Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible citation spam

I've noticed a few IP editors seem to bulk adding citations to Yoav Tirosh sourced to academia.edu. For example: Special:Diff/1137384418 and Special:Diff/1133429484. I'm not really sure what to think of this. Citations to his work are being added to articles about sign language, fermentation, cult films, deaf history, and medicine. On one hand, it's good to see what seems to be academic sources being added to Wikipedia. On the other hand, Special:Diff/1137768716 seems a bit gratuitous. The statement was already sourced. If anyone needs input from me, you should probably ping me because I'm not going to remember that I started this discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: As you say, it is a bit of a mixed bag - some contributions are adding reasonable content and other authors, but others are just adding references where they aren't needed and where it would be undue to include them even then. I've looked through all of those contribs and reverted where I felt it was spammy. There are a few older instances included in this search which appear to be added by the same person, but which I find it harder to judge. SmartSE (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
sorry, my bad! I did want to spread the word on Old Norse relevance to these topics (mainly milk related stuff and deafness), but I clearly went about it the wrong way. I keep losing access to my wiki account but will try and edit from there here on out so it will be clearer who the editor was 79.155.167.119 (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written by random volunteers, so the articles skew toward the interests of whomever happens to write them. However, we need to keep in mind due weight. Citing the same source repeatedly can also come across to others as citation spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Samral

Diffs of paid editing disclosures at the Azerbaijan wiki:

This user has disclosed, on multiple occasions, that they're a paid editor on the Azerbaijan wiki where they also happen to be a former admin. They've failed to disclose this when creating those same articles on the English wiki. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked them on February 3rd at their talk page to make the appropriate disclosures. On the same day, I also noted on Draft talk:Elkhan Ganiyev that the creator had a COI as a paid editor, to which they responded to and confirmed yesterday. They did not respond on their talk page or add a disclosure to their user page. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Mark Isaacs

See edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:F4F6:A73A:AAAA:3F62 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:IMPERSONATE. User claims to be Mark Isaacs and has stated that he will be providing verification of his identity. If he is confirmed to be who he claims, then some education about WP:COI and WP:OWN will be needed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, I'll request a subject specific block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
An update: user has been granted a name change, and is now Walton22 (talk · contribs). Their talk page is protected because of unrelated vandalism (!), but Mr. Isaacs is lobbying RickinBaltimore to be unblocked. The only interest appears to be a return to WP:OWNERSHIP of the biography, at least to remove maintenance templates that are still relevant. A mere name change does not exempt the user from COI and all the fun stuff that goes with it. If unblocked, I'm requesting a topic ban for Mark Isaacs. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your talk page response, Walton22. This is an admittedly ungainly way to communicate, but per [1], if uninvolved editors feel the COI issue has been resolved, they're welcome to remove that template; there's still much that is inadequately sourced. As for coming to a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, the best way to evidence newfound respect is to walk away from the article. Even your most recent comments make it clear that your interests here are for one purpose only. At any rate, this is rather academic. A misstep after an unblock would prompt another block, anyway. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the probationary period granted me, in that the topic ban requested by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B has not being granted. Have undertaken a small number of, I hope, non-controversial edits to COI page (just one technical slip thus far). Have in fact taken out some material known to be true via COI, but not able to be sourced adequately. Contrary to assertion by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B please note re "only interest" comment above that I have edited other non-COI articles, both since block was lifted, and previously. COI templates are in place on my talk page, and talk page of relevant article. Plan to do my best to abide by rules here. Walton22 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The edit history speaks for itself--once unblocked, where did you go? NinjaRobotPirate, I've never seen a blatant WP:COI cut this much slack. But it ain't my call. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I received advice on my talk page from A09 predicated on me doing some very careful editing to COI article post-block. It isn't the only place I edited. I have edited three other articles in the few days since being unblocked, as you know since you reverted one of my edits. COI editing is not forbidden as I understand. Re what I have done to COI article, I *removed* unsourced material, and fixed a verification failure on a citation (material and citation not put in place by me). You choose not to mention the uncontentious nature of my COI edits. Btw, I was not blocked for COI editing, it was just flagged here. I was blocked for possible impersonation, to *protect* me, not punitively. I appreciate your concern, but I wish to demonstrate I can be a good Wikipedian. Walton22 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
And it's great that you're determined to edit constructively. That is not the same as signing off on allowing you to, in effect, be the caretaker of your biography until you make an obvious COI error. In part, your promises while blocked evidence that the determination to return to your bio is stronger than your resolve to stay away [2]; [3]. Likewise, the persistent claim that you're here to edit other articles has been belied by the edit history--you haven't been especially productive, but in over twelve years, something like 75% of your article space edits have been to your bio. With that history, that you're permitted to resume editing at Mark Isaacs is something I've never seen here before. It's not the place to show your penance, which can be amply demonstrated at other articles. Having made a half dozen 'clean' edits doesn't change the inherent problem. I'm disappointed that administrators are okay with this, but that's where we are. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Those few administrators who know me, I'm sure that in light of this discussion, you'll be okay with me going into my Wiki bio and making 50 to 60 edits to update content. Rest assured they'll all be perfectly neutral. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're on my case in a forensic way, and also on the case of administrators it seems now. I'm fine with that. It's not my own place to question administrators, maybe it's yours. I intend not to abuse any goodwill. I haven't made anything like "50 or 60 edits" since being blocked (I was not blocked for COI, as I said), and you have no evidence that I intend to do so. I have already been cautioned for COI, so it's not like I have had a free ride. Maybe they are assuming good faith, maybe you are not? As I understand it, the former is WP policy. I've made many mistakes, but it seems redemption is possible. I'm sure they are watching me as much as you are. I haven't actually added any material since the block (apart from fixing a broken citation and adding a citation to another editor's material that needed to be there). What I have done is *taken away* unsourced COI material *that other editors missed*. So I have been stricter with my own previous COI edits than others have been. If this does not constitute responsible and permissible COI editing, I don't know what does, but it's not for me to say. Anyway, this post is too long: we can leave it to the administrators now I think. "Over and out", with respect, and if you don't mind. I can't help feeling you're policing how I am being policed, and that's surely not your role? Walton22 (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, in view of WP:Conflict of interest which says "When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes.", it is no longer my wish that my identity be revealed, even though I initially revealed it. I am entitled to change my mind, and ask you to now stop making references to my personal identity. I have made public and permanent COI declarations of a "close connection", and that is all that I am required to do. The only reason I outed myself was because the block was for suspected impersonation, so it seemed the only way at the time. I am applying to have removed permanently references on Talk pages to my identity being associated with this username, that is if "against my wishes" includes a change of mind, as I imagine it fairly would? We'll see: if not, they'll have to stand. Walton22 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
If that's the way you want to go you should avoid the topic of yourself altogether and find something else to edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Citinewsroom and user Uprising Man

User discloses on their userpage that they are a journalist, and cites citinewsroom.com as a place where they write. They submitted Draft:Jonas Nyabor, the subject of which was (or possibly is) a journalist with Citi FM/TV which is an affiliate of citinewsroom (owned by Omni Media Group). They also included a link in that draft to citinewsroom. I started a discussion on their talk page but then searched and found they have been adding links to various pages from citinewsroom.com such as here, here, and here (the last link is from citisportsonline which is affiliated with citinewsroom – owned by Omni Media Group). Replies from user seem kind of contentious and they have editing since my last question so I wanted to bring it here since I don’t feel a discussion on their talk page will have any benefit. I do not know the reliability of the publication being cited as I cannot find anything at WP:RSN, but it appears there are several hundred links to that publication being used on Wikipedia. CNMall41 (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Does your concern mean that Wikipedians who are journalists cannot be impartial in editing when their editing history proves it?
I am tagging some Ghanaian Wikipedians who understand the scope of verifiable sources in Ghana and the media landscape. You can engage them @SAgbley @Robertjamal12 @Owula kpakpo @DaSupremo @Gkbediako @Dnshitobu @Jwale2
I will reiterate that:
  • All my edits are made from a neutral point of view as stated here. My edit history states that I've only added available credible sources to every edit I make; this includes any verifiable links available.
  • Just like journalism ethics stated by Kovach and Rosentiel, my obligation is to the truth and the essence of my work on Wikipedia is based on verification. I've been independent [not being seduced or coerced] to make edits.
  • How can an advocate of Wikipedia consciously breach the rules that govern the platform? I've never had any Conflict of Interest and derive no pleasure in doing that.
  • In relation to adding those links, I thought you will raise concerns like:
- Why add unverified and fake news sources to the edit which is a violation of Wikipedia referencing ethics?
- Why add lots of link to an already properly sourced information?
  • In this case, I never faulted but only made edits based on links conforming to Wikipedia reference guidelines. If you have alternative sources which I didn't find, I will appreciate that you update the articles.
Uprising Man (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
My concerns were clearly stated on your talk page and above. I believe you have a conflict of interest. This doesn't mean you cannot be impartial, but you will not even acknowledge the conflict so anything else would be moot. I also do not need to engage Ghanaian Wikipedians. That's an argument from authority and I am not sure how they would be able to address your COI. We are here at the noticeboard because your responses seem more defensive than corrigible. I think its best to have community input at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I tagged some Ghanaian Wikipedians in relation to your feedback that "I do not know the reliability of the publication being cited as I cannot find anything WP:RSN" but not in relation to your comment on COI. Nonetheless, aren't they eligible to share a feedback on the issue since you posted it here too?
Your comment "I also do not need to engage Ghanaian Wikipedians. That's an argument from authority and I am not sure how they would be able to address your COI" seem to suggest that you are only interested in the admission of being complicit and what happens after.
I never undermined your work as an administrator. Do you suggest I only accept your comment and not share feedback on your judgement which will inform my work as a journalist?
I have been training new editors who are student journalists, communicators, among others, and they will most likely encounter this same issue. So, I am very happy you raised this concern because it will inform in my next training sessions with the students.
Thank you. Uprising Man (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, you are correct, and I apologize. I re-read what you wrote and they most certainly should weigh in on the reliability of the source(s) being discussed in this thread. As far as your COI work, not necessarily. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your feedback and together we can help bridge the knowledge gap on Wikipedia from our various professions. Looking forward to seeing the article revised and improved. Have a great time. 😊 Uprising Man (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Once it can be determined here if you have a COI or not (which you still feel there is none), we can start a discussion at RSN about Citinewsroom. It seems to be used a lot in Wikipedia so I would be curious about its reliability. However, that is a discussion for a different noticeboard as stated. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Adding to the numerous discussions that have gone on here yes User:Uprising Man is a journalists but his work as a Wikipedia editor speaks for itself. And to your Citinewsroom reliability, I have been a long time editor and community leader in Ghana and its been one of our go to sources. They are one of the few relevant and credible media organizations in Ghana so their reliability is never in doubt. Owula kpakpo (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Whether their work "speaks for itself" is not the issue. The issue is whether their work constitutes a COI. As far as the reliability of the source, again that is a different discussion but since it is being brought up yet again maybe we should do RSN prior to this discussion being closed. Would likely benefit the community as a whole to have a consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with the OP that there is a potential for COI where an employee of a media outlet adds links to articles on webpages under the control of that outlet. I'm not saying that's happening here, but it is a circumstance that requires reasonable scrutiny. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Akhilesh Pandey (scientist)

WITHDRAWN
moving to ANI Kablammo (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2023 (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.

See Talk:Akhilesh Pandey (scientist). This is a new article created by a new editor and moved to article space by another new editor. There were multiple instances of plagiarism, which User:Diannaa cleaned. (I cannot see the edits which were oversighted, nor the names, but they appeared to be connected.) I placed multiple tags on the article as the sourcing is not adequate and the sources appear to be closely connected with the subject. Could an administrator look at the edit history prior to the oversighting of copyright violations? Perhaps AFD is the appropriate remedy. Kablammo (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

no response; further copyright abuse; moving to ANI. Kablammo (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2023 (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.

North Dakota State University‎

This editor likely has a clear and direct conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing relationship with this university. Other editors have left warnings on their Talk page and this editor has not responded in any manner. ElKevbo (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Loose canon, Cornell College and Convergence Movement

First Wikipedia edits since 2020 focus on a Continuing Anglican/Convergence bishop (see first diff with Cornell College). Continuous drafts for Bishop Lumanog articles have been rejected per User talk:Loose canon. Reverts information on Convergence Movement article regarding Lumanog and his relation to this religious movement, and claims I am someone I am not, putting the name of an uninvolved person on Wikipedia and claiming this information constituted a personal attack against Bishop Lumanog who was a Canon of the ACNA. Went back and forth confusingly on the article talk page, and they tried to revert a rollbacker (they did apologize for that though).AndreasMar (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

AHujeirat

An obscure scientist (see google scholar for their weak citation record, much of which doesn't have anything to do with astrophysics) who is vain enough that he deserves to be mentioned by name in the article for the Lambda-CDM model. He created an autobio as his userpage, which has since been moved to a Draft. Draft:Ahmad A. Hujeirat. He's also trying to whitewash the predatory publisher SCIRP, which he has published on at least a dozen occasions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to annullate me.
I am Prof. Hujeirat and will be most happy to discuss the matter directly with you.
Are you ready? AHujeirat (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia:
Please have a look in:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/q=Hujeirat&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc&p_=0
Please don't annullate me personally: I didn't undermine you as a person or as scientist... Please don't do that...
Concering SCIRP: The editor have working hard to advance the image and quality of Journal of Modern Physics. Every article is peer-reviewed by at least two referees... If they did something wrong the past, should we punish them for ever...
These strategy doesn't work in world we live in.. we have to approach each other to solve problems ...
Concering the LCDM: just read carefully about the inability of the model to compete with modern observations and my note was that we should stick to the Friedmann matric which about 100 years old... All scientist agree that we need another model... AHujeirat (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
As you see I am new here. If you are experienced wikipedian and feel that I am not welcome here, and making incorrect contribution, then please arase my membership and my contributions alltogether... AHujeirat (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to be fair: I myself and other experts which I know have reviewed article submitted to JMP and part of them was rejectd. All my manuscripts have been carefully reviewed
and published after considerable corrections and modifications.
So let us be careful not to out established scientists easily.
Nevertheless I will be happy to discuss the issue in details, and if you wish also per zoom. AHujeirat (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Finally, I am willing to organize a zoom-conference to discuss the matter in detail:
Please invite another two Wikipedia experts, and I will ask two renowned experts in astrophysics and cosmology to join the discussion.
You appear (provided you are a cosmologist) to stick to LCDM as if it were a holy model. However, a new article in nature has shown that these old and consortium-re-push models are barriers to innovation. AHujeirat (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Jean-Yves Duclos

The IP is registered to Shared Services Canada, which is a Canadian Government agency. The IP appears to have removed the signature of Jean-Yves Duclos, Canada's Minister of Health, from our biographical entry on him. I've reverted it, because the signature is fairly standard in an infobox, and there is no edit summary explaining the removal. The IP appears to have a history of editing articles related to Canadian politics, such as Dominant Party System and List of endangered languages in Canada. WP:COIPOLITICAL notes that Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics, so this IP (an the range, more broadly) should probably not be editing an article on a Canadian government minister. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

While there is obviously a broader issue with COI editing from this IP, in my view the restoration of the signature was a poor edit on BLP grounds. The subject isn't a celebrity, artist, or head of state whose signature is widely publicized and noteworthy in itself. The signature is at best trivia and at worse a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation. Spicy (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
We have this sort of thing in the infobox of Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Pierre Poilievre, Jason Kenney, and various other high-level government officials.
I don't see why this common practice violates WP:BLPPRIVACY; why do you think this is the case?
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPSIGN while an essay, suggests we should remove signatures if we receive a request. There's at least one case where there was consensus to remove based on a request Talk:Stephen King/Archive 1#Removal of signature image - request for comments. A new signature was added again sometime later, I don't know if this new version allays the concerns or Stephen King just no longer cares or gave up fighting it. In any case, I don't think a random removal from a government IP counts as a request however I agree with Spicy that the signature is basically trivia so there's no harm in removing it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Blackfoot (band)

Detroit IPs have been inserting the website of a talent agency in the biography article about the band Blackfoot (band). The history of the band includes a legal battle over the band's brand, and the band's current talent agency is rightly concerned that the old band website is not listed. But the talent agency website is not a band website, and it should not be shown in the infobox in place of a band website. The IP range also threw their own name into the article about the Rock Never Stops Tour, trying to get their agency name into the wiki. All of this combines to show that the IP range is trying to promote the talent agency. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP range was blocked for a year for spamming. Done here. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible UPE

The editing pattern of this user looks like UPE. Not sure though, need some experienced eyes on this. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That article doesn't look too bad to me. Some of their other contributions look a bit more suspicious though, so more eyes would be good. SmartSE (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the morning. scope_creepTalk 00:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The editing pattern is highly suspicious. A day or practice flights and already flying combats which doesn't follow the organic Wikipedia learning curve. Graywalls (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
People
Books and entertainment
Companies / orgs

More suspicious creations, with descriptions, above. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Continuing UNESCO COI issues

Some of you will likely recall past discussions about UNESCO employees adding large amounts of verbatim text from open-licence UNESCO publications to articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Children in emergencies and conflicts and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 156#UNESCO content), linked to projects such as meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020. Despite numerous promises to resolve this issue, I'm still encountering UNESCO editors who don't seem to have made the required paid-editing declaration, such as Lisa Rechelle, A.mart82 and C.recalde (unless the statements on their user pages are sufficient?). See also the discussion at meta:Grants talk:Project/John Cummings/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2017-2018/Final. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe we're also still waiting for the list of articles created/edited by Besalgado, promised here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: To me, their userpage statements seem too vague for WP:PAID to be adequately satisfied. They're supposed to state who is paying them and list which articles they are editing on behalf of their employer. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I've looked at just one of these articles Global Education Monitoring Report and the bulk of the content was blatantly copied from their websites. Not acceptable, nor is the lack of specific disclosures under WP:PAID. Melcous (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be two separate issues: one is the disclosure on user pages that needs to be completely transparent. The other one is that text written by UNESCO is - I assume - unsuitable for an encyclopedic content if it's blindly copied in big chunks and might not be written in a language that our target audience can easily understand. Overall, I have nothing against utilising materials from UNESCO that is under a compatible licence but it has to be done properly, i.e. be encyclopedic, summary-style and easy to understand, no jargon. Do we have examples for good and bad cases that we can examine? What needs to be done exactly to address your concerns, Cordless Larry? EMsmile (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi all! I am in contact with some of the UNESCO employees pinged above. They want to do everything correctly and I and trying to convey best practices and what they should do specifically to fulfill the guidelines of the community. Like EMsmile I think it would be interesting and helpful to understand what you think should be done (except than editing user page in line with WP:PAID and providing list of edited articles) to properly adress your concerns. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your questions, EMsmile and Eric Luth (WMSE). Most of the problematic articles can be found in Category:Free content from UNESCO, and it's the articles there that have been created from scratch by copying content from UNESCO documents that are the most problematic. Take this revision of an article I subsequently gave a significant trim as an example - most of the middle section wasn't about the initiative that's the subject of the article but was rather an essay full of UNECSO POV presented in Wikipedia's voice.
In the past, John Cummings's response to complaints about these problems has been to expand on the instructions at Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia to highlight the need for editors, including those from UNESCO, to declare paid editing and list the articles they've contributed to on their user pages, and to adapt the imported text to be compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and in particular to attribute POV within the text. However, it's clear that these clarifications haven't had an effect. UNESCO editors continue to edit without making the required declarations, and we still have articles that are essentially essays presenting UNESCO's POV as fact.
Cleaning up existing articles has largely been left to volunteer editors such as me and Drmies; I've not seen much evidence of UNESCO editors trying to fix their previous mistakes. What would be appreciated in this regard is a contribution to that clean-up effort.
I also think that any future WMF/UNESCO collaborations should drop the aim of adding open license text to Wikipedia. Other aspects of the collaboration may well have been highly successful, but this aspect simply isn't working - the WMF is essentially funding the creation of a mess that volunteer editors are left to clear up. I also object to the apparent characterisation of these clean-up efforts in the grant report as "Wikimedia community members complaining or actively stopping our work, including harassing people we were working with, deleting their work, their user page etc.".
Finally, we need to get UNESCO editors to comply with the paid-editing disclosure requirements (no more empty promises on this). Many other editors in similar situations would have been blocked by now. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I just want to add that I, personally, am not at all interested in this free content donation etc. I see no good reason why we ("we", whoever we are) should be happy to have access to free documents from inside an organization. What concerns me, and I've said this many times before including in deletion discussions, is that the bulk of these articles, and I mean both "many of these articles" and "much of their content" is just completely organizational, directory-style, etc. information. It's not encyclopedic material. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree Drmies, if donation of free content simply means that we end up with an encyclopedia article that is a duplicate of an organisation's website, then what is the point (no matter who the organisation is)? Melcous (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the previous statements. Overall, the topic of this discussion is not so much about conflict of interest (I think that is a minor issue and would be easy to rectify on the user pages). The issue is more of "poor editing practices" / editing that is not in line with Wikipedia editing and manual of style policies. Perhaps this is better discussed elsewhere (where?). One gripe or concern I have is how the open access sources are mentioned under "sources" - disconnected from the added text - versus adding them more clearly as in-line citations. I've written about it here on the talk page of "Adding open license text to Wikipedia": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Adding_open_license_text_to_Wikipedia#Suggestion_to_change_the_guideline_about_the_sources. EMsmile (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"I think that is a minor issue and would be easy to rectify on the user pages". You'd think so, EMsmile, but even where we've previously been reassured that this is being rectified, there are cases where the declaration was never made properly. E.g. at User talk:Besalgado#March 2020, John Cummings wrote "User:Besalgado has now added the disclosure to their page", but if you look at User:Besalgado, you'll see that's not the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I am reading and taking note, and will no matter what work as well as I can with them so that they comply with WP:PAID. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Begsalgado will add the list of articles she edited and/or created to her user page. We thought it was enough to add them to the table on the project page, this is why we did not do this until now. Thank you for your patience. C.recalde (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I have given further information about my work on my user page along with the list of edited and created articles. Thank you. Besalgado (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I have given further information about my work on my user page along with the list of edited and created articles. Thank you. Besalgado (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that editors involved with this project, or these projects, simply are not really seasoned Wikipedia editors, or en-Wikipedia editors. That's evident in the recent history of Futures of Education, and here we have another COI creation, International Bureau of Education, with a promotional tone and not a single independent secondary source: that is not in keeping with practice. Eric Luth (WMSE), I appreciate the addition to Among Gnomes and Trolls, but I hope you understand that the lack of editing experience of some here (not John Cummings, obviously) makes me wonder how much practical knowledge is available among the editors and overseers of this and other projects. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, thanks for sending appreciation. Just to clarify – I haven't been involved in or overseen this specific project previously, but as they reached out and asked what to do to follow the rules and fulfill the requirements from the community, I am trying to support the best I can. The specific edit you are referring to was made from the wrong account, I am not editing Wikipedia articles from my staff account (due to internal rules). You can in all transparency see my private account (used in my free time) linked on my talk page, but I don't think it is that relevant for this conversation perhaps. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Eric Luth (WMSE), that makes me feel a little better; I see that you have some experience on en-Wikipedia as well. Sorry, but I do think that's relevant, since COI problems often involve different kinds of entanglements, from sourcing to tone. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining! I see what you mean. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Eric Luth (WMSE), can I check whether you're in contact with the UNESCO editors as you suggested you would be above? I'm just wary of this discussion being closed but the issue drifting on unresolved - as has been the case when it's been raised in the past. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for slow reply, @Cordless Larry. Yes I am (and as you can see below they are also aware of the conversation). Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

C.recalde has now updated their user page. Is this sufficient to meet WP:DISCLOSEPAY? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Could you please share the list of problematic articles according to you? We will do our best to re-edit them to fit the community standards. Thank you very much. C.recalde (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Your engagement is appreciated C.recalde, but with respect, your request here seems to me a bit backwards: the onus should not be on Cordless Larry to list articles for you. Under WP:PAID, paid editors are required to disclose employer and client with respect to any such contributions. I would understand this to mean the onus is on those who are working for UNESCO to clearly list which connected articles they have contributed to. I would also note that both paid and conflict of interest editors are asked not to directly edit affected articles but rather use talk pages to request changes, so saying you will "re-edit them to fit the community standards" does not seem to demonstrate an understanding of this. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
A good starting point for identifying problematic articles would be to look through Category:Free content from UNESCO for those that have maintenance templates at the top of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
There needs to be an overhaul in rules regarding "donating contents" to introduce contents that can not be directly introduced into Wikipedia article by posting it somewhere else as CC-BY-SA contents, attributing to it and introducing it. That happened with this one family member memorializing guy. @Melcous:, I think you're familiar with that particular one. Graywalls (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Great point Graywalls and yes I am familiar with that example! The category Cordless Larry pointed to above gives a really interesting set of articles that can be divided for purposes of this discussion into two different kinds:
  1. Articles about a broad topic, e.g. Education in Colombia, where the UNESCO free content provides data to give insight into the topic. That to me seems good and exactly what this kind of 'donation of content' is designed for.
  2. Articles about UNESCO reports/groups themselves, e.g. Global Reports on Adult Learning and Education, and so the free content essentially is the article and it becomes self-promoting. This to me is problematic. Melcous (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Northern League (Independent Minor League)

The user has edited the page several times and renamed it three times. The edit summaries used include "The owner is asking me to do this. Maybe he can contact directly." and "The owner Don Poparvak says this should be labeled as such." The quality of the edits seems more promotional than accurate, appearing to be an attempt to remove the league's history as Midwest Collegiate League and create a false history connecting it with Northern League (baseball, 1902–71) and Northern League (baseball, 1993–2010). -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The user has also added incorrect COI notices to that page in their edits, yet continue to make edits, while clearly knowing they aren't supposed to. The user has also made many disruptive page moves related to that article, which is currently located at Northern League (collegiate summer baseball). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Following up, the page was moved back to Northern League (collegiate summer baseball) and all changes were rolled back. The user has taken no action with regard to his apparent conflict of interest. He sent me unrequested contact information for the league owner who apparently directed his actions, which seems to me to be just more indication that he doesn't get the point. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:安狄

安狄 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); I was recommended to post her by an admin.

There have been four reverts of concern by the user across two days. Day 1:

(1) The first was my adding of the inaugural logo to the 2021–22 T1 League regular season article. It was removed without explanation.
(2) The second was my clean-up of the T1 League article's lede of redundancies, adding contextual information (by cross-referencing related Wikipedia pages, and more-established pages like NBA), and changing some table headers to better English conventions. This too was reverted without explanation.

Based on the user's edit history, they seem to exclusively revolve around the T1 League and very likely has a WP:COI. There might be WP:COI#Templates that should be added to their account pages. Nonetheless, the account is clearly engaging in disruptive editing and should be warned. Wikipedia isn't an advertisement or WP:SOAPBOX.

Then, Day 2:

(3) The logo was removed again, this time with the explanation: "Logo was not representing 2021–22 T1 League regular season."
(4) The T1 League article was reverted again, this time with the explanation: "Align the writing style as Chinese page."

The user's claim in (3) is blatantly false. See example footage <Game 3> and <Game 53>. The user's claim in (4) is more WP:SOAPBOX. There are many basketball and sports related articles on English Wikipedia for us to compare to, which I've read for well over a decade. Wikipedia pages across languages shouldn't be held back by the shortcomings of the other, and it certainly isn't a valid reason to disrupt productive editing. –DA1 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Jian Wang Refspam

This user only seems to be here to add references to one researcher's works. They were warned about refspamming in 2018 but carried on regardless. Unless they promise to stop, I think we need to block them. There is a lot of clean up required. SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

ok, we promise to stop adding new references, thanks for notifying us about this rule. Mrbigtoe (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mrbigtoe: Who is "we"? Does more than one person have access to your account? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Compper

My Wikipedia site is not up to date . In the personal life rubric is written that I have two sons with my Wife Cathrin. We're separated for more than a year and the divorce is filed. I have a Video ready with verification of my identity, but i can't upload it. If someone could attend to this information, it would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcom146 (talk • contribs)

Info on how to get this resolved is here. Short version, you'll likely need to (a) verify your identity by emailing wikipedia (email address is on the previously-linked page) with your real name and Wikipedia userid - they'll inform you how to prove that you're you, and then (b) requesting an edit on the article's talk page. 38.125.21.249 (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Until that is done, please do not edit the article directly anymore. You do not own or control its contents, and you cannot post content without a reliable source to verify it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Howaydaa

The user Howaydaa has made edits that are brazenly promotional in nature. The identification given by the editor[4] corresponds to a digital marketing employee in the UAE, which is where Masdar is located. If the person works at a company where staff edits Wikipedia for pay, it may be worthwhile to track the IP addresses of this user to identify other suspicious editors. Thenightaway (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a sustainable development enthusiast, and I cover topics related to climatic change. Under which I review different brands that are working in the field of renewable energy in order to protect the climate from drastic climatic changes. The current changes that I have made on MASDAR is a part of my regular activity, where I update information with respect to latest development in the field of renewable energy and project that are actually making a change and helping in building a sustainable future. All of my recent additions in the content on MASDAR page is strictly informational and backed by references from authentic sources. I am well aware of the Wikipedia policies with respect to promotional content and strictly abide by these policies.
Lastly, I would like Wikipedia Editor’s team to look into this issue as Thenightaway, has been performing malicious activity constantly, and Thenightaway has also been removing information from multiple editors with zero proof. I would recommend to take serious legal action against Thenightaway, as the account is actually discouraging editors from active participation. Howayda Alame (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@Howaydaa: Do not use language implying a legal threat. This is taken very seriously on Wikipedia, and your account can be blocked outright for it. You are also required to assume good faith of other editors unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Raidermike116

Most likely this account is Mike Walker himself or an account to promote him. This is a clear conflict of interest. - Imcdc Contact 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Behgjet Pacolli / various Kosovan politicians

Freedomday2022, a declared COI editor, is directly editing Behgjet Pacolli's page without using the edit request system, going as far as deleting a scandal involving Pacolli. I understand the rule regarding COI editors to be as such:

  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits.

That being said, I'd like to request that the user be prohibited from editing the main page & instead be directed through the Talk page.

Granittemaj appears to be a SPA (editing Atifete Jahjaga's page) with no declared COI. The only other edits I saw were deleted due to copyright violations.

Bimbashi is another SPA having made edits to Fatmir Sejdiu's page in 2012, 2020, and 2021.

While it may not be surprising that politicians want their Wikipedia pages to look as good as possible, I believe there to be some concerns regarding COI editing and UPE (albeit more difficult to pinpoint) surrounding Kosovan officials. 30Four (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible paid editing by user Fu-Lank. All these articles were listed as proof of work to promote paid writing. Articles in the German and French Wikipedia are also listed. OrestesLebt (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Note, user has been blocked by Blablubbs for undisclosed paid editing and articles tagged, so now in need of clean up. OrestesLebt has made some good starts and has some experience in the area, but perhaps could do with other eyes more generally? Melcous (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Melcous. Simon Wallfisch is cleaned up. It might take me a while, but I will get it done eventually. OrestesLebt (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks OrestesLebt - great work! Melcous (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Christel Loetzsch is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Patrick Vogel is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Tim Thorpe is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Joanna Wallfisch is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Raphael Wallfisch reverted to last version without COI edits and copyright violations. OrestesLebt (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Dániel Mészáros

There are two editors, User:Anonymus0823 and User:Kingey08 who are trying to create an article about a Hungarian swimmer, "Dániel Mészáros". Drafts were created under Draft:Dániel Mészáros (2003) (moved to Draft:Dániel Mészáros (swimmer)) as well as Draft:Mészáros Dániel. They were created in the mainspace under Mészáros Dániel and Dániel Mészáros (swimmer) as well, the latter which now exists as an article, a direct copy of the drafts. Kingey08 had admitted to being Dániel Mészáros (see talk page), and is clearly aware of WP:AUTOB per messages on their talk page. Before this, Anonymus0823 posted on the Teahouse (permalink), making me suspect that one of the accounts is either a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet. I'd appreciate some others looking into this as well, as the whole situation is a mess. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Do note this appears to be a different subject than Dániel Mészáros, another Hungarian swimmer born a year later. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The first account has been attempting to remove valid maintenance templates from the article. And we now have another new account, TingleJR, editing the article, removing the same templates. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Why am I keep getting this error messages? I work for the hungarian swimming associaton and I'm trying to create a page for Dániel Mészáros (2003) to differntiate him for the other one (2004) TingleJR (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@TingleJR, please stop. You have a conflict of interest (COI) and should not be editing the article directly, especially not to remove maintenance templates which point out all the other COI editors there. Read WP:PAID and disclose appropriately. You also uploaded an image which will likely be removed as a copyright violation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry. In the future I will pay more attention. Can you please delete all pages related to Dániel Mészáros (2003)? TingleJR (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@TingleJR, the article has been moved to main space, and there's some evidence of notability, so deletion may not be an option. Maybe someone will move it back to draft space for you, maybe not. There are many related drafts floating around now; they will be automatically deleted after six months of inactivity. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
If there is an evidence of notability then how can I fix the page? To make it look like an actual wikipedia page? Thank you TingleJR (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@TingleJR, it is an actual Wikipedia article. It simply has a lot of problems because it was created by folks unfamiliar with our rules, and in violation of some of those rules. For instance, Kingey08 just attempted to nominate it for speedy deletion. It is not eligible for speedy deletion and Kingey08 needs to step back from editing it at all, since they claim to be the subject. If you want to try to work on the article, I recommend reading WP:PAID, declaring as required, and then coming to the Teahouse (where I normally hang out) to ask for further guidance. There is a lot to learn about editing here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Good grief. There was also Daniel Meszaros (swimmer). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Added userlinks for User:TingleJR, another user from the swimming association, which makes their editing a major COI. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I've added page links and tagged each of the talk pages with the {{Connected contributor}} template to identify Kingey08 as the subject per their disclosure. I will also add {{Connected contributor (paid)}} for TingleJR. I wish that Anonymus0823 would provide more information about whether they are connected to the subject, as their editing pattern strongly suggests.
I've tagged Draft:Dániel Mészáros (swimmer) for deletion. Daniel Meszaros (swimmer) was already speedied. As for the remaining two, there is a request to merge their histories. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Dániel Mészáros (swimmer) was just deleted because Dániel Mészáros exists, but they do appear to be different people. I've asked for it to be restored. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
... it was restored, then JBW deleted it again...I give up. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Likely from TingleJR saying "Can you please delete all pages related to Dániel Mészáros (2003)", which I forgot about. Don't think further actions really need to be taken, but feel free to ping me on Discord and we can talk about if we want to request further actions. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Nah, I have serious doubts that there was actually sigcov to be found, so this was probably inevitable one way or another. But this is all likely to happen again in the future if both Dániel Mészároses continue their nigh-identical careers. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, I was planning on taking it to AfD if restored. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
"Nigh-identical careers"... Maybe he (I assume he) is a quantum human, existing in two closely related states of existence... until someone tries to measure him or pin him down (or write about him). It is weird to have two swimmers with the same name, born a year apart, although this name might be common in Hungary, like John Smith in the US. David10244 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Even worse when they're competing in the same events, sometimes on the same relay team, sometimes against each other. Keeping Dániel Mészáros correct seems to be a battle that Tanis Coralee Leonhardi has waged in the past (thank you, Tanis Coralee Leonhardi, and good luck going forward!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
All related accounts and pages have been deleted (except for Draft:Dániel Mészáros (2003) which was a redirect, but I've requested speedy for that). Edit: already deleted ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Blue Origin

The user has stated "I work at Blue Origin and made more appropriate factual statements." in their first edit summary. [5] They have now made a large number of edits on the article, including:

  • Removing the {{advert}} template from the article multiple times
[6], [7]
  • Adding a mission statement to the lede
[8]
  • Adding clearly promotional material/inappropriate external links in the body
"The first ridesharing deep space cargo mission for Blue, this shows that Blue shines bright in the face of adversary's. [sic]" [9]
"If you are interested in booking a flight to space view, https://www.blueorigin.com/new-shepard/fly/" [10]

This is my first time encountering COI editing on Wikipedia, sorry in advance if I've made any mistake. Freedom4U (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Knowledge Updater 1999's statements that they work for the company in question: [11] and [12] Meters (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    • User has been making some inappropriate edits aside from the article content. They have attempted to blank this COIN thread, and have attempted multiple times to remove the maintenance tags from the article. As an employee there is a COI. They had not received the COI template so I added it to their talk page, and asked them to discuss any further edits on the article's talk page. They have responded to the talk page posts so there should be no further edits to the article directly. Meters (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I've tagged the article with a COI template and added a "connected contributor" template to the talk page since many of the user's edits are still in the article. Not sure if simply working for the company warrants a "Paid editor" template rather than a "Connected contributor". Meters (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussions between wiki editors and corporations

When an organization sends paid editors to the article about themselves, and if someone from the wiki community wishes to talk with the organization, then I think the best venue for the discussion is on the talk page of that organization.

In response to my trying this, Thinker78 correctly remarked that WP:TALK#TOPIC says that article talk pages are for no purpose other than development of the text of the article. I agree. Still, I wanted to ask for other comment.

The case is at Talk:World_Vision_International#Edit_request. User:CharlieDaveyPowell is the paid editor there. I appreciate their engagement; they may or may not wish to react to this wiki policy discussion, as they are a new editor here for another purpose. I am sure they did not imagine that they would be the subject of discussion and for the general concept of communication between wiki and orgs. They have no obligation to react here.

I think that World Vision is a fair target for discussion here because it is an organization with spending of over US$1 billion a year. Because that is a lot of money, the organization can reasonably expect to be the target of discussion and scrutiny in all things they do.

There are two things about this situation which make me want to talk to the org directly - one is that the organization has sent low quality content for inclusion to Wikipedia. They have made three edit requests failed fact-checking in the cited source. Journalists can fact-check; undergraduate students can fact-check; Wikipedians can fact-check; I think organizations with a billion dollars can fact-check. Wikipedia is a public forum where I expect organizations showcase their best public image. For whatever reason, this organization has not done this, and I do not think they realize that Wikipedia is a community platform. Wikipedia is not a neutral place for corporations to have transactions with other corporations; when paid editors come here, they are asking for community labor to process their request and also to fix any shortcomings. When an individual human comes up short then I like seeing wiki volunteers support them freely. For some organizations, perhaps at the billion dollar mark or perhaps earlier, I think it is reasonable for the Wikipedia community to expect that the organization propose a well-formed edit of the sort that happens here daily 100s of 1000s of times. I think that communication teams should treat Wikipedia engagement with all the care that is routine for such organizations to give when interacting with any other major media outlet. I often feel that Wikipedia has tolerated the absence of respect, and when anyone wants to allow that then fine. However, if any Wikipedia editor ever feels like requesting more, then I think that it is okay to request high-quality submissions from paid editors from big organizations, and that this can happen on the talk page, and the wiki editor can request that the paid editor escalate the request to the comms team at the organization.

Another issue - I know World Vision and their expertise. It is a nonprofit humanitarian organization which produces knowledge and media of the sort that is an excellent fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. When any such organization comes to Wikipedia to edit the Wikipedia article for their brand, then I think that is an fair opportunity for any Wikipedia editors to send public messages to their CEO and communication team that Wikipedia editors would like for them to support the development of Wikipedia articles in their field, which are related to their expertise. I want to request World Vision's images and data. I want them to check out traffic to Wikipedia articles in their field of expertise, in which case I think they would see that Wikipedia is the single most consulted source of information on topics for which they are already making major communication investments. I recognize that it is a bit confrontational - the organization comes to Wikipedia to promote its brand, and in response they get hit with requests to support Wikipedia development in their field - but again, I think World Vision is an organization that can handle such a request because of its size and mission alignment with Wikipedia. If they want to say no, then fine, but I like the idea of the record of the request being on the Wikipedia talk page of the article, presented to their paid editor representative. Transparency is a Wikipedia community value and having the request anywhere else is less helpful for advancing the conversation.

Two questions:

  1. Is the Wikipedia talk page for an organization an appropriate place for the Wikipedia community to either direct questions at an organization, or to note that they have made off-wiki communication with an organization?
  2. What objections does anyone have to Wikipedia editors asking for more meaningful engagement from paid editors, such as in the case when they represent organizations with attractive content and expertise that someone feels could improve Wikipedia?

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Max Geller (artist)

Hello. The article for Max Geller (artist) was largely written by user "Samsonthetruest". I believe this is Max's brother, Sam Geller. Sam goes by "Samson the Truest" as a stage name, and has the social media handle @samsonthetruest (where he has many photos of Max), and he owns http://samsonthetruest.com. The two brothers host a podcast together — which, incidentally, is cited as a source at least 11 times in the article's Reference section (with no other sources to back up the information). The article on Max is currently flagged for seeming like an advertisement, and I think this is why. Another editor on the page commented that "This article is definately problematic. User Samsonthetruest might be Geller or someone connected to him" (this is what inspired me to google "Samsonthetruest"). The article has been cleaned up since Samsonthetruest's first wrote it (which had been flagged for being "written like a résumé"), but still the vast majority of the article was penned by that user alone. If they are indeed Max's brother, then that seems like a clear COI, compromising the neutrality of the article. I brought this up on the user page for Samsonthetruest, and have had no response in weeks. I also started conversation about it on the article's talk page, but similarly have had no response. Let me know if there's any more information I can provide for this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinTDR (talk • contribs)

I agree that there is almost certainly a COI here. They haven't edited in nearly two and a half years though, and about three years for that article specifically, so this isn't an ongoing issue. You are free to fix the article as you see fit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@MartinTDR, I wonder if our COI information might not be entirely clear.
We have a goal in mind, which is a "neutral" article. That's already a bit of a challenge, because "neutral" doesn't mean neutral; it means "representative of reliable sources". Wikipedia would never say, for example, that clean drinking water has advantages and disadvantages and readers should make up their own minds. The NPOV-compliant article on that subject is strongly in favor of people not being sickened by contaminated or polluted water.
A neutral article for a subject like The Coca-Cola Company could say something like "They are one of the biggest producers of beverages in the world."
Here's the thing: If "They are one of the biggest producers of beverages in the world" is neutral, then it's neutral no matter who posted the content. "They are one of the biggest producers of beverages in the world" is neutral if you post it; it's neutral if I post it; it's neutral of their PR department posts it.
So far, you have said that the neutrality of the article is compromised. You might be correct. But merely being written by his brother is not technically evidence of the neutrality of the article being compromised. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
This makes sense, thank you for the explanation.
I suppose "neutrality" wasn't quite the right word. Maybe "reliability" is better? I am concerned about the information that's tinged with subjective reading or editorializing... like "Art critics are still grappling with the after-effects of the [Renoir Sucks At Painting] movement as recently as June 2019" or "In addition to Geller’s history as a political provocateur, he has also used his knack for creating viral ideas and images to mount ambiguous, seemingly frivolous interventions in the art and music world."
Also many paragraphs of neutral-sounding facts only have one citation: the brothers' podcast. I do not know if this kind of thing violates Wikipedia's rules, but it seems suspect to me. Lines like "A 2007 spat with Tony Blair that left Geller in a trashcan after Blair’s security team intervened" or "In 2014, Geller sent dessert to senator Chuck Schumer at a restaurant in New York to 'thank him for subverting democracy,' prompting Schumer to flip him off" are hard to believe 100% when they come solely from a provocateur.
But, as Hemiauchenia pointed out, I am free to make changes as I see fit. And since Samsonthetruest isn't editing any more, it seems the COI is moot.
Thanks again for the explanation! MartinTDR (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Diego Morales (politician)

Editing of Indiana Secretary of State by multiple Indiana Office of Technology IPs, including recent changes to remove negative, but sourced, content. Given the geographic collocation, seems plausible there could be a conflict of interest. There are likely more IPs in this range. 134.41.177.137 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Added a registered user with a suspected COI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Marzena Ozarek Szilke

The IPv4 refers to the article as my bio and says that she added information about me, which I take to mean the IP is claiming to be Szilke. The IP has done a good bit of direct editing to the article to remove well-sourced academic criticism of the methods used with respect to determining if a certain mummy that they discovered was pregnant at the time of mummification, saying something about reporting people to police in Poland ("This person's actions have been reported to the police in Poland", "Someone adds false information to my bio, which is a slander of lack of scientific reliability. The prosecutor's office is handling the case"). The IP also appears to be claiming ownership of the article, writing that a certain change to the bio was "unauthorized by Marzena Ożarek-Szilke". The IP went on to then make explicit note of Polish police involvement on the talk page and then removed the talk page comments of another editor that the IP did not like.

The IPv6 appears to be the same person behaviorally (see the edit summaries of their two edits to the page, which is akin to this edit's summary from the IPv4). Given that we've got self-acknowledged COI on the IPv4, I think it's probably worth an admin or checkuser taking a look at this whole thing to try to get a handle on this disruptive apparent COI editing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Just added another IP making the same edit - no other edit history. Might be a good idea to move this to WP:SPI, but I'll leave that to someone who has more experience with these situations, if they feel that's appropriate. Jguglielmin (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Looks like there is also an account by the same name as the subject of the article - I have added it to the list of users. Jguglielmin (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I've warned the named account about WP:REALNAME. They risk being blocked if they don't provide verification of their identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

UPE editor on Menē Inc

Editor blocked for sockpuppetry and likely UPE The Night Watch (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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

There has been a concern raised on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menē Inc. Afd that indicate a UPE('s) may have created the article, suspicions which supplant my own suspicions. On 24 February 2023, the Menē Inc. article was created in a highly-promotional manner. It was essentially a brochure brochure. I had a chat with the editor who dismissed me. They stated they were not a COI editor. I sent the article to draft, it was cleaned up somewhat but still promo, and then mainspaced. I sent it to Afd. The tag teaming on the Afd has been such an extreme case of WP:BLUDGEONing almost as though two UPE are working together and have a financial stake it to ensure it stays on Wikipedia. There is problems with the original article that needs other eyes looking at it as well. scope_creepTalk 19:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I've participated in the AfD, and I hope that no one thinks that I have bludgeoned anyone – and I sure hope that no one thinks I'm a UPE. I do not believe that Moops is a UPE either, just someone who created what they thought was an interesting article and has been overly prone to WP:The Last Word in arguing for keeping it – not an unusual situation at AfDs. Unfortunately, the AfD has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND in both "directions", and this COIN filing is not helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I have no proof that User:Moops is an undeclared paid editor, but the article as created was total puffery. A glance at the edit summaries in the page history demonstrates many different editors have found aspects of the article to be wildly promotional. On Moops's talk page several editors including User:scope creep raised the issue of overly promotional tone. With the help of User:Atsme, this article is much improved. However I see several red flags I often encounter about UPEs, and because I don't necessarily wish to give lessons to other budding paid editors I'd rather not share all my evidence in public. I'd be glad to share this with any admin via email; it consists of a single url in wikispace, and the logical question the url raises. I'm aware my reluctance to be forthcoming is non-standard for this situation. BusterD (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. I think this can probably be closed. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
@BusterD: Please submit that evidence, whatever it is, to an administrator of your choosing, and ask them to post their thoughts about it here. If there is substance to it, it should be addressed, and not just left hanging as an insinuation. I have significant worries that Moops has unfairly been the recipient of WP:BITE, and I don't want to see that happen if it is undeserved. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
One admin did apply and did reply to me privately. I would let them speak for themself. My offer stands to any admin requesting. BusterD (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
If that admin chooses to comment here, I will be interested. Absent such a post, I will conclude that the admin did not find the evidence convincing, and if that's the case, I think that this thread has been unfair to Moops, and I believe that someone should close it with no action. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I did see the evidence, but as I commented on the AfD and so am involved in this matter, I don't want to comment too much on it, other than to say I did find it fairly suspicious too, but I don't really see a way to address it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for at least clarifying that insofar as you feel able to. Obviously, I'm unaware of what it might be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
BusterD, I'll bite (heh) as an uninvolved admin signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with BusterD's concerns; the evidence suggests that Moops has some sort of connection to Menē Inc (and likely to a second topic that they do not appear to have written about on English Wikipedia yet). As for remedies, I'd like to see Moops address the situation generally in this thread, commenting on their approach to writing neutral prose and clearly responding to the assertion that they have a connection to Menē. Depending on the response, I expect that there will be follow up questions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. I may be changing my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, why is accusing a fellow Wikipedian of this okay without supplying full evidence, names, dates, and bank transfers? Full disclosure, both Mary and Joseph have approached me to bump up their pages a bit, offering pieces of the true cross and ten free weeks off of purgatory to, in their words, "garnish our rep". Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
People have been caught out doing undisclosed UPE while maintaining the illusion of being editors in good standing before, for example Timtempleton. Nobody should be above suspicion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
And suspicion without evidence flirts with being a personal attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree, the opening of this thread was premature. There really needed to be a broader assessment of Moops editing and article creation efforts before this thread was created. Having had a look at their article creation, they have only really created a handful of articles, which all appear at least on the surface to be about notable people, none of which really have a promotional tone. Having had a look at their most edited article list, there's nothing that stands out to me there as potential UPE either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish's concern is perfectly reasonable, and my intention is never to punish any user for editing boldly. For the record there's an enormous amount of indicative evidence already on the table, not the least of which is User:Sandstein's close of the AfD, which concludes an unusual process acknowledging (in their reading) the "possibility that Wikipedia is being misused for advertising purposes here." The tiny fragment I've been reluctant to present is merely one more indicator, not proof. I appreciate User: Galobtter's comment here, but I have invited another uninvolved admin willing to look and offer perspective. BusterD (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I also note that Moops has written a couple of other articles: Jon Hartley and Raziel Cohen, the first of which is definitely written in a very promotional tone. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I see Jon Hartley has been nominated for deletion and is looking like a snow delete. The "Tactical Rabbi" Raziel Cohen has better sourcing and a better tone, but this also looks much like promotion/advocacy, when compared to other BLP articles I have reviewed. BusterD (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
      • It was Galobtter who nominated the Hartley page, but I've gotta say that I looked at it, and it's exactly the kind of page that I would nominate for deletion, too. Personally, I don't find what Sandstein said to be sufficient to demonstrate anything one way or the other, beside what Sandstein's personal opinion is. I'm not saying that out of any disrespect, but it's one experienced user's evaluation of the tone of a discussion that everyone else can see and not everyone has interpreted in the same way, and it contains no evidence. I will say that these two other pages created by Moops take me up short, and do strike me as some reason for concern. They are actual evidence of repeatedly writing in a promotional fashion. It might be of interest if there is any evidence of any of these page subjects posting in public about wanting coverage on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
        TBH, the Hartley page looks pretty much how any article on an academic will look when someone somewhat inexperienced tries to using info from their own personal bios (rather than using what other academics have said about their research in peer-reviewed papers). Of course it's wildly premature, but I wouldn't call it promotional so much as inappropriately reliant on primary/non-independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I looked into this a bit, and although I didn't see anything that was solid proof of paid editing, the tone was clearly promotional. If they thought the article as originally written was acceptable then they have a long way to go before I'd trust them with NPP rights. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish, those 2 articles were written in December which was before he took the NPP training course. I don't know when he created Mene Inc., which needed some toning down, but I never suspected UPE with this editor. I invite all who are involved in this discussion to review his NPP training page, and if you can see a UPE, then carry-on with your investigation. I have not seen one ounce of evidence that convinces me he's a paid editor. He just received the reviewer right on a trial basis - which means he is still being watched/supervised. He was going to cancel the user right while he's on vacation, but I advised him to leave things the way they are now, and go have fun. Of course, I am still keeping an eye on his work, which is why I'm here now. I intend to provide another evaluation when the trial period ends. I still strongly disagree with the close of Mene Inc. but I have too many other things to do than waste valuable time on that article. I am not seeing any issues that would concern me about UPE with the other 2 articles. I support the Hartley AfD, as that BLP needs a lot more time to ripen, if ever. The rabbi passes. Moops is not an experienced encyclopedic writer – it takes practice. I know some academics who can teach writing, but have never been published. There are also quite a few people who can review but cannot do, and vice versa. I cannot pinpoint the problem that has drawn all this attention to this one editor. I really would like to know. I bluntly asked Moops in a private email if he was a paid editor, and he responded that he was absolutely not a paid editor, and that he just really likes Mene's jewelry, but not enough to get blocked over. He is away from his computer until March 10th, so let's try not to jump to conclusions before then. Tryptofish, I'm curious to know what you've seen that perked your interest, if you don't mind sharing a link? My head is whirling at the thought that this is even happening, or that a potential UPE could have escaped my super duper electronically amplified UPE antenna. Atsme 💬 📧 06:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Atsme, two things: that I find the (now-deleted) Hartley page to be so far beyond not-notable as to beggar belief, and that I trust Rosguill that the private evidence, whatever it was, was enough to take seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Moops has just been blocked for sockpuppetry with Th78blue. I've tagged their other biography article, Raziel Cohen, with G5. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm At this point, I think there's no question that I, as well as multiple other editors who were all acting in good faith, have been hoodwinked by the disruptive account behind Moops. There's no defending this, full stop. But I want to say: until evidence emerges, as it has abundantly done now, we should still treat newish (seeming!) editors with a reasonable amount of respect, and try to defend them from (then!) unsubstantiated accusations. At any rate, I guess this COIN thread really can be closed now (unless there are any more pages that need to be speedied), albeit not because no action needed to be taken. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2023 (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.

Sage Publications

There seems to be a few Sage Publications-related topics that are being put in mainspace, maybe spammed. All of the editors I linked have created articles on scientists that are either affiliated with Sage or using Sage as a source, have created their articles in the span of just a day or so, and have made no other edits outside these topics. Volunteer-Sagepub is especially suspicious. Also see User_talk:David_Eppstein#Spamming_by_SAGE_Publications? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, SAGE hosted an edit-a-thon. They are trying to promote women in science. 198.151.217.182 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/SAGE edit-a-thon. Oh ok, I see. But there are still notability and promo problems with some of the resulting articles. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I question whether an official meetup mitigates any COI concerns. If it's hosted by SAGE and the edits are related to SAGE, then it's COI. If anything, this looks more like an abuse of Wikipedia's meetup system to subvert COI rules. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Rocco Silano

There is firm evidence here to believe that this article is being edited by editors who are violating Wikipedia's COI guidelines. See the edit history and explanations where one editor "outs" one of the editors by name. This is harassment. This article should be locked until it can be investigated further. Onewiththewind (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Amarsaikhan Sainbuyan

Added biography of the article's subject without any references and removed all references. The article name is same as the user's name. These both accounts have same name so I have opened a sockpuppet investigatio. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amarsaikhan Sainbuyan. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked by Kinu. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Self-report to get consensus on boundary of COI

Hi COIN! Self-reporting to ask where exactly the boundary of COI editing stops. Obviously, I have a COI with regard to my own BLP (but also in my opinion that isn't paid editing; anyways, I stay away from the main BLP with a 10 foot pole and let others handle vandalism reverts etc, and only rarely speak on the talk page).

Pages directly related to my employer (e.g. my manager Charity, and if there were a future mainspace page about the company we both work for) seem to fall under paid editing disclosure, as likely does the main observability topic itself in which my employer has a product.

But do I need to disclose paid editing and/or a COI for non-vendor-specific topics broadly related to the field, so long as I am contributing as an WP:EXPERT reliably referenced material that is not published by me or by my employer? Think: distributed computing, site reliability engineering, chaos engineering, processor architecture/microarchitecture, performance engineering, etc. Lizthegrey (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that proactively posting here is a very good indicator that you're coloring within the lines! With that said:
  • Pages about your company, or your boss, would fall under UPE.
  • For pages on topics other than you or your company specifically, you're probably fine from a COI perspective so long as the topic isn't completely bound up with your company - I'm not familiar with these topics, but if software observability were something that your company invented/defined and was the dominant or sole vendor of, then caution would be in order. For more general topics, though, you're fine, so long as you're not pushing the party line, so to speak. In other words, someone working for Cisco would be fine editing the SD-WAN article.
  • Basic principle, disclose. If you're concerned you may be in a grey area, but think you're OK, then go ahead and make the edit, but leave a note on the talk page, or in the edit summary, saying something to the effect of "don't believe I have a COI here, but here's how I'm connected to this topic," so other editors know.
Hope this helps! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious PROD with invalid rationale

A user with an obvious COI attempted to have the article deleted because, [a]s a privately-held company under new leadership, Switch does not feel this page serves a purpose in marketing its new brand since this information is inaccurate and outdated. This user has previously made promotional edits to the article, and all edits except one are to the article itself or a request to upload the company logo for use on the page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the COI attempted prod was inappropriate, but is this company even notable to begin with? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This is beyond suspicious as everything is perfectly clear. Prod presumes the existence of a WP:DELREASON (see WP:PRODNOM) so this was an improper proposed deletion, because company interests are not a reason to delete a Wikipedia article. However nothing can be done about this, and there's nothing to discuss with regard to the prod process, because it's a one-shot thing, and it has been exhausted now (there is no recourse for a failed prod having had an invalid reason). The obviously paid editor with "switch" in their username who hasn't disclosed needs to be notified, but I don't know what else needs to be discussed here. If someone thinks that the subject lacks notability, AfD can be started. —Alalch E. 11:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the article creator back in 2011 appears to have been involved with the company (and undisclosed). So the article's very genesis was rooted in COI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for deletion here. TSventon (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Virginia Teehan

Editor appears to be an employee under Ms. Teehan at Heritage Council (Ireland)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Agree. Their edits are generally very poor. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Garik Israelian

There has been a sequence of COI/UPE editors who have been editing a small collection of articles related to their work and engaging in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

Editor Timewind has mentioned a connection with the BLP article subject Garik Israelian: "I'm official representative of Dr. Garik Israelian. All edits done here by me are aligned with him in advance. For any change propose, please contact me in advance!"

Three months ago I tagged with COI the Garik Israelian article, and yesterday I finally sat down and spent many hours trying to clean up the article. It was a lot of work. Today Timewind made at least four edits casting aspersions on me: on the article talk page calling my edits disruptive editing and intendedly spoiling this page with spamming and fake data, and in these three edit summaries: Undid revision 1143654606 by Grorp (talk) {{subst:uw-spam1}}, fixing spams, and fixed spam edit by User:Grorp.

Though I had notified Timewind with {{subst:uw-coi|Article}} on his user talk page here, and I tagged the article with {{Connected contributor}} here, and another editor also directed him not to edit directly with a COI here, and he acknowledge reading it here, Timewind posted these aspersions today and re-edited the article multiple times. A few other editors have attempted to fix some of Timewind's new edits since then, and one admin responded to Timewind's request to investigate my edits which resulted in the response: I've looked at the most recent few difs, and it looks to me like Grorp is trying to fix spam.

The Garik Israelian article, as well as the two related articles of Starmus Festival and Stephen Hawking Medal for Science Communication (related because Garik founded those things), have been significantly edited by a series of COI editors including Garikisraelian (last edit 2015), Chriseicher (last edit 2015), Yakmalla (last edit 2017), Diana Balasanyan (active account), and Timewind. One uses a username matching a close family member of a Starmus board member, and another matches the public relations person for Starmus. But there is no disclosure of COI or paid editing by these users within Wikipedia (beyond that single edit summary).

Timewind also created the article The Island of Christianity: Armenia & Artsakh which is about a [probably non-notable] commercial product produced by Garik Israelian. Diana Balasanyan also edited this one.

Short of obtaining a properly posted COI disclosure and some sort of post by Timewind indicating they have read, understood, and will comply with the COI policies — which would be acceptable to me — I would recommend that Timewind be sanctioned with a topic ban from the four articles mentioned. It's one thing leaving us with COI articles that take hours to clean up, but it's quite another to attack the good faith 'cleaner' as well as involve several other editors with their subsequent OWNERSHIP behavior, while again leaving articles that need cleaning up. I also recommend that the other article talk pages be tagged with {{Connected contributor}} for whichever of the other COI editors had edited them.

Grorp (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've warned Timewind on their talkpage. I agree that there are major COI issues here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Attack of the Elvis Impersonators

Editor claims to be author of this musical (see edit summaries.) They have been changing information with article, a COI notice was placed on their talk page, but they persist in editing article.☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lazoo Music is the name of the show's author's music publishing company. I've had to apply a spamublock, even though we graduated from the same public university. --16:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Meherrin Indian Nation

The user claims to "represent the Meherrin Indian Tribe" and has been making unsourced changes and adding unsourced information to the article. I have tried to warn the user, but I am not quite sure how to further proceed as they seem to intend to continue. –⁠ ⁠Popo ⁠Dameron ⁠talk 03:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Behgjet Pacolli

I'm reposting this as the issue didn't resolve itself, and the editor is still causing problems on this page.

Freedomday2022, a declared COI editor, is directly editing Behgjet Pacolli's page without using the edit request system, going as far as deleting a scandal involving Pacolli. I understand the rule regarding COI editors to be as such:

  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits.

That being said, I'd like to request that the user be prohibited from editing the main page & instead be directed through the Talk page.

While it may not be surprising that politicians want their Wikipedia pages to look as good as possible, I believe there to be some concerns regarding COI editing and UPE (albeit more difficult to pinpoint) surrounding Kosovan officials. 30Four (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Another self-report to get consensus on boundaries of COI

WITHDRAWN
Apparently I was wikilawyering in opening this topic. I take seriously the advice here that "Efforts to probe to find the precise boundary [of CIO] are indeed regarded as disruptive wikilawyering". That was precisely the purpose of the topic. Thank you to all who contributed. For my personal conclusions drawn, see my user page Walton22 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2023 (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.

First up, I own that I have made some serious mistakes with COI editing in the past. These actually reflected my overall general ignorance about editing at the time: poor or no sourcing, promotional tone etc. I think my editing has improved a lot and hope I have made a worthwhile contribution here overall (see, if you like, Bonnet Bay and William Walton), but I still do make occasional mistakes and am always happy to discuss/correct. I'm not sure I will stick around necessarily: though some experienced editors have encouraged me to continue, others seem to be 'on my case' in what might well be a tendentious, cherry-picking and 'wikihounding' way, not correcting factually false accusations even when pointed out by diffs etc.

Anyway, back to the point: I have a declared close personal connection with subject of BLP Mark Isaacs.

One thing I note is that COI editing is "strongly discouraged" but not forbidden. This seems to leave room for a more experienced editor to self-police and exercise a judgement call here. They may be called out if erring, but it seems to me that if there is no issue with the edit itself, the fact that it is COI is not enough in and of itself, since COI editing is not blanket forbidden.

So here's my call: I will not write COI prose. It is too risky in terms of maintaining neutral POV etc.

I am conjecturing that adding "tabular" information, e.g. adding an item(s) to a long list like a discography or a list of awards might be OK if done according to WP best practice.

For example: I very recently found a few musical artists whose own BLP discographies, though extensive, I knew to be incomplete. I had a COI connection with a missing discography item, but not with the BLP subject overall, as the missing album was a tiny and insignificant fraction of their output. Insignificant, relatively speaking in the big picture, but regarding a discography that appears to be aiming at comprehensiveness, significant enough to warrant being included. I added the relevant item to the lists. It didn't need in-line citation sourcing: the fact of the publication of books and music albums is self-sourcing as I understand it. So the edit is inherently neutral as an edit.

I would ask the following question of those who would still object to those kind of moves on COI grounds alone: is it really better that the said BLP discography remain as incomplete as it was, rather than it instead being made more comprehensive, albeit by what happens to be a COI edit? We are here to make an encyclopaedia better. Does that not trump everything else?

I am trying to learn from those more experienced than me, and everything I have ventilated here for discussion re COI I owe to a close reading of what Deepfriedokra, whom I understand to be a respected administrator (as well as a delicious culinary item), wrote on their user page:

the decision as to accepting or rejecting [COI] content does not hinge on the integrity or agenda of these editors. It hinges on our own integrity. If reliable sources can be found to support such content, and if it can be included in a neutral manner, it would be best to have it. [bold mine]

Walton22 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Oy. And I mean that. Walton22 has had significant COI issues since starting here--it's his primary reason for editing. He knows the guidelines and knows exactly what he's doing. I don't engage directly because he wikilawyers and builds walls of text in these discussions--just look at the talk page histories, especially his own [13]. More than likely he read the most recent discussion at my talk page with Drmies, and is aware that I'm going to introduce a thread at ANI [14]. For the uninitiated, this was the previous COI discussion [15]. If the above isn't completely transparent, the most recent COI edits involved adding Mr. Isaac's name to multiple articles. This isn't about improving the encyclopedia--it's about sprinkling his renown in every possible corner. At the end of the previous COI discussion, an editor advised If that's the way you want to go you should avoid the topic of yourself altogether and find something else to edit. A month later, Walton22 is still looking for a way around that. If this isn't resolved here, I will bring this to ANI, with lots of diffs. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    Well, do I have to obey to the letter everything another editor tells me? Am I not allowed to look at guidelines and think for myself? Have a look at my user contributions and see if COI editing is my "primary reason for being here". Have a look at the user contributions of 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) and you won't find a single one in the last month or so that wasn't directed negatively toward me (a kind of colloquial WP:SPA of late anyway). Have a look at my attempt to get them to correct a blatant misrepresentation of fact (I imagine initially inadvertent) simply ignored [16]. Can you refuse to engage with another editor and still introduce an ANI thread about them? Deleting a serious reply on their own talkpage and refusing to engage on my own when pinged. Their reply here does not address a single substantive question I raised about COI and is simply ad hominem casting me as persona non grata. Oy indeed. Walton22 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Tired of dealing with this editor. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I have had exchanges with Walton22 recently and found him a constructive and helpful colleague. I don't know anything of the alleged conflicts of interest, but his suggestions helped me improve a featured article promoted ages ago and latterly in need of a little wash-and-brush-up. Tim riley talk 09:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about a scenario where the missing discography item is one on which you performed as well. In that case, probably best to request the edit on the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't understand you, I'm afraid. The article to which I refer is a life and works job about the English composer Sir William Walton (1902-1983), which I took through FAC in 2010, now improved after some suggestions from Walton22 about inclusions from the standard biography of the composer. Very helpful, and I look forward to other suggestions from this source. Tim riley talk 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    Was trying to reply to Walton22's original post, not to your comment. Sorry if unclear. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the warm comments from Tim riley and courteous suggestion from BubbaJoe123456. I have just now written briefly about my wider interests on Wikipedia and more significant contributions to the project (e.g. on urban localities) at my user page in case anyone might be interested. Time now for me to take a voluntary break from editing any encyclopaedia pages ('wikication'). Walton22 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
    Hello. No-one has addressed my substantive question here, which boils down to: how do we navigate the not insubstantial gap, obviously intentionally left, between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" re COI editing. Some seem to just vapourise the gap and treat "strongly discouraged" as if it were "forbidden". But if that were the intention, then why not just use the word 'forbidden'? I have been guided around this gap re my recent minor COI editing (not my older egregious stuff) by my quote above from Deepfriedokra. Other views may differ but I haven't heard them. There is also a gap between BubbaJoe123456's "probably best to" and "must". I'll also just add this: if the consensus is to shoot down my even raising these things as "wikilawyering" then I will be very happy to not be part of a community in which thoughtful questions about how to navigate its defined regulatory space are themselves counter to regulations. Walton22 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a clear cut answer. By necessity Wikipedia policies and guidelines often need to be a bit fuzzy like that. Which means that other variables are taken into consideration. Some rightly so (such as the nature of the edits) and some unfortunate (variations between people interpreting it.) My own opinion is that we are too rough on declared COI's and for good quality competent objective sourced editing I'd lean towards doing it using the leeway granted by being "strongly discouraged" but not forbidden. And, when in doubt, get someone else to do it. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging North8000 (talk). I had a similar opinion to yours, with the caveat that perhaps the COI should be again spot-declared in the relevant edit summary, even though it is globally declared elsewhere. That's with the benefit of hindsight as I unfortunately didn't go that far and can't now change the edit summaries.
Interesting re "when in doubt, get someone else to do it". I tried that: some listed tabular info in a section of the COI BLP was incomplete. I knew there was a talk page process to basically mass-field an editor to maybe do it, subject to their satisfaction that the edit was cool. But I could also easily see the editor who started the section, so I contacted them and basically said "Hey, this section you started is incomplete. Here's the info that would complete it, sourced. If you think it checks out, would you consider doing the edits as I'm COI to it". They did the edit, the ANI-threatening editor above started an excoriating thread on my doing that, pinged the administrator who is now "tired of dealing with" me and I was reprimanded, albeit not too severely, with that editor casting my actions as "circumventing". I couldn't help feeling: where is the regulation that says I am not free to contact any editor I wish to about anything? The editor I contacted made the decision to proceed. (I might post some diffs here for this instance later, as if I am taken to ANI, as threatened above, I won't be engaging there other than to simply point back here and my user page).
There is a larger question here about our autonomy as editors when faced with other editors who enforce their own interpretation of regulations with added threats of ANI, corralling supportive administrators etc. They can do all that if they want. But then our own attempt to interpret what regulations say is smothered by the "wikilawyering" accusation. Well I don't mean to speak for others at all. This is just how I feel right now.
I guess this is a "wall of text" but again I don't see anywhere that such things are blanket disallowed. Walton22 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
May as well do it now. Link for above scenario (including link provided there from it) [17]. BTW I really dislike that the editor does not refer to me by my user name. I regretfully self-outed some time back as I was temporarily blocked for what was an incorrect WP:IMPERSONATE and it seemed to be the needed response, and now wish I hadn't, since "close connection" is enough for COI purposes. But I don't expect it to perpetuate itself so discourteously. Walton22 (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
COI edits are 'strongly discouraged' because this is an area where the Wikipedia community has little patience for people who routinely push the boundaries - as it appears you have been finding out. Efforts to probe to find the precise boundary are indeed regarded as disruptive wikilawyering, and are only going to exhaust the community's patience faster. This is because it is taken as an indication that you are trying to find a technicality to allow you to do what you'd like, rather than embracing the spirit of the rules - which is that you should not be making these edits, and you should not be bludgeoning discussions to get your way. In the scenario you linked, it would have been much better if you had followed the normal procedure and proposed the change on the article talk page rather than selecting an friendly editor to approach on their user talk. Consider that even though something is technically permitted under the rules, actually doing that thing may still be a terrible idea. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok noted and appreciated and thank you for your courteous response MrOllie (talk) Potentially allowable COI editing has become about 0%-2% of what I do/want to do here (if anything!) recently and ongoing so it's not a biggie Walton22 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, a question to those more experienced than me. I'm trying to learn. Re MrOllie (talk)'s "Efforts to probe to find the precise boundary [of CIO] are indeed regarded as disruptive wikilawyering". So then I should not have even opened this discussion, as that's precisely its purpose. I don't mean to wikilawyer or bludgeon now in asking that, it's a genuine question, and if the consensus answer is "yes", I fully accept it and I would like to propose closing the discussion. I framed the topic this way as there is a thread with the same title 6 topics up which I took as a precedent. I am ready to be enlightened here. Walton22 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2023 (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.

James Desborough (game designer)

I do not know if this user is Mr. Desborough, or possibly someone working on his behalf, or just an overly interested fan of his, but nearly all of his contributions since creating an account a month ago have been entirely focused on Desborough, including trying to remove alleged "bias" from his article. This includes using his own website as a source (where Desborough referenced activity on his own Wikipedia article). I think there is enough here for someone to at least take a look. It's possible that WP:GAMERGATE applies here. For reference, the article looked like this before his first edit. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Trimmed some unsupported material, did a WP:BEFORE, and the submitted to AfD, due to lack of SIGCOV. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
An invested fan, the bias on other articles surrounding related issues is also concerning, but there's no route to correcting the record there. The existing article as written was rife with bias. It's now more neutral. It may be time to correct the Gamergate related articles as well, now that almost ten years have passed. SivaGoth (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ford Power-Up version history

This user seems to have a major COI with the article. I would give them the typical warning for having a COI, however I'm not sure if that would still be the appropriate action in this case, as on the AFD for the article, they seem to have admitted to WP:CANVASSing the AFD, stating "Do whatever you guys feel is right. I made the online community that supports this page aware of this and they have already pulled the data, transferred it to Excel and the forum admins will be sticking the thread with the info in the "unreliable forum" I was trying to cite as a source." I"m not exactly sure what is the next step here regarding this user. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The Crew Motorfest

Do I have to notify myself? Shouldn't creating this for myself be sufficient notification? Hello! I've come here myself as I"m not sure if this situation creates a COI. For The Crew Motorfest I signed up for the insider program to beta test the game. I was recently accepted and was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement. I'm allowed to speak about the existence of such an agreement but I'm not allowed to speak of any specifics regarding the game that have not been publicly revealed. Would this result in me having a COI with the game or no? I asked on the Discord server but never really got much of an answer, so I'm asking here because, well, I think this is really the only place I can go to get an answer regarding this. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would constitute a COI (assuming you're not being paid to test the game), since anything you added/changed in the article should be based on RS, anyway, rather than anything you learned during the beta. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Nope I'm not being paid to test the game Although it would make it better since I would probably be given a PC that is actually able to handle the game. You are correct that it would have to be based on RS anyway (if an RS leaks it then i can add it to the article cause they're violating the NDA and not me) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, especially since you made the effort to be transparent about your involvement. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I always try to be as transparent as possible about things (technically the NDA specifically states that saying I am under an NDA is a violation of the NDA but I'm choosing to specifically violate that part so I can remain as transparent as possible with these things). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Shomada apparently using account to promote a particular author

(And many others...)

This concerns a wide range of articles over multiple periods. This account (Shomada) appears to exist purely to promote a particular author, Hamada Hagras, in what looks like an apparent COI and some kind of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Every single edit I've seen from them has been adding citations exclusively to this author, who as far as I can tell is not particularly notable or well-cited. In some cases they introduced undue prominence to Hagras in the body of the article ([18]) or added disproportionately long quotes from his work ([19]). In at least one of these cases, they also removed templates and other material without reason ([20]). In their latest edits, they've been inserting unnecessary citations to Hagras (either in English or Arabic) into existing material, and literally nothing else ([21], [22], [23]). Prior to this recent bout of activity, they were active in 2019 and 2020, and I did some spot checks and found that they were doing the same thing (tons of examples like [24], [25], [26], etc). They also tried to create an article about Hamada Hagras, which was promptly deleted by other editors (see deletion discussion here).

They previously (in 2020) received a warning on their talk page about this behaviour here and another about conflicts of interest here. Recently, I tried to warn them again about it here and then again here. Apart from deleting my first message, they haven't responded, and have since continued their promotional edits (like the ones I linked above). R Prazeres (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: This is my first time coming to WP:COIN, please let me know if for some reason this report should go to WP:ANI or elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Richard Flack

User has been asked more than once to disclose COI, but has not done so. Greenman (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Yioryiosaek21

-
  • New editor (4 December 2022) has been creating/editing the above four related articles with promotional material
  • Hellenic Environmental Center was CSD'd for promotion yesterday and recreated today. Now at AFD for salt.
  • Aegean Oil (not created by this editor) was cleaned up of promotional material added by the editor, which they reverted without explanation or sources.
  • Aegean Shipping Enterprises was moved to draftspace for cleanup and sources for notability.
  • Dimitris Melissanidis seems to be the common thread between these articles.
I think there edit history shows this editor is related to the subject in some way and is promotionally editing these articles. Request review.  // Timothy :: talk  21:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_196&oldid=1147780982"