be rank misinformation on the platform. I won't deny being very interested in the topic but I am apparently not alone. Snuish2 has 2 editors apparently in lockstep with him and with similarly "obsessed" histories, should I open complaints of COI on them?--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Snuish (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, your edits, even with your first account Snuish seem to have a keen interest in WikiIslam since 2020. And it continues with your current account/user name. Is it a passing interest? Or are you vested in this? --SVTCobra 07:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's a passing interest or if I'll continue to be interested in it for quite some time. My interest is in the counter-jihad movement and related topics, of which WikiIslam is an outgrowth. I've dedicated a lot of time to improving articles in that arena some and others related to Islamophobia. Snuish (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. We are getting somewhere. --SVTCobra 07:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • To quote a ruling from Arbitration Committee (2005), For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. It is self-evident that all these editors (registered or not) are part of a meatpuppetry ring, which I concede, might not be organized or operated with a motive. In a similar vein they might not have a COI (perks of anonymity) but their behavior shows no deviation from editors who declared one or hypothetical editors having one.
    Establishment of motive is very difficult—even in real life prosecution—but that does not waive off sanctions. A consistent refusal to stonewall discussions and simultaneous sealioning can only lead to further waste productive use of editorial resources. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
RubiconForder is not my sock puppet. The information User:Snuish2 cited is publicly available on the internet, see here: https://twitter.com/AlanSmith8859 and here on WikiIslam itself: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Asmith. In addition to Rubicon forder there are other accounts who have taken a similar line to me on WikiIslam.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
While the information is publicly available, it's not readily apparent from either EXMNA's website, where there is no mention of Alan Smith, or WikiIslam's website, which doesn't mention that Alan Smith is an employee of EXMNA. You have to go a bit off the beaten path to find it. Snuish (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Alan Smith also posts fairly frequently on Ex-Muslim Reddit, see here https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/qzdvqu/new_wikiislam_article_on_mariyah_the_copt/. He is fairly well-known in the Ex-Muslim online community.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Underthemayofan: Would you describe yourself as member of that same community? --SVTCobra 21:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
No I am not but I am a member of the online atheist community.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
It's sad how many atheists are so anti-Muslim. Since you've decided to abandon good faith, User:Underthemayofan, I feel free to say that it appears that you are one of them. It's embarrassing to me as an atheist. @Snuish:, his twitter feed says "Head Editor&Admin of WikiIslam http://wikiislam.net Employee of @ExmuslimsOrg ""[15] Doug Weller talk 11:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Underthemayofan: why are you asking for help from an inexperienced editor with a couple of blocks who hasn't edited for 10 months? I can't see anything you have in common except that User:EdJohnston blocked them and he's also given you a warning about reverting at WikiIslam without talk page consensus, which you want to appeal. What have I missed? Doug Weller talk 11:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:I asked the question to them, not to you, so I am not really interested in discussing it with you. As for "good faith" I see you've decided to abondon WP:AGF. I am not "anti-Muslim" and your feelings on what is and is not "embarrassing to [you] as an atheist" are irrelevant. My confessional background is not relevant, I only brought it up in answer to SVT's question, I could bring up the assumed confessional identity of others in this conversation but I don't since it's not relevant to the verifiable facts of the case. Since your interest in this article apparently has more to do with your feelings about how a "good atheist" should not be "anti-Muslim" I would suggest that perhaps it might be best if you bowed out of this particular discussion.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Good faith isn't a suicide pact. You accused me of deception [16] and above you accused two nameless editors of editing in lockstep and being obsessed. I should not have said anti-Muslim but anti-Islam, as what I've seen of people who are virulently anti-Islam they deny being anti-Muslim. My sadness is indeed irrelevant and don't affect my interest in the article which except for the pov tag I haven't edited since January, and one of my edits was to revert Snuish2. I didn't raise your "confessional background", you mentioned it. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have indeffed Underthemayofan as an undisclosed COI editor and RubiconForder as either their sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Some evidence from the paid-en-wp queue is involved (ticket:2021122810008593 for those with access) but this is primarily based on their on-wiki behavior to date. I've also ECP'd the article for good measure. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and the other functionaries who reviewed this discussion and the paid-en-wp ticket. Thanks to SVTCobra also! Snuish (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Engineers India

Following editors from Engineers India Limited are editing Engineers India page. This seems to be a direct Conflict of Interest issue. RPSkokie (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@RPSkokie: Post a mesaage to inform they are mentioned here. scope_creepTalk 10:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Notified just now. Thank you. RPSkokie (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
RPSkokie I highly recommend you contact Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to get the content you recently deleted and subsequent version showing the material to be wp:revdeled, per wp:outing policy. Next time you can just say "googling these names seems to suggest employees of the company" or something along those lines such as "a google search of the editor usernames indicates a high likelihood of COI". It will give other editors the information that is needed for this discussion without explicitly outing anyone. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree this is definitely a case of COI editing without proper disclosure. @Rajiv Nair EIL and DRajkhowa: please read this page on how to disclose COIs properly and how to edit with COIs. Having COIs won't prevent you from editing these pages, just changes how you should do so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I did a big mistake by revealing personal information. Will follow your suggested route; "googling these names seems to suggest employees of the company". RPSkokie (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I have personally made that mistake recently (even had to go to ANI to be ironed out, and plenty of veteran editors left the thread more confused than when they went in lol), and you took proactive steps to remove the content from the page, so don't feel to bad about it. Merely a {{minnow}}-ing, if anything :P. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree about Ptrnext. Their edits look like they tried to clean up the article and nothing else. Furthermore, Ptrnext's edit history, while not long, shows an interest in a great many articles. I don't see COI there. The other two accounts are clear as day. One doesn't even need to go off-wiki to confirm it to a high degree of certainty. --SVTCobra 13:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. Shouldn't have mentioned Ptrnext, my bad. I'll have some fish for lunch too, then. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: @RPSkokie: @A. C. Santacruz: Yep, I found Engineers India page through List of public sector undertakings in India and was merely fixing citations and formatting on the page. Do I need to do anything now? I still see my userlink listed above with the other two editors. Ptrnext (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Nope, you're all good to go I'm pretty sure. Thanks for your gnoming, Ptrnext. Ps: you can use {{reply to}} to notify multiple editors in one go.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

White Hill Studios

This article was written by someone connected to this company (per the username). I removed some of the worst promotional language in the article, and added a COI tag on the article and requested the editor to acknowledge their relationship to the company. Instead, they blanked their user page, removed the COI tag on the article and restored everything I removed. MB 07:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear User MB, RS at WHS (talk) I do not have a conflict of interest with the company. I had just created a wiki page of the company after referring to other companies of the same industry. You can see the pattern is same for other Indian film companies. No information is promotional in nature and is backed by citations and references wherever possible. I would request you to delete the accusation thereof. RS at WHS (talk) RS at WHS 2:17 pm, 30 December 2021 (IST)

RS at WHS: Ignoring the obvious concerns re your username: On December 22, in your second edit on Wikipedia, you created your userpage by adding the UserboxCOI template, explicitly declaring that you had a COI with White Hill Studios.[17] You removed that template a minute later.[18] DoubleCross (‡) 14:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
DoubleCross @MB:, do you want to move that COIN notice from the user page to the user talk page? Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't add that notice, MB did. - DoubleCross (‡) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
It was G11'd on 30 August 2021 for being straight COI Promo. It is a straight up COI again. scope_creepTalk 15:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@MB: Never post anything to a editors user page. I've moved the notice. I have put a G11 on the article. scope_creepTalk 15:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
That was inadvertent. They had neither a User or TP and I posted at the wrong redlink. MB 17:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I've indeffed RS at WHS as an undisclosed paid editor who is also clearly lying to us, and I've deleted Lekh (film), another of his articles. The film is produced by White House, of course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Thanks. Great work. Have a good one in 2022. scope_creepTalk 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@MB: If there no talk page present, then go ahead and create it. scope_creepTalk 22:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Kerry Raheb

It's clear to me that the account's entire purpose is to promote/publicise Kerry Raheb's candidacy in the election, including adding an external link and picture, with a very obvious username. Their first edit is also only 9 minutes after the account was created. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 00:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor is a spammer and is WP:NOTHERE. scope_creepTalk 00:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I would tread a little easier, scope_creep. There are just four edits and most people who see "a site that all can edit" will not immediately think about Wikipedia having exceptions. The COI is obvious and some of the edits were egregious but first we should try to bring them into the fold. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
No, they knew exactly what they were doing. They wouldn't have done it otherwise. Happy New Year!! scope_creepTalk 01:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I've gotta agree with scope_creep here. There is absolutely no way that this user cares about improving the encyclopedia. Mlb96 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mlb96:, true but that's the case for all COI and paid editors. What we seek to do, in my opinion, is to corral them from editing directly and let them notify us when there's a mistake or something missing. (We/us = Wikipedia). I don't think we should automatically block out this input. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year to all the COIN readers! But, yes, Kerryraheb was trying to help the campaign of the similarly named candidate, but I wouldn't go as far calling it spamming. Maybe I have a soft spot for small party candidates. Cheers. Let's hope 2022 will be better than 2021. --SVTCobra 01:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I felt it appropriate to escalate this to ANI with this statement here as the user was continually ignoring this noticeboard and direct talk page messages.--SVTCobra 06:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, if the editor is who he claims to be? then it certainly is a COI issue. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I've Pblocked Raheb. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Ghil

I'm going to feel incredibly stupid if I'm wrong, but this looks like an SPA just fluffing up the Michael Ghil article. I'm thinking they have a COI, but I'm not sure. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the contributions are basically uncited, including information on his early life. Contributions use scientific jargon and include a list of all PhD supervisees and plenty of awards. I'd agree with the COI, Skarmory. No one is stupid to come to this noticeboard unless they forget to do their due diligence :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Holy moley. This article is in pretty bad shape -- I see that some people have taken a crack at thinning out the CV, but it is still fairly extravagant. I believe I've seen, somewhere, an actual PAG about how many "selected publications" you're supposed to have in a scientist BLP. jp×g 10:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Jason-Jimmy Kent, Justin Chatwin and associated film industry BLPs

I came across Jason-Jimmy Kent's contributions while reviewing an NPP-candidate's trial run, and was concerned that they include several hallmarks of paid editing, including a) contributions all focused on a small group of affiliated and relatively obscure filmmakers/actors b) consistently avoids adding information about negative critical responses despite availability of such references, which are typically added by other editors later on (see Zone 414, Die in a Gunfight, Summer Night (2019 film), and contrast against Unleashed (2016 film), a film with positive critical reception where Jason-Jimmy Kent did bother to add critical reception information. Also n.b. Poor Boy (film) is still missing a Reception section despite having several negative reviews on RT) c) rapid article creation timing consistent with UPE practices and d) PRish prose, often backed by citations to primary or PR sources such as His next two shorts, Head Case (2009) and Band (2010), starred his good friend and frequent collaborator, actor David Dastmalchian.[1] I asked Jason-Jimmy Kent to disclose any COIs on their talk page, but I am unconvinced by their explanation that they're simply a fan of Justin Chatwin, and am further concerned that even if we assume that this explanation is true, Jason-Jimmy's editing thus far is indistinguishable from UPE in effect and requires course-correction even if editors are willing to take them at their word. signed, Rosguill talk 15:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Hughes, Mark (July 16, 2021). "Interview: 'Die In A Gunfight' Collin Schiffli Talks Violence, Love, And 1990s Cinema". Forbes. Retrieved October 29, 2021.

Oklahoma Mesonet

Illston originally expanded the article hugely on July 27–28, 2016, adding plenty of unsourced sections with material that includes quite a bit which is pretty much just advertisements (seriously, downloads to an app? how did that stay in the article for 5 years?). Anyway, Admelvin came along on January 25, 2017, and removed references and replaced them with external links. Admelvin returned on September 3, 2021 (and later September 9) to make some smaller changes (by smaller I mean not pure advertising) and then added back a deleted image on September 17. An IP geolocating to Oklahoma University also popped in on August 12, 2021, and updated the records section (without sources, I did not check thoroughly on the other editors but looking at the state of the article it looks like they were probably adding mostly unsourced info). I have further evidence if needed, but this is pretty slam dunk imo. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Tango Shalom

The problem: diff. Can we block him? He was adding promotional and poorly sourced content here and here, eventually ruining the article until I fixed it.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Filmomusico: At the top of this page is the notice "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." Not only have you not done so, but nor have you made any prior comment - such as to offer advice about sourcing and NPoV - on the user's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Sorry about that, I see it now. As for not making any prior comment, I thought we soft block such editors for at least a username violation (since he claimed who he is). I will try to offer advice, but am doubtful that he will listen.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done--Filmomusico (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not a username violation. COI editors should not be banned off-hand, but encouraged to communicate through the article's talk page. --SVTCobra 18:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I added 67.243.147.234 who posts on User talk:CLANIADO1 as if they are the same person. Note that this IP user uses the word "we" when talking about Tango Shalom, so that's as clear a COI as it can be. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A mobile IP has begun editing Tango Shalom heavily. I added them above. --SVTCobra 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed promo material from the article which was added by the mobile IP.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Another user GravityMaze has thrown their hat into the ring. I added them above. --SVTCobra 01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: As I said earlier, convincing them to change the habits of editing is useless. A block should be imposed sooner or later. Just today, 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:B057:9F8:67B6:E777 (talk · contribs) returned back to adding copyrighted text. I restored the pre copyvio version. I'm proposing page protection. Anyone with me?--Filmomusico (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed Tango Shalom from the lede of Judi Beecher. Within an hour, it was added back to the Career section as her best know work by 47.20.114.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It had originally been added to the lede by GravityMaze. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Thanks. My initial edit to Judi Beecher was to remove the dubious sources. I didn't removed the content because I thought that somebody will find proof for those claims by using reliable sources. Sorry for being negligiant.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, there's still a lot of unsourced information in that article, I just fixed things which were clearly added as a way to hype Tango Shalom. --SVTCobra 00:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: and @Rsjaffe: I added 2 more IPs which are directly linked to the article. There was another one that did some vandalism but was reverted by ClueBotNG.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jim Anderson (sound engineer)

Mr. Anderson was cautioned on his talk page about editing his biography, and was advised to add suggested edits to the talk page. Mr. Anderson replied:

"Why Can I Not edit or correct my own personal information on my own page? This makes no sense and your changes are incorrect. I should be alb to correct my own page and my own information. I wrote this page in the first place and it needs to be updated."

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson replies: All of Magnolia677's changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Anderson_(sound_engineer)&oldid=prev&diff=1063413574 are incorrect. My changes on the left in yellow are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimnanderson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we summarize what reliable sources say about the subject. There is no way to prove what you say is correct is actually correct without sources. If you can provide sources, the changes will likely be accepted, but you did not provide any sources for e.g. the awards you added. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Skarmory: @Magnolia677: Have you tried to look into sources that back up the things that he's saying? I'm well aware of WP:V, but it seems prima facie absurd to confidently assert that he's incorrect about whether he worked for a radio station during or after his college career (and then make no attempt to follow up with sources). The rest of these edits seem to be quibbling over minor grammatical issues -- "Anderson's recordings have received 11 Grammy-awards" versus "Anderson has produced 11 Grammy-awarded recordings", is this serious? jp×g 09:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @JPxG: I did not check for sources, I was explicitly pointing out the awards section as the most obvious point - I'm not trying to imply that the stuff e.g. radio network is wrong, and I did not touch the edits, just popping in to share my views. I noticed the grammatical fixes but they weren't too relevant in my view, if he wants to put those changes back up I wouldn't argue with them personally. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I made an extremely cursory effort to find references for the article, and was able to back up virtually all of the things in it. I am not sure what the issue was supposed to be here, but will gladly follow up here if there are additional problems. I left a {{peacock}} template on it, because frankly it isn't a very good article (basically just a list of awards) -- but I've removed the {{coi}} and {{autobiography}} templates because Jim's contributions are limited to very small parts of the article. jp×g 10:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The main issue is that subject matters aren't supposed to edit their pages per WP:COISELF, and User:Jimanderson clearly failed to request changes through a requested edit on its talk page. The edits might be correct, but they're still not supposed to touch it. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Jimnanderson has been blocked per WP:REALNAME until they can provide proof that they are the person they claim to be. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Suncom Technologies

I found this article duruing categories mainteinance routine and moved it to draft as the author had a clear WP:COI. The editor than moved the article back to mainspace with a comment "Article verified and edited by founder of company, Howard Leventhal". --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The article is seriously unsourced and breaks plenty of MOS guidelines, so I wonder what's the best way to fix that. Draftifying certainly seems like a good first step. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Where exactly is conflict of interest? Company was sold 30 years ago and then went out of business. It was an important player in history of video game industry. My text here is merely historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlev3 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Further on I got Wikipedia emails from Hlev3:

Sorry, I do not see any supposed conflict in my Wikipedia article about Suncom. In what way exactly might I benefit *tangibly* from publishing historical information about a notable company that closed 30 years ago? I have provided two newspaper articles which back numerous statements made in my text. There is a link to a German blog in the article which refers to the company's product. Do you find something false about the article? If so please tell me exactly is false or suspected of being false and I will edit if it is false.

The legal definition of conflict of interest from Black's Law Dictionary: https://thelawdictionary.org/conflict-of-interest/. I receive nothing from publishing this article. I am one of the only people capable on Earth of posting the information in this article. Most of the others are either deceased or frankly, senile. What is the justification for not having this true and accurate historical information viewable on Wikipedia?"

"More succinctly:

1) Exactly how do I personally benefit tangibly from posting this article? 2) Exactly what third party or parties to whom I owe a fiduciary duty is diminished or harmed by this article?

If you cannot provide coherent, truthful answers to these questions, there cannot possibly be a conflict of interest. All I have done by posting this article is to illuminate the history of a seminal, significant video game industry-influencing company. It should be a positive that I write this attesting to my own personal knowledge and I made it clear at bottom of article that I - the company's founder - wrote it." --Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Did... did they just cite Black's Law Dictionary instead of just reading the 1st line of WP:COI? Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 14:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, yes he did, Padgriffin. Not going to lie, it's nice from time to time to find some entertainment out of a Noticeboard like this. Sadly I failed the wikilawyer bar exam, so I cannot possibly refute his claims /s :P Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I sent them an email as they seem to prefer that method of communication- the contents are posted below for transparency's sake.

"Dear Hlev3,

I am writing to clarify why your article has been moved to draftspace. Wikipedia policy requires that editors edit with a neutral point of view , but as you possess an implicit link to the company, this constitutes a potential Conflict of Interest that may undermine your ability to write in a neutral fashion. In addition, Wikipedia requires that articles follow a consistent Manual of Style for articles in mainspace, which the article is currently not abiding by. We are willing to assist you in getting the article to a state where it can pass the Articles for Creation review process and be published as a mainspace article but I would ask you to refrain from manually moving the article until it reaches such a state. If you have further questions, you may reply to this email or respond to the discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard for assistance.

Yours, Padgriffin"

Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 15:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hlev3:, the relevant rules here are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, namely WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE, not what Black's Law Dictionary has about COI in legal matters. If we assume (and I have no reason not to), you are who you say you are, this does run afoul of Wikipedia policy. While Suncom may long be a defunct company, that in no way precludes COI. I think the Suncom story is notable and something Wikipedia should have an article about. However, you should recuse yourself from editing the article yourself and act as a consultant, if you will.
What is a concern that could be a legal matter, are the newspaper clippings you have uploaded. I am not a copyright lawyer, but I am pretty sure that copyright has not expired on those items from the Herald. Let's try to work together and save the Suncom article. --SVTCobra 04:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of ISKCON founder with link spam and honorifics

Not actionable here; appears to primarily be a content dispute, and should be taken to the talk page at Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati; an RM at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is also likely to be helpful, as that is likely to settle whether Swami is an honorific or part of the individuals name. If a third party objects to the closure, please reopen. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

This user Dāsānudāsa keeps reverting edits [19] [20] [21] to restore Honorifics Swami and Prabhupada along with repeated internal links in violation of WP:HONORIFIC and MOS:LINKS. Swami and Prabhupada are honorifics. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics. He admittedly is a follower of this Gaudiya cult diff and trying to engage with him on the article talk has not been helpful. Venkat TL (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Swami, in the case of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami (Prabhupada), is NOT an honorific but is part of his name, as I have explained multiple times: [22], [23], [24], [25],
The man in question is also never simply called "AC Bhaktivedanta" in any reliable sources, which is the most important factor here.
That aside, Venkat TL is apparently either unable or unwilling to understand that he may not shoehorn through controversial changes without first building consensus to do so. The last talk page discussion on this topic, on Talk: Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, ended inconclusively with Venkat TL yet to respond, and yet he has tried again, in complete contradiction to the principles of WP:BRD and consensus-based editing, to remove the text unilaterally, despite having been reverted multiple times.
At this point, it is bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
(1) It is a honorific. Every senior member of this cult uses the honorific name Swamy. (2) There is no reason to use his full name along with the linkspam to his article everytime he is referred to in the article. You are in violation of both. Venkat TL (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I will discuss it with you on the relevant article talk page. Why are we here? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this discussion would be more appropriate for WP:ANI or WP:AN3 than for WP:COIN, but I don't think that is necessary and I'm not certain it will go the way you want Venkat. While your arguments about the name seem reasonable, process is important, and the process now that your bold move (made via WP:RM/TR) has been reverted is to open a WP:RM proposing your move. Once it has passed, as I suspect it will based on what you have argued here, then it would be appropriate to update the links to the article.
Once that has happened, if Dāsānudāsa keeps insisting on their preferred form and edit warring to maintain it then it might be an appropriate time to WP:AN3. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@BilledMammal Thanks for the suggestion. I am not seeking sanctions on Dāsānudāsa. It is important to point how his belief in his cult is clouding his judgement and preventing him from following WP:NPOV on articles related to his cult. The Article title for A. C. Bhaktivedanta is a different matter and I will follow your suggestion on it. Here I am discussing another article Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati which is not about A. C. Bhaktivedanta. As I understand MOS:LINK an internal article only needs to be linked once in the article. Why then is this person wikilinked every time he is referred to? Why are we using his full name (whatever it is including honorific) every time he is referred to in an article not about him. Can this be addressed here? I believe comments from uninvolved editors will be helpful. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that. Yes, that is definitely WP:OVERLINK, and those should certainly be removed, and per MOS:SURNAME you are right that they shouldn't be including the full name on every mention, regardless of honorifics - I have edited the article to match policy. However, I still don't believe this a matter for COIN; we don't typically hold that a member of a religious group has a COI with that group, although there are exceptions, and there is not much we can do here in the absence of a COI. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 1. I have no problem with your addressing the over-linking, but you are doing so in the same edits as you are removing part of the name. If I could revert only the latter, I would. I have no objection to your removing excessive links.
2. I am not a "belie[ver] in the cult", as you suggest, and specifically say so in the diff you linked as evidence of my somehow having a conflict of interest. I am interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but I am also interested in Advaita Vedanta, in Theosophy, in Jungian psychology, in Formula 1 motor racing, in sleeping and in eating. None of this has anything to do with my editing behaviour on Wikipedia. If I was really editing in a partisan manner with regards to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, I would surely insist you refer to him as "Prabhupada", or "His Divine Grace", or other similar honorifics. One again: The "Swami" is his name. With an honorific "Swami", as at pages like Swami Vivekananda and Swami Rama, he would be called "Swami Swami". I have explained this more times than I care to count.
3. If you are concerned about the abuse of the honorific "Swami" in article titles, might I suggest you turn your attention to the two linked above? Or Swami Shraddhanand? Or Swami Satchidananda Saraswati? Swami Abhedananda? Swami Nikhilanand? There are plenty to choose from. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami is not one of them. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2022 (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.

BeyondGenderAgenda

This entry BeyondGenderAgenda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is promotional and there is very probably and obviously paid editing. The user Tacrossen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only written this article for the German and English Wikipedia, nothing more. user:2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2

Woah, that article has quite a weird format. It's like half brochure half name drops. The "media coverage" naming of that section might indicate a paid edit, as that would be a PR/marketing term that isn't usually used by WP natives when naming sections. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2: Did you leave a message informing the editor they were appearing on this noticeboard? scope_creepTalk 00:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I believe this section was started by 2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2. I assume they didn't notify the editor, or tag the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The editor in question has deleted their account. The article is very weak and of dubious notability. Group consensus is needed, but this article looks to me like a candidate for deletion. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Go4thProsper:, what do you mean User:Tacrossen has deleted their account? I mean, they haven't been active since February but that's it. --SVTCobra 05:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not an "initiative", it's a company -> GmbH (Germany) like LLC in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:B1A4:DE0:B441:F341:7E5A:2C42 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Mohamed Sherif Kamel

Comparing this article to the editors User Page, it ischer clearly an autobiography. There is a COI box on the UP acknowledging a conflict, however they are still editing the article in unacceptable ways. Yesterday, I removed a hyperlink to their LinkedIn page at the first bolded mention of their name in the lead. They put it back a second time, and I removed it again and placed a COI warning message on their TP. Today I see the LinkedIn link is back as ref#1. Their User Page is another version of their biography and should probably be CSDed as webhost vio as well (except for the COI user box! MB 22:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding in the article Ehab Lotayef and the user Lotayef. There appears to be a coordination of efforts between these two accounts. It should be noted that if either is notable, then we have WP:REALNAME concerns. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I made an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lotayef before finding this. Definetely something fishy going on User:Mohamedkamelerc creating Ehab Lotayef with it being edited by User:Lotayef who then creates Mohamed Sherif Kamel edited by Mohamedkamelerc. Obvious socking/meatpuppetry. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Both accounts blocked for obvious socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

COI editing on June Preston

The users mentioned above, who claim to be related to June Preston have been editing that page for over a decade, with lots of problems, including edits like:

[26], [27], [28], [29] and [30].

This seems to be their only interests on the wiki. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • NOTE: Brokenmeow, who in edit summaries repeatedly noted that she was June Preston, hasn't edited since 2016. Idoonie, who has repeatedly stated in edit summaries that she is Preston's daughter, is currently still editing. Obviously either of them should make edit requests on the talkpage rather than edit the article directly. And some brave soul should take it upon themselves to remove all of the puffery (especially that which is inadequately cited) from that article and from any article that they inserted Preston's name into. Softlavender (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Recommendation: I recommend that an administrator indef block both accounts from editing that particular article, but retain their ability to edit the talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • User:AssumeGoodWraith, it seems to me that on the one hand you're right--and then there's the other hand. AssumeGoodWraith, if you assume good faith, you're dealing with an editor who is trying to preserve the legacy of their mother, who wants to correct what may well be errors, who thinks that "Conflict of Interest" is a bad thing involving money changing hands, who puts a collection of clipping on Pinterest thinking that these might count as the types of sources that Wikipedia accepts--and probably an editor who is less computer savvy than you. So I am not opposed to blocking them from the article, as long as someone takes the time to explain how communication works here, what reliable secondary sources are, in short what they can and cannot do here. Nicely, please, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Drmies: As much as the edits are problematic, and I may be going a bit too strong, I AM assuming good faith. They just don't know. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also, unrelated, but I've found another related account. Probably not too many problems with this one. [31] – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Softlavender: Small correction, Brokenmeow's edit summaries didn't claim to be June Preston herself, but rather her daughter (here).
    I've added Piress for this edit, claiming to be the daughter; and the IP 98.109.77.155 for multiple edit summaries with the same claim. It seems this individual has created several accounts over the years with overlapping spurts of activity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Drm310, see the account's first edit and edit summary: [32] (whether plausible or not). Then by October 2016 mother and daughter apparently lived together (per that account's last edit summary) and shared the same computer. That said, the daughter created the wiki article and wrote at least 75% of it [33]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Softlavender, I missed that. Normally I'd report an account like that for WP:NOSHARING but it's stale, so there's no point now. I've left a note for the one active account about use of multiple accounts. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


Hello, I read all your comments and am very saddened that you think I am some sort of bad person doing something wrong. All I wanted to do was preserve my mom's legacy (she is now 93) and have I wanted a nice wiki page of her for people to read what an asset she was to the film industry in the 30's and 40's and later in the operatic field in the 50's onward. She had an amazing life (she had dolls and cloths lines in her likeliness, she was a Shirley Temple type in fact both June Preston and Shirley Temple dresses were sold together in stores and yes I have proof of all that) and that was ALL I wanted to do, was to have information on her that people would enjoy. I was not trying to do anything bad or wrong or deviant. I'm not tech savvy so yes maybe I had 2 addition accounts that I made maybe accidentally years ago... but I offered to delete them but am told i cannot. I thought the June Preston page was great with facts and back up photos and newspaper articles to prove all the information was true and accurate. I meant no harm in any way and now the page has been stripped down to nothing and I am told I cannot fix it as I am her daughter. How can if be fixed if i am the only one left that can tell her story? In addition the information about her birthday and birthplace is incorrect I dont know how they got there. At this point if I cannot fix her page I would rather have nothing at Wiki at all because this wrong information on her page will go viral and it is incorrect. I am sorry for anything I may have done wrong, I am older myself and am not tech savvy like all of you. I meant no harm I just wanted to do this for my mom while she is still alive to view it from time to time. If you want proof, just look at my Pinterest pages and see all her photos and proof of who she is Child Star: https://www.pinterest.com/sabmeows/june-preston-famous-film-child-star/ and Opera Singer with the MET: https://www.pinterest.com/sabmeows/june-preston-opera-singer/, I hope you look at those pages and see that I am speaking the truth and I am not a bad person but only a daughter trying to keep her mom's name alive! Thank you allIdoonie (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Idoonie: I, too, am saddened if you feel mistreated on Wikipedia. All too often, however, Wikipedia sees people who try to edit pages for nefarious reasons. This is not only the reason for the conflict of interest policy exists, but also why some responses may have seemed callous. Nevertheless, you do have a conflict of interest when you write about you mother. It is also Wikipedia's desire to be correct. Another policy of Wikipedia is verifiability and therefore we cannot just take your word for facts. Going forward, you should only edit the Talk:June Preston page and not the article directly.
Please use {{Request edit}} and state what needs to be changed, but keep in mind, Wikipedia needs to be able to verify. I know, and I am sorry, this can be unpleasant process. You are not a bad person. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Idoonie: I'll echo the sentiment that we do not believe that you're a bad person. However, your close personal connection to the subject is precisely why you should not edit the article directly. Editors need to have emotional detachment from the subjects they write about, and realize that this is a collaborative project where consensus is the fundamental editorial model. Editors must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns; readers of Wikipedia expect plainly factual articles, neutrally worded and reliably sourced, written independently of their subjects. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your comments very much, I was thinking i did a horrible thing and I am not that kind of person at all. So since I am the only person left (i am her only child) to tell her story how do we go about fixing her page if I am not able to add information? Permission: May I put on this chat/talk the information that use to be on the page before it was taken all off and you go over it? I don't want to do anything that will cause you any problems? I have whatever is needed to corroborate the information that is on the page with you if you need to see it with your eyes, (original newspaper articles, advertisements and studio photos etc.) I don't know any other way to prove what is on her page is true than what is written and shown in print from the newspapers, magazines in the 30's - 60's and 1990 including photos of the june preston dresses, doll, toys, photos etc. they are all authentic (i have trunks of her memorabilia). I understand now that the my close personal connection is an issue but if I have the back up and proof of her career I would hope that would help. I am not trying to maker her out to be someone she was not, she was a huge star back in the day (not Betty Davis) but nonetheless she was huge (all her apparel lines were sold side by side with Shirley Temple's dresses) the photos prove/show both their names together which was on her wiki page showing advertisements and newspaper articles https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664636989/ including Fotoplay mag. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664618955/ other entertainment magazines of the time with both my mom and Shirley Temple June Preston was considered a "Big Pay Babes" https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664616687/ children making over $250.00 a week and back then that was a lot of money. Mom was also a Meglin Kiddie, https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664617269/. So it's all true and backed up, also my mom's opera career https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564666877903/, there are newspaper articles, programs and photos that were attached to her page showing she toured with the Metropolitan Opera etc. I'm truly am not embellishing anything at all I only put on her life and what she did with back up. So let me know if I can put on this chat a copy of what it use to look like and maybe we can fix her page again with the correct info and i can send you any backup you need to authenticate what is needed). Thank you all so much for putting up with this, I only want to do keep my mom's legacy alive but don't want to do anything wrong to offend Wiki. Thanks you and take care , Sabrina Idoonie (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Idoonie:, you are beginning to veer off to content issues that should be discussed on talk pages and not here. However, I can tell you right away, Pinterest cannot be used as a source. It is a social media site where people can post pretty much anything. I will probably contact you on your talk page to give you a little guidance for going forward. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

ScepticalChymist

I have just blocked this user after confirming that they operate a reputation management business despite denying that they are paid to edit here. Their edits are very professional, but their contribs need to be examined closely. SmartSE (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an example of what we need to look out for - they added this source on the day that it was published and it is highly likely that they were involved in writing the source in the first place, purely for use as a reference here. SmartSE (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_183&oldid=1067172337"