Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 198

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 195Archive 196Archive 197Archive 198Archive 199Archive 200→Archive 205

Cash prizes for student editing contest

Should editors participating in This contest offering $500 to first place be following WP:PAID? Is this sort of thing acceptable in general? List of affected articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Computational Biology/12th ISCB Wikipedia competition entries. - MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the editors are not being paid by the subjects of the articles, the availability of a cash reward for the improvement of an article doesn't seem that problematic to me. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@WikiDan61: Isn't that still WP:PAID though? They're being paid for their edits. Policy doesn't say they have to be paid by the subjects of the articles. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I would say no. Paid editing is a problem when it creates a conflict of interest and the paid editor writes a non-neutral article. If someone wins a prize for writing a good article that's motivation, not a conflict of interest. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with others that the fact that the prizes are provided by a third party, and that they are tied to their external evaluation of the article's quality (i.e. not based on Wikipedia's own article assessments, which could be gamed) relieves most COI concerns. In theory there could still be a conflict of interest around deletion or merge processes, as the contest participant would have some vested interest in preserving their work against community consensus in order to remain eligible for a prize, but in practice I would hope that any article seriously considered for deletion or merging would be out of the running for the prize, and the guidance in the contest rules already steers people towards focusing on improving existing articles. signed, Rosguill talk 15:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
It is not dissimilar to Wikipedia:The Core Contest, which has been running for years without complaints. The prizes are more generous though. I hope they have reserved the right not to award prizes if the articles aren't good enough. Given the contest has been running for months, it's a bit ominous that most of the entries are dated from the last week! Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Student editors? I'd be surprised if the majority of them weren't last minute entries. I would also be surprised if this wasn't reflected in the quality of the edits. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Most of these students are graduate students and have extensive knowledge of bioinformatics. Some of them have worked for months on their article but uploaded it to Wikipedia close to the end of the contest. The articles are thoroughly referenced. For example, the DNA_annotation article had 19 references before students worked in this contest and ended with 82 with APashkov and SoffGonza's work. Also, illustrations were added; these are not last-minute entries. Participation is not mandatory; students are not forced to participate, and on the contrary, articles that had won the previous edition are high quality articles e.g.Pangenome. Another argument is that Wikimedia has sponsored one workshop to teach students how to edit. So reverting editions because they belong to an article edited by a student for a contest is not enough of an argument. On the contrary, I acknowledge that not all editions are high quality and that plagiarism should be removed, but this is not the case for most articles.
NellySelem (talk) NellySelem (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment [For the record, I'm a member of the ISCB Wikipedia committee; pinging the competition organisers @NellySelem: & @Tkarakulak: for visibility]: This competition has been run for a while now (AFAIK the Core Contest was an inspiration for this one), and I believe this does not fall under WP:PAID: the editors are not being paid for their edits. Rather, any payments are prizes based on an independent panel's assessment of article improvement - of course, not every entrant will win a prize. While I obviously have my own COI in this discussion, consensus does appear to be that the competition is not a COI. If that's the case, then there is a secondary issue of edit quality. I see recent edits on CADgene, Computational phylogenetics, DNA annotation, Genome browser, Medoid and T-Coffee have been reverted; the reasoning for CADgene and T-Coffee seems to be copywrite violations, which are obviously unacceptable. Is it possible to restore edits on the other articles, assuming they otherwise meet Wikipedia's guidelines? I'm keen to stay neutral here, so I will not be getting involved in editing any of these articles. Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course more eyes are welcome (that is why I posted here), but these edits did contain a lot of editorializing and HOWTO style content - many of the usual issues with student editing. I didn't revert them lightly. I only reverted the ones that had large amounts of problematic text, I did not revert every article on the list. MrOllie (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This "Further Practice" section which was just added a moment ago is a good illustration of the problems. It's essentially recommending particular tutorials that people can go through on other sites - it is WP:OR / editorializing. It might have a home on Wikiversity, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This page focuses on COI issues, but since other concerns have been mentioned, as participants of this contest, we will take this opportunity to talk about them as well.
Our recent article version (DNA annotation) was reverted. The only instance of editorializing we managed to identify (the 2006 Gene Ontology annotation camp) was not added by us; in fact, it has been there as early as October 2016. Because we opted to keep previous edits as much as possible, and we didn't know about the rules regarding editorializing, it remained in the article. Reverting the article did not solve this problem (it is still there); removing the paragraph, however, would suffice.
On another note, our article is not a HOWTO guide either. While it does contain a series of steps in the "Structural annotation" section, it describes what most state-of-the-art annotators perform and some techniques they use; it is closer to what the writers of the "Elements of the scientific method" section did within the Scientific method article, than to a HOWTO guide.
Finally, there have already been 11 installments of the ISCB Wikipedia Competition, most of which had a cash prize, and a multitude of other contests which too had a cash prize; how is this installment different?
We are still working on the last couple of sections and images for the article (as well as modifying some already existing content) before the contest deadline, and are open to modifications or proposals. We will try to address any issue that may arise within the article as soon as possible, but simply removing everything we have done does not help. APashkov (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi APashkov, thanks for the work you put into that article. Regarding "modifications and proposals", Wikipedia does not work in an author->submission format, content is collaborative. It is common for edits to receive scrutiny, especially very large edits (or a large series of edits). While this does mean editing can be bumpy, it also happily means that a reversion is not a final rejection. Editing can easily be restored following discusison. That said, if the contest requires some sort of page situation as of a particular deadline, then perhaps that should be looked at, as a close to the deadline submission of a huge change is likely to attract scrutiny. CMD (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment Thanks, I agree with this. Re ...if the contest requires some sort of page situation as of a particular deadline..., this is similar to @Rosguill: comment above - this isn't the case here, the judging panel are aware of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and go through the article history as part of their assessment. Amkilpatrick (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

User:IamJayBex

IamJayBex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Classic WP:SOCK behavior. Did a couple of gnome edits followed by spamming blatant promo into mainspace. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Dongyang wood carving

Likely promo. Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

found in copy-edit queue. So much repetition I started to wonder if someone was being paid by the word, and also what appears to be some fairly shameless SEO for "wood carving". It could also be a mediocre example of somebody's homework, though.

Submitting here in hopes that someone would be able to verify that the chinese-language references go to useable sources, versus, for example, an import business, and also reality-check notability. If this is the wrong place to raise this concern, could someone please let me know? I left the copy-edit banner up because while I went through the article with a machete removing instances of "wood carving", article is still very vague with a lot of room for improvement.

I haven't yet looked at the history. If the article was written recently by a specific editor, I will notify them. Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Of the two cited sources, one appears to be a booklet-esque material published by Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. Press, and the other by some sort of "educational course study". The first source appears to be legitimate, but I heavily doubt the notability of the second one (and whether the first one proves notability anyways). The [1] Chinese wikipedia article on the subject (for some reason, not linked in the languages tab) cites two local news articles about the subject. I doubt it would be the subject of much deliberate promo, especially on en-wiki, because it is a dying(ish) traditional industry whose target audience will probably never encounter wiki in their entire lives. The fact that it is in the heritage list [2] may prove notability, and I have added this source to the article. Fermiboson (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to note that I'm not sure to what extent we can utilise the government's description of the art form as a source, despite parts of the articke appearing to be translated from it. Fermiboson (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinkfong

Persistent replacement of content with unencyclopaedic and advertising content without attempt at discussion. Previous tags have noted that the company attempts to manipulate these articles. Fermiboson (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: I realise I forgot to notify the editors involved. I have done so now. Fermiboson (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Fermiboson Since the editors appear to be editing from IP addresses, I will semi-protect the pages. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that would solve the issue, yes. Thanks in advance. Fermiboson (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn The IPs appear to be [3] back. Is a permanent semi-protect advisable? [4] notif Fermiboson (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I meant to protect them for longer than that to begin with. I've reprotected them for 12 months, with pending changes once the semi expires. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 12:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Bill Ferguson (politician)

The first edits on 21 April 2023 were made by the IP user with edit summaries We moved and We don't have any dogs which suggest that the editor is the subject or a family member. After @1AmNobody24 reverted those, they were repeated by the IP and @Ccferg27 with the same edit summaries. I decided to start here rather than revert them further. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a WP:PRIMARY source for the info about the change in residence, which I believe is acceptable in this case. Regardless, family members of an article's subject should never edit it directly. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Marc Fontoynont

This editor is adding unreferenced material to the article and has used the edit summary Marc Fontoynont himself told me to write his biography. After I reverted some of their edits, they emailed me privately asking me to stop editing the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I am working side to side with Marc Fontoynont himself. I don't understand who are you to tell us that his own content, words from his mouth, are not referenced. I can email you his CV or send it to Wikipedia if need it. But please, stop interfering in our work. You are making us lose time Nuria13bcn (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Nuria13bcn, I think you don't understand our COI policy. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@Nuria13bcn: Neither Mr. Fontoynont nor you have any right of ownership or control over the content of the article about him, which also means you do not have the right to insist that others leave it at a version that you prefer. Readers expect to find plainly factual articles about notable topics, reliably sourced, written in a neutral tone and independently of their subjects. The interests of the encyclopedia and its readers take priority over all personal concerns.
If something has never been published in a reliable source that is accessible to the public, then it cannot exist on Wikipedia. If Mr. Fontoynont disputes some of the content in the article about him, then he or you is welcome to make an edit request on the article's talk page (Talk:Marc Fontoynont). Then uninvolved editors can evaluate the request before proposing revisions and/or making the changes. Please be aware that consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental editorial model. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Lake Area Technical College‎

This editor was warned about their potential COI in 2019 and when specifically asked about their connection with the college in 2020 they responded that they are "the Communications Specialist at Lake Area Tech." Despite an additional warning about paid editing, they have continued to edit the article with no apparent regard for our policies and practices around managing conflicts-of-interest and paid editing. ElKevbo (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:ORGNAME. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Mladen Adamovic and Numbeo

It seems like the creator of Numbeo, Mladen Adamovic, has been constantly making edits on Numbeo's Wikipedia article – of which they themselves created. There is are also a bunch of IPs starting with 178, which geolocates to Serbia, that has been constantly attempting to remove negative press about the website. Considering the website and creator's country of origin, it is safe to assume that this is most likely them editing while logged out, which falls under WP:LOUTSOCK. Notwithstanding the possible sockpuppetry, this behavior seems like a blatant case of a conflict of interest. If it were up to me I would just blow it up and start over. Pauline Muley (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I don't edit Wikipedia much any longer than could be seen by the number of edits. I think the major problem is that article is completely biased. Mladen.adamovic (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure you do. Wikipedia's assessment of such questions isn't however based on asking the owner of a website what they think. Meanwhile, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. And note that editing while logged out in these circumstances is a clear violation of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Mladen.adamovic has now proposed that the article be deleted, after being informed of Wikipedia sourcing policy - which doesn't include using ChatGPT to generate promotional puffery. [5] Personally, I'm unsure as to whether the website meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, and would welcome comment there from other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, there is a serious case that WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. I only reverted the prod because I thought that Mladen.adamovic, being the CEO of the company, was not an appropriate individual to propose the deletion (even if they did create the article to begin with, in blatant violation of COI guidelines). Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Bellevue College‎

This editor has used three different accounts to edit their employer's article. One account has a disclosure of their employer; the other two do not so I'm not sure if they genuinely understand our policies or are willing to comply with them. ElKevbo (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

My name is Yves Martin. I am the Communications Manager. The previous Communication Manager did not leave behind the username/password for Wikipedia. I created several accounts because I was informed that I couldn't use my actual name - and because I lost the login information for one of the logins. You can easily look up my LinkIn account (Yves Andre Martin) to check my position at BC. Please let me know what else I have to do to assure you of my identity and legitimacy. Yvesandremartin (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
You can use your own name. You can't use an account name that imply shared use (See the username policy and particularly WP:ISU). 04:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Jahaza (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Yvesandremartin: Operating multiple accounts to edit the same subject (particularly your employer) will be seen as "sockpuppetry", which is a serious offense on Wikipedia. If you intend to use the "Yvesandremartin" account, please abandon the other accounts forever.
The "Bcmarcom" account will be blocked. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals, so the name must reflect individual use. Accounts that are named after organizations or groups of people, or positions within an organization, violate Wikipedia's username policy.
Your predecessor was right not to share their login information, as sharing an account is a blockable offense. Every edit made by an account in its entire lifetime must be made by the same individual who created the account.
Please review how to make edit requests - that is the preferred method for a paid editor to suggest changes to an article where they have a conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I opened multiple accounts because Wikipedia advised me against using my real name and I lost the login to BCmarcom during travel between multiple offices. I do find it interesting (and annoying) that all of my revisions which are factually-based (e.g.; the type of programs offered by the college) and easily verifiable (I cite the Bellevue College website) were removed. This is no way to get people to contribute to Wikipedia. Instead of accusations, I'd suggest a more civil approach in the future. 168.156.36.250 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
They were removed because they were unsourced. When your adding stuff, every sentence needs a reference. The stuff can go back in, assuming its is properly referenced. scope_creepTalk 17:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Enwiki23

Enwiki23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has created tons of artices, many of which have since been deleted. WP:DUCK paid. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enwiki23. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Twin Flames (band)

Persistent replacement of content with attempts to erase the history of the band, specifically in relation to attempts to remove names of former members, delete information about the instruments they played, and to diminish their involvement in the band by trying to list them alongside session musicians. This appears to be a conflict of interest as this user is only citing the band's own web site to back up the changes which keeps being updated in an attempt to assert that certain individuals were never members of the band. This bizarre behaviour is easily verified using Internet archives as you can clearly see the former band mates listed on their own web site which this user (and the band itself) appears to be trying to delete altogether. This user account appears to be single-purpose and has been reverting content multiple times on this same page.Stacysaurusrex (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in an attempt to resolve this disagreement amicably, I did not remove the names of former band members. I instead added several members, which the previous user deleted without explanation. I also edited information about instruments to accurately reflect the citation being used. This website listed former band members' names alongside instruments played for the band in parentheses—these are the instruments I referred to in my edits. I took care to incorporate the above user's feedback to collaboratively rebuild my constructive edits. I also invited the user to let me know if I overlooked anything in this last batch of edits, but they instead wrote this report. As I have no interest in engaging in an edit war over trivial matters, I have informed them that I will be stepping away from this page to focus on others. Thank you. Kleio's Librarian (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for your marketing and self-promotion. The conflict of interest is very blatant when you look at your post history and your self-published sources. You're obviously not here to "focus on others". 2605:B100:D26:4B6F:C4FC:64D0:269A:6FF4 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The Activism section was promo and had several shop references in it. Nothing to do with activism. It was only really present to sell the albums. scope_creepTalk 20:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I had done edits to that section under the assumption that the pre-existing sources on the page were already vetted. Sorry about that! Kleio's Librarian (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
If your pushing to put particular content in that is unsourced, that is one clear aspect of COI editing and is unacceptable. I suggest from this point forward you use edit requests as you are coi editor. scope_creepTalk 15:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Calata

There are multiple edits that are apparent COI. For example, this edit have removed content that are unflattering but factual and this edit basically replaced the contents wholesale from an apparent offline copy. More substantially, this user in two instances ([1], [2]) removed templates that point out that there are edits that was possibly made by apparent users that have COI. The same user has also uploaded the current photo used on the page. - 49.147.67.216 (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a coi editor. Its been npov'd. I've stubified it as it was extremely promotional. I will add a couple of references later. scope_creepTalk 08:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ruby Jagrut

I don't know how I didn't notice this when putting the article up for AfD, but you can see here [6] a massive, obviously promotional addition by an account whose username violates WP:ISU and WP:ORGNAME, which also happens to be an SPA. Fermiboson (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fermiboson: Combining a personal name with an organization name is actually the allowable exception to WP:ISU: However, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetFactory", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc.
That being said, your other concerns about WP:SPA and WP:PROMO are 100% valid. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Confluence (software)

Hello I am a paid editor for Atlassian. I'm trying to update the wikipedia article to be accurate and reflect updated information about the company. I provided third-party references and citations. Here is the proposed new article copy:

(Long post enclosed in an expandable section) --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

}}

What is Confluence?

Confluence is a collaborative knowledge hub where remote teams can create content, collaborate on work, and organize and share information, all in one place from any device. Australian software company 1 developed Confluence in the 2 programming language, and first published it in 2004. Today, Confluence is available in both on-premise via a data center and online in a cloud version. It is used by more than 85,000 customers around the world, including Redfin, HubSpot, Rent the Runway, Bloomberg, and Audi.

The content created in Confluence is organized into spaces that house pages, where users can share and edit knowledge and other content for company workflow management. Confluence provides thousands of pre-built templates and can be used for content management by a wide variety of business teams such as human resources, legal, marketing, sales, and finance, as well as technical teams like operations, development, IT, and engineering.

There are thousands of apps and integrations for Confluence made available on the Atlassian Marketplace, and users can also can build their own integrations. This allows for a more efficient user experience due to reduced toggling among various applications. Available Confluence integrations include Microsoft Teams, Command Line Interface, Slack, Lucidchart, and Google Drive.

Confluence features

In Confluence, a “space” is a modifiable work area for individuals, teams, and companies to organize and collaborate on ideas, projects, documentation, and announcements. Spaces can be customized and easily integrated with both Atlassian software tools and third-party products. Within each space are Confluence “pages” that are organized in a page tree. Users can also create pages for blogs and announcements. The Confluence search delivers results from across all spaces to which a user has access.

In addition to page creation and editing, users can collaborate and comment on pages and project plans with in-line and page-level comments that are automatically tracked in the version history. Confluence offers many visual options for its pages, such as the embedding of images, videos, GIFs, and emojis. When users mention or tag teammates or assign them a task, they are notified via in-product or through external applications like email.

Confluence offers granular permission settings for space and page management, so users can choose whether to keep a page private or share it with an entire team or company or select users. The creator can also grant view only or edit access to others. For each user, the home area features personalized activity feeds and quick access to recently visited areas, popular pages and spaces, and drafts of the user’s in-progress work. Reporting and analytics are also available for each space and page in Confluence.


The product offers the use of numerous 3, so users can extend the capabilities of Confluence and more quickly create dynamic content. Some examples are the Attachments macro to list files attached to a page; the Widget Connector macro to embed elements such as a YouTube video or Twitter feed in a page; and excerpt macros to define a snippet of content to be re-used on another page.

Using Smart Links, embedded links for users to access information across Atlassian and compatible third-party applications, team members can find and insert content, create and edit work, and access information from all of Atlassian’s tools, without leaving their current tab.


Use cases for teams

Confluence is designed to help teams with knowledge management, workflow management, and project and company-wide collaboration. Groups can create and maintain a space as a single source of truth with parent and nested pages, which are easily moved with [and drop] along the interactive page tree hierarchy. Teammates can review, approve, and provide feedback for each other’s work from any device. Twelve users can work on a Confluence page simultaneously, with changes automatically saved and reflected on the next published version.

Remote, hybrid, and international teams can use Confluence for a wide range of use cases, including knowledge management, intranet, project management for tech teams, and business teams, remote work, IT, software development, workflow management, marketing & sales, startups, small business, enterprise, product management, HR, and project collaboration.

Confluence offers thousands of templates based on collaboration best practices and customized for various roles, functional groups, team types, and business activities. Users can start with and modify these, or create their own spaces and pages.


Versions

Confluence is available both on-premises via a data center and as a cloud version. The 4 (SaaS) solution offering comes in four different plans: free, standard, premium, and enterprise. The free plan includes up to 10 users, 2GB of storage, and Community Support. When you exceed the Free plan's user limit, you are automatically upgraded to a free trial of the Standard plan. Confluence Standard includes additional features like page insights, page archive, audit logs, anonymous access, 9-5 support, and 250GB of storage. Site admins with a paid subscription to Confluence can also manage users, groups, and permissions manually or add an entire company domain.

The Premium plan also offers 24/7 Premium Support, including one-hour response times for critical issues, unlimited storage, and a 99.9% uptime SLA financially backed by service credits. The Enterprise version includes everything in the Premium plan, plus access to an unlimited number of Confluence Enterprise products.


History

Armed with a credit card and a dream, college friends Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar set out to create Atlassian. The company has been noted for its unique dual CEO structure. Atlassian, inspired by the Greek Titan, was registered as a business name in 2001. The following year, Atlassian launched its first product, [Software]. It is part of a family of products designed to help teams of all types manage work. Originally, Jira Software was designed as a bug and issue tracker, but has evolved into a powerful work management tool that integrates with Confluence.


Atlassian shipped its first cloud version of Confluence in 2011 that was free to use. In 2012, the company launched Atlassian Marketplace, an ecosystem of more than 3,000 commercial and free add-on tools and apps that integrate with Confluence. In 2014, Atlassian announced Atlassian Connect, an extensible framework for developers to build add-ons that deeply integrate with Confluence.


In 2015, Atlassian went public, listed on the NASDAQ as TEAM. That year, Atlassian combined its Git-based developer services brands, Bitbucket and Stash, under the Bitbucket name. The following year, the company launched its first native apps for the Confluence team collaboration service and Jira Software.

Shortly thereafter, Atlassian joined the Open API Initiative, a consortium that includes Apiary, Apigee, Google, IBM, Mashape, Microsoft, PayPal and others with a goal of creating a common way for describing APIs. That announcement came with the launch of Connect for Jira Service Desk, which allows third-party developers to build embeddable add-ons, and the open-sourcing of RADAR, Atlassian’s internal tool for generating API documentation.

In 2016, Sri Viswanath joined Atlassian as CTO to lead the company’s migration from data center to cloud. This involved closing down its data centers and moving Atlassian’s biggest applications, Confluence and Jira, onto AWS. This project involved turning 15-year-old code into microservices, resulting in a smaller code base. It took all of 2017 to migrate every customer over to the new system. That same year, Atlassian acquired 5, a web-based, 6-style, list-making application that integrates with Confluence.

Two years later, the company introduced Jira Software Cloud Premium and Confluence Cloud Premium, along with the addition of free tiers to Atlassian products. In 2020, after discovering that one-fourth of its customers sought the ability to create more polished and presentable content, Atlassian added six new features to Confluence, including over 40 new templates, table visualization, multiple excerpt macros, page status, visuals in templates, and customizable panels.

Atlassian announced during a January 2022 earnings call that Sri was stepping down as CTO. In May 2022, Rajeev Rajan, formerly of Meta, joined the company as the new CTO.


The feedback I received from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steven_Walling is that it is "too PR" like. I don't understand that feedback and asked for clarification. I have not received a reply from Steven Walling. Redwoodtree23 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd second the assessment that this is too PR-like. Frankly, if you can't see that despite sentences like Armed with a credit card and a dream..., an entire section called What is Confluence?, and excessive descriptions of features/services with nary a secondary source between them, I question your ability to edit this topic constructively. In addition to thoroughly reading our neutrality, original research, and conflict of interest policies/guideline, I would recommend that you read through examples of high-quality articles about companies on Wikipedia to get a more intuitive sense of what articles about businesses and products should look like. I would suggest looking through these lists of articles by topic and category [7], [8] for a representative survey (I generated these lists by going to WP:WikiProject Companies and selecting specific quality/importance pairs that should mostly turn up results of well-formatted, if perhaps brief or underdeveloped, examples (although do note that these ratings are not generated systematically and not everything in that set will be representative of what we're looking for). signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Redwoodtree23: I would not recommend you split the discussion of your edits across several places, which can be confusing when you get different answers from different editors in different places. Please keep it confined to the article talk page, Talk:Confluence (software). I have collapsed your post here in an expandable section.
Specific editors may not notice your posts unless you notify them. You can either use the {{ping}} template in your reply on the talk page, or leave a message on their user talk page informing them of your post.
Please also create a disclosure of your employment on your userpage (Redwoodtree23) - using the {{paid}} template is the preferred method. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Matty Healy

A conflict of interest discussion does not help at this point. The content can be discussed at Talk:Matty Healy, and conduct issues can be raised at WP:ANI if there really really is a need for this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 18 May 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.

Editor Maxen Embry is repeatedly adding opinionated language in here, erasing well sourced material, archiving recent unresolved talk page conversations, and removing twinkle tags without any discussion. I am concerned this is a paid editor. I was just blocked from reverting edits where they attempted to remove my twinkle tags about COI with no discussion on the talk page. Elttaruuu (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and edit war between these two editors, now both pblocked for two weeks. More information at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#The article about Matty Healy, again. Nothing more to do here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
It's wild to me that the exact language (of blocked user Maxen Embry) that editors have taken out and altered to make the article more level is being word for word added back in by a couple of users. Elttaruuu (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
also I am still a wikipedia baby so if I am replying to this discussion in the wrong format or something just let me know Elttaruuu (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Elttaruuu, you were not only partially blocked from continuing to edit war, but also asked to refrain from casting aspersions. As Drm310 has helpfully pointed out, this section here is rather redundant (and I'd say unproductive and uncivil). I'll close it as it's extremely unlikely that this evidence-less accusation leads to a consensus about Maxen Embry being a "paid editor". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 18 May 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.

User:Nigeriapub

Nigeriapub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nigeriapub has been adding references to sites that it appears they are affiliated with. Initially, these were links to jenbn.com: diff 1, 2, 3. Now it's jenune.com: diff 1. Both sites use the same font for their logos and favicon, and they run the same kind of bland, SEO-optimized tech/entertainment content. I had asked Nigeriapub if they were affiliated with jenbn.com, but they removed my question (along with a spam warning) right after adding that jenune.com reference. Woodroar (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The editor is a spammer. Looks like they are trying to drive traffic to that site at the expense of Wikipedia. There is simply no reason to reference a blog site per WP:NOT in that manner. scope_creepTalk 13:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Very new blog by the looks of it. Spammer. scope_creepTalk 13:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest that one of you report them to AIV as a promotion-only account. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Reported. scope_creepTalk 18:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

University of Erlangen–Nuremberg

University of Erlangen–Nuremberg has been recently subject to highly-promotional editing by a (now declared) paid editor. More eyes on this would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all of the editing has been reverted for now. Ronna2023 should of course not continue to directly edit the article, as doing so against clear objections would be disruptive. If it does happen, I'd like to be notified. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I contest the claim that the changes made are highly promotional. In fact the changes made in good faith are aimed at correcting factual inaccuracies, many from several years ago, and providing references and citations for the claims. Attempts are being made to discuss this on the page's talk page, and in an effort to determine what specifically is considered to be "highly promotional." Ronna2023 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible COI IP editors adding content sourced to Jayson Harsin

I believe this is a COI editor/self promotion editor working with a wide range of IP addresses over a long period of time. The user name is an old account but appears to admit to being Harsin. Most of the IP editors make a few edits then leave. They appear to be almost the exclusive sources for both citations to and in text mentions of Jayson Harsin. The 83.195.7.101 address was active today on two articles and in both cases added references citing Harsin. I reverted their edits to Right-wing pupulism both as a COI as well as because the material was poorly integrated. I'm not sure if this is actually a notable author or just one who is pushing to be referenced in Wikipedia. I would think the latter given that almost all references to Harsin appear to come from IP addresses in France. Springee (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Edited to include more examples of IP adding references by the same author Springee (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there an issue with removing a number of these COI additions? Should I post a COI question on the related talk pages?

Spammers advert forwarded to me by friend

Wiki Encyclopedia Inc.

  • "we excel in researching, editing, writing and monitoring your brand's Wikipedia page; making sure that it precisely represents your business the way you want!"
  • Promises SEO optimization; monitoring and reversal of edits by "outsiders", and that no unfavourable edits are made; client approval of submissions; and that deleted articles will be restored [9]
  • Claims:
"1100+ The Wikipedia Profiles
14+ Years of expereince [sic]
185+ Countries served
1240+ Happy clients"

They don't admit to any editor names, nor list any supposed clients, bragging instead about their NDA policy.

website [10] --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to laugh at their testimonials under "Our Clientele Speaks For Itself". It loops through five copies of the exact same text. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sharif Zahir

The editor's first edit was to create Sharif Zahir. Their next edits were to Ananta Group, of which Zahir is managing director. Ananta Real Estate Ltd., one of the components of the group, is building a gated community on Madani Avenue in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and the editor has added information about that to a number of articles. They have also added Sharif Zahir to an alumni list and edited United Commercial Bank (Bangladesh), a company that Zahir's father chaired.

When advised on their talk page of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, they denied having any conflict of interest.[11] When asked point blank "What is your actual connection to Ananta Group?", they claimed to "have no connection whatsoever to Ananta Group".[12] That is highly improbable, given their choice of topics, their uploading of a photo of Sharif Zahir supplied by an employee of Ananta Group, and their WP:BLUDGEON behavior defending his biography against deletion. Based on off-wiki evidence, their denial of any connection does not appear to be true. I won't go into details here to avoid outing, but I can explain privately to anyone who can't easily find the information themselves.

If an editor isn't forthright about their close connections to topics they're editing, then they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Worldbruce (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: Yep – I found the off-wiki connection as well, which is why I asked them about it, repeatedly. Their denial is unfortunately not at all credible. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this here. Their contribution has been very problematic. I would also point out that finding an off-wiki connection between the author and the company was effortless. Per WP:OUTING, I will refrain from adding more information about that, but the evidence is overwhelming.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Evidence for investigation can always be emailed to [email protected] to avoid WP:OUTING. I'd encourage you to do this with all of your findings. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@Drm310: Thanks, I've done as you suggested. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert and COI

Moved from WP:EWN — Czello (music) 08:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dear Hosts. Hope you're fine. I'm a proud Wikipedian but I'm really sad no one is looking at the Article of Priti Adani where User:Mainakchatterjee.tech is accused as a Paid Editor by User:RPSkokie. He added images there and shown own work in Wikimedia Commons, so senior editor added COI and Paid Editing tags, as every user should do, and Accused user had written that he is founder of a Digital Marketing firm. I removed the image and added other image from Flickr, and added to the article and removed tags as it should be removed. Now, COI accused user is continuously making Reverts to my edits, they had also made revert when RPSkokie added tags and accused them. May you all help. Yasal Shahid (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

For convenience, links are
Priti Adani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yasal Shahid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am seeing edits of concern from more than one editor at that article. Current back-and-forth involves Yasal Shahid changing out photo and adding an overlong caption, and removing the article tags for COI and UPE. Mainakchatterjee.tech adds back the tags (which I'll note were originally added by RPSkokie out of concern with _Mainakchatterjee.tech's_ edits) and reverts the photo changes. It is a lot of interest in the page of a wealthy (and probably passing notability) but not otherwise such high profile person. Disclosing that I came upon this item partly due to a !vote of OP at WP:Articles for deletion/Pankaj Choudhary (professor) (2nd nomination). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I edited some of the businesspeople pages when i gone through Category:21st-century Indian businesspeople, i edited some pages here, I'm interest in Business article as i already mentioned in my User Page. I edited Anuradha Acharya and Pranav Adani pages too, but when i gone through the History of Priti Adani page i get that mainakchatterjee.tech added image and just after that RPSkokie added the Tags for COI and Paid Editing. Then i gone through flickr and got images of Priti Adani, so i just uploaded it to Commons and updated it on her Wikipedia page. Is that wrong? I just fixed it, because the tags were added because of adding images as RPSkokie written in reason of edit. If i did wrong then please forgive me, I'm not here to Vandalise Wikipedia. It may be fault of them, they added tags just for adding images. I changed the image because it was the cause of Tags as per reason given. Thanks Yasal Shahid (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Durga Prasad Poudel

Spa editor with an obvious relationship to the article's subject, having taken the promotional photo used in the article. Onel5969 TT me 10:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yip. scope_creepTalk 11:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixing a BLP with COI issue

Some time after I created Vanessa Fox I developed a minor professional relationship with the subject. About 9 years ago the article was consequently tagged [13] with {{COI}} by User:Candleabracadabra who was subsequently shown to be a sockpuppet. I've just noticed this, and removed the COI tag [14], but I would like somebody to review this and consider whether there should or shouldn't be a COI tag. I am concerned in general that we should not template BLP articles in a way that might suggest wrongdoing by the subject without substantial evidence. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've posted it to the Afd queue. scope_creepTalk 14:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Good solution. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson (politician) and User:Perryj1622

Perryj1622 (talk · contribs) is an SPA, with a suggestive username, that is singularly focused on promoting the presidential candidacy of Perry Johnson, the politician. I have asked about potential COI/UPE, but they haven't responded yet. Any suggestions on how to proceed if they continue to edit in the subject area w/o disclosing or denying any links to the politician or their campaign? Abecedare (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Katerina Harvati

User seems to work at the university where the article's subject is a professor. They have been informed about WP:COI twice and haven't disclosed the COI. Nobody (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


The Daily Campus

The Wikipedia article is an advertisement. Today I removed [18] "Students of all majors are encouraged to join the staff." from it. Each of these people worked for The Daily Campus and made the article an advertisement. A big red box needs to go on the page to tell people this. Chances last a finite time (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure it even meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
There's some coverage in the Hartford Courant linked at the bottom, although a quick search for more sources didn't immediately turn up anything promising and it would probably require a more thorough dig to surface. I think the best option now is TNT the article body, which is wholly unreferenced (and likely cannot be referenced outside of primary sources, and even then it's entirely possible it's too arcane) and then start from the resulting stub. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I created a page to delete the article. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Seabasscampos

This user is very likely the co-founder of a company that markets an energy drink containing Adrafinil and has repeatedly reverted edits that claim adrafinil is a drug (per 21 U.S. 321(p)(1)) because they market their product as food (as defined by 21 U.S. Code 321(f)). They have a legal and financial incentive to revert edits claiming adrafinil is a drug.

JoeBo82 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is this accusation of a COI coming from? Seabasscampos has had a Wikipedia account for 7 years, and has never touched this article until this month. The edits by this user to this article have largely been in response to your claims. On the face of it, I don't see any more reason to think Seabasscampos has a COI in this article than I do to think that you do. Neither of you has discussed this content on the article's talk page. I suggest that you do so. Meters (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Adraful.com. Adrafül is an energy drink containing adrafinil. If one investigates the company behind this product one will find the two founders. One of the co-founders has a job site page with the same username as this wikipedian. Therefore, my reasoning behind COI. I will say no more in this regard, so as to not violate Wikipedia:Harassment or WP:Outing. However, if this is true then there exists the possibility of a C.O.I. Food in the U.S. may not include “drugs”, but only dietary ingredient determined as being generally recognized as safe (GRAS); therefore, denying adrafinil is a drug is beneficial. If adrafinil is not a dietary ingredient, then it cannot be legally included in energy drinks such as Adrafül. Thus, the possible motivation for denying adrafinil is a drug. Ultimately, I care very little about any of this and just want to reach consensus. JoeBo82 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@JoeBo82: I think you were right to bring this here. scope_creepTalk 13:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I will wait for more responses though. JoeBo82 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm inclined to nuke that entire section as poorly sourced to primary sources and verging on WP:SYNTH. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Not that I agree or disagree, but could you provide more insight on what you mean? JoeBo82 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Mike Hindert

It seems that a user with the name "Mbhwolf" has been editing this Wikipedia page, which is seemingly a name that Mike Hindert goes by, see on his merch page. The nail in the coffin for it is that the photo used on the page was uploaded as "own work" by Mbhwolf to Commons, which does not seem to be stolen from the web. File page on commons. aaronneallucas (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@aaronneallucas: CSD might have been more suitable. Its a clear coi and a vanity article, of what there is there. Its doomed. scope_creepTalk 10:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@Scope creep, I agreed, but I've never used CSD for anything before, so I wanted to make sure of that before I took such a move. I have nominated the page under CSD. aaronneallucas (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I csd'd it this morning and it was removed by the attending admin, but your csd has worked and it has now been deleted. Good work. scope_creepTalk 19:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@Scopecreep it looks like he has also been (recently) editing the Wikipedia page for The Bravery, the band that he is a member of. We should perhaps put a notice on the talk page over there if we haven't already? aaronneallucas (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
And yeah, it appears that he was deleting some potentially negative information about himself from the page, as might be expected. aaronneallucas (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

klzy-lp

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Kc0uuf (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I was advised twice that i needed to do the paid and conflict of interest. The parent company and the radio station are both non profit and i am a volunteer unpaid. how do i resole this issue or have the article peer reviewed.

Kc0uuf (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kc0uuf: This isn't a matter for this noticeboard. I have replied to your concerns on your user talk page, which is where this discussion should remain. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Tom Jackson Jr.

Obvious conflict of interest edits from IP registered to California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, either by the subject himself or a close associate.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have removed a lot of info, added several blocks of unsourced content which were hightly promo and that includes detailed current information of the subject activities. Probably indicating a coi. Editor seems to be away. If they come back its edit requests from this point on. scope_creepTalk 11:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Their first edit summary there indicates they were at least acting on behalf of the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Dkriegls

Likely just does not know the rules at Wikipedia for WP:COI. I have nominated three of their articles for deletion today, but thought I might have people who are more expert than I try to help.

jps (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Dkriegls here. This quote is from the introduction on my user page: "Be nice to new editors: My desire to become a regular editor of Wikipedia began with biography articles about my immediate family, in clear disharmony with WP:Conflict of interest. However, that emotional connection got me to read Wikipedia:Guidelines and get involved with the WikiProject Biography. I credit the kindness of experienced editors with guiding me into becoming a productive editor. I also remember how often I almost quit altogether because of a few bad encounters with editors attacking me for WP:Conflict of interest. Those personal attacks were mostly by novice editors, but all editors should be kind to new editors, even when they are grossly violating Wikipedia guidelines."
I haven't edited Werner Krieglstein since January 2015, haven't edited Maryann Krielgstein since 2016 when I corrected an author scheme, before that 2015; haven't edited Transcendental perspectivism since 2014. I'm fairly sure I understand COI and all three articles easily meet WP:PROF. However, if there is something I'm missing here, I'm happy to consider it. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@ජපස: And where is the prior discussion, required before this noticeboard should be used? (Links added, above.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Michael Fitzpatrick (cellist)

This editor has made various promotional rewrites of the article and seems to have a coi going by their username which is the name of the subject's latest project.They have also removed the advert tag on several occasions without reducing the promotional aspect, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The editor acknowledged that he is the subject of the article he has been editing. The article has been cleaned up and the editor has been asked to make requests on the talk page instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Tontine

The editor has recently repeatedly added links to the Tontine Trust's website to Tontine, most recently with no justification and incorrectly marked as minor edits but also here. I asked on their talk page back in March if they have a COI but they've ignored that.

Further suggestion of a COI comes from their edits to the Michael Edelson, who is an advisor to the Tontine Trust per [19] and their creation of Transparency Task Force, mentioning in their first version of the article that it gave an award to the Tontine Trust CEO Dean McClelland, and an organisation he lists himself as being an "ambassador" for on LinkedIn.

This seems to have been going on for years, for example here from 2018 where they added a link to a cryptocurrency associated with the Tontine Trust to Ton, which was swiftly reverted.

Looking through their edit history, even when their edits don't directly relate to the Tontine Trust they are often unsourced and designed to promote tontines in general, for example this.

Possibly they're just big fans of the Tontine Trust and tontines in general but it raises an apparent COI at least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaggedHamster (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Markin1999 and refspam

Been trying to work with this WP:SPA account, but no real responses except edit warring from them. Every post of theirs has been related to insecticide/DNA and promoting work by Oberemok by referencing their work in edits.[20] Some have been overly promotional making claims as if this person was setting themselves up as a pioneer in the field when it's something that's been going on for at least around 10 years. Not sure whether this is Oberemok themselves, a student, etc. but they're clearly an SPA going around to many different articles that have had to be reverted. @MrOllie caught this at one of the articles too, and Markin1999's contribs has most of the other article I've been trying to clean up.

I've tried posting to their talk page about COI and notifying them about 1RR restrictions related to pesticides/GMOs, but still no response. Mostly recently at RNA interference I've been trying to keep this at bay, but they're still restoring a blog promoting Oberemok, and I'm at 1RR ironically. I'm out of extra time for awhile, so more eyes on these accounts would be appreciated. KoA (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It is as obvious a case of citation spam as I've seen. Edits like this one should be treated as simple linkspam and reverted as vandalism, with escalating warnings given. MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Csm2110, Christopher Manning (filmmaker) and associated pages

Promotional push for director and movie prior to film's release. I've left notices re: WP:COI and copied content at their talk page, to neither acknowledgment nor avail. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a “promotional push” - there are no opinions expressed rather verifiable facts. Please read the numerous third party pages cited. Thank you. Csm2110 (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Csm2110: Given the subject's initial's and your username, are you Christopher Manning himself? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Though it's not our purview to out someone, editors with WP:COI are obliged to declare an association, which Csm2110 has avoided doing. Unsourced edits like this [21], with a birth date re-added after someone else deleted it, fairly well answers the question. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:9409:D210:7DC4:1CB (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This is already declared - nothing to hide here. Csm2110 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Coolio. As long as you use edit requests from now on, to update the articles, everything will be in order. scope_creepTalk 04:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Finn Murphy

Obvious SPA. LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby 21:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby this noticeboard should be used when talk page discussion has been attempted and failed. Leaving four minutes between a notice on someone's talk page and a report here is not a fair attempt at discussion. Melcous (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

COI IP editor at an AfD

Recently, I nominated a whole bunch of related articles about academic bee/quizbowl competitions for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Geography_Bee). I noticed that an IP editor 63.117.71.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been participating in the AfD. From what I can see by the geolocation, the IP geolocates to a Marriott hotel in Arlington, Virginia, which is where the IAC national competition is held this year (see https://usa.iacompetitions.com/elementary-and-middle-school-nationals/ for more information). The geographical and behavioral evidence shows that the IP has a COI with this competition and may have recently participated in this year's national championship. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs 02:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sasha Waters: Article subject COI editing article about themself

User:Swaters68 claims to be the article subject. While it's fine if they are the subject, their edits have become fairly disruptive. (See Revision history) They have been warned about WP:COI [22] and WP:OWN [23]. They also have been told about the importance of Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources in WP:BLP's [24]. Yet they keep restoring their preferred article version and have made it clear that they will keep doing so. [25]

I believe that if they can't edit the article about themself constructively, they should only be able to change the article through edit requests. Nobody (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked them from the Sasha Waters page, after they blanked and move-vandalized the page; given their temperament and IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, a indef block may be best. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Well that escalated quickly. Anyway, thanks for handling this David. Nobody (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Robert Reiner

 Courtesy link: Talk:Rob_Reiner § Rob%20%22Meathead%22%20Reiner

Robert Reiner does not have am middle name. Norman is not Rob Reiner's legal middle name, nor has he ever used that name. Two articles were referenced when originally submitting this edit request, and one of them, from the Holly Walk of Fame, has been updated and removed "Norman." I hold Rob Reiner's legal documents including birth certificate, as his manager, to show his true name and can provide proof to have this article updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.197.237 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Sh-abkcomms/Misconduct trim

This paid editing account (properly declared) is obviously rehearsing for a massive slashback in the articles about the legal troubles of their client. Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Elisa Hategan

It appears that the subject of the article Elisa Hategan or someone connected to her has been editing the article and attempting to delete reference to a legal case in which she was found liable for defamation. 208.98.222.28 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This paragraph contains incorrect information, including citing articles from 2019 and 2020 when the appeal was not dismissed under the cited reasons and there is no source cited for the dismissal. Salander2000 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Jamie Waller (entrepreneur)

IP user appears and claims to be either the subject or associated with the subject of the linked article. Agentdoge (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Tommythenodd

I believe Tommythenod has a COI relating to London Irish Amateur. On his userpage, he states he is an executive of London Irish Amateur and has been editing that page with the intent to "improve our page" according to his userpage. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems clear that he is an executive. Left a message to disclose on the article and use WP:ER. Seems to have dissapeared on the 5th, but if he comes back I'll take another look. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Armando Huerta

I don't normally escalate things but this COI editor refuses to stop arguing with me on my talk page after I declined her draft at AfC. see here. The lack of notability and unsourced claims about living people are enough reason alone to decline it. She thinks that being someone's manager doesn't count as a conflict of interest (and believes that Madonna's manager edits her page?) and is insisting that there are 120 in-depth articles about Armando Huerta. I can't find these and she refuses to add them as refs. The draft just clearly is not ready for publishing and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything and yet she just. will. not. stop. messaging me about how it should be approved. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. I'm not sure why you keep on saying that. I'm merely pointing out your and Wikipedia's hypocrisy. That's a little different than "arguing". I've asked you multiple times to point out where I'm promoting Huerta on my page and you are unable to do so. I also keep asking you why every other pin-up artist in the world has a page and yet, the top pin-up artist in the world doesn't. All of these other artists on Wikipedia have WRITTEN THEIR PAGE THEMSELVES and are linking to their site to make sales and you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this. Why? Isn't that a COI?
None of these other artists have over "120 in-depth articles". Actually, they don't even have one yet you refuse to approve my page. At this point it is obvious that your refusal to approve my page must have something to do with a personal problem you have with me. I've included a list of over 120 publications that Huerta has been in. No, not all of them have "in-depth articles" written about him and mainly feature galleries of his art. Others *HAVE* in-depth interviews and tutorials. You will.not.stop telling me to quote from these magazines but how am I supposed to do that if I don't own any of them? Why do I have to anyway if what these magazines say about him is the same thing that I've already written on my page? (facts that can be found in other magazines that I DO own). It's the same information, just stated in a different way. Are you asking me to repeat the same facts over and over? Compare the quality of my page to all the other pin-up artists on Wikipedia and tell me why poorly written pages >> WITH A COI << and a few bad sources get approved, yet mine doesn't. And don't dodge my questions this time.
"Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships."
I don't see the words "dead people" in that paragraph.
"Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest."
How many people do you know who have external relationships with corpses?
Nothing "financial" either. If you disagree, point out the parts on my page that link to sites that sell products. I've asked you to do this before and you won't. Why? Darklordofpinup (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Darklordofpinup: Yes, being someone's manager and the beneficiary of their will is a conflict of interest. It doesn't matter if you think other people edited their own pages, they also should not have done that. If you name these pages, I'm sure I or someone else will check them out for any issues.
  • Accusing others of stealing his work is something that has to be sourced with references, no matter how true you assert it to be. Claiming that someone is the greatest of all time also has to be sourced, otherwise everyone would go on Wikipedia and claim that. This is why the draft is deemed to be promotional and why its statements need to cite sources. The fact that you claim to know all this personally doesn't help us verify it.
  • OK so there are supposedly 120 articles that have either used his illustrations or written about him. Merely being credited as illustrator doesn't count towards notability, so the specific articles about him need to be found. It's not enough to say you can't access them. If he's the greatest pin-up artist in the world you should be able to get your hands on even 1 article in a reliable publication that calls him that. I can't find them, you can't access them, so there's no way to prove they exist or even assess whether they're reliable.
  • This is not personal, I have nothing against either you or Armando Huerta. The purpose of this discussion is so third parties can weigh in on this. It's basically a second opinion since you are worried that I'm being unfair. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
"Accusing others of stealing his work is something that has to be sourced with references, no matter how true you assert it to be."
I already sourced it. Did you read what I wrote on my page? The Comics Journal wrote several pages about the entire Armando Huerta/Ricky Carralero art theft story. Check reference number 6 (article written by Michael Dean). Plus, it doesn't matter whether I assert it to be true. The entire pin-up art and comics industry knows about the fraud. The story is huge.
The table of contents for the TCJ mag you referenced doesn't mention Michael Dean or Armando Huerta. Citing an interview with Huerta on a non-notable website also doesn't count and neither does the interview with John Ulloa that doesn't mention Huerta at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Look at the text in the bottom right corner of the magazine. There you'll see "Michael Dean". If you buy the issue you will see the full article. "Screwed creators, identity theft". This is the massive Huerta/Carralero art theft story. It isn't an interview either. If The Comics Journal isn't notable, then why do they have a Wikipedia page? Take out the John Ulloa reference then. I just linked to that so people can see who he is. Darklordofpinup (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
"Merely being credited as illustrator doesn't count towards notability, so the specific articles about him need to be found. It's not enough to say you can't access them."
Why? They all say the same thing that other magazines I've sourced on the page say. Again, same facts but stated in a different way. And I'm going to ask you again, are you asking me to repeat the same facts over and over?
Then take out the unreliable sources and replace them with the best sources. That way it won't be repetitive. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
What sources do you think are unreliable? Darklordofpinup (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
"If he's the greatest pin-up artist in the world you should be able to get your hands on even 1 article in a reliable publication that calls him that."
I already did. The third last paragraph under Biography states:
"Airbrush Action Magazine featured Huerta in their May/June 2009 issue and labeled him the "leading pin-up artist.""
You said: "It doesn't matter if you think other people edited their own pages, they also should not have done that. If you name these pages, I'm sure I or someone else will check them out for any issues."
I already did that as well. Look at all the pin-up artists here. Why do I have to keep repeating myself and why do you keep on dodging my questions?
OK, well that's just the list of pin-up artist pages on Wikipedia, I'm not going through every page. Also just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that you don't have a COI or Wikipedia doesn't have standards. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
You didn't answer this: Where are the links on my page that are promotional and point to sites where products are sold? Not that it should be an issue anyway. Every single artist on Wikipedia has links on their page that point to their official merchandise site. Why am I being targeted? Darklordofpinup (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I never said there were product links on the draft. Your COI is the root of the problem and I also think it's why you aren't able to address the issues. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The COI is irrelevant if the page is written in a neutral way and all statements have been sourced. I know another pin-up artist who has stated that he was the best in his field. Should I add that as well? (since you think I'm just "promoting" him because I own his art).
What other issues are you talking about now? I've done everything you've asked me to. Darklordofpinup (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
"The COI is irrelevant" implies you now accept there is a COI but don't consider it relevant. Nonetheless, there is a process for when you have a COI and other editors will consider it relevant, so please follow the procedure at WP:DISCLOSE in order to let other editors know about it. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
You're ignoring the key point here, which is that you obviously have a COI per WP:EXTERNALREL. Being someone's former manager and beneficiary of their estate is an incredibly clear example of this.
"All of these other artists on Wikipedia have WRITTEN THEIR PAGE THEMSELVES" simply isn't true, and even if it was would not be relevant to whether you have a COI or not. If you have evidence that a specific editor with a COI has edited a page, you should raise that separately but it's not relevant to this discussion. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It's obvious they've written the pages because 1) The artists are not notable like Armando Huerta, 2) The sources are crappy and 3) You can clearly see that they're promoting themselves. Darklordofpinup (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If you don't believe the artists meet WP:BIO then you're free to nominate them for deletion per the process at WP:AFD. If the sources aren't up the correct standard then WP:VERIFY has guidance on what to do. Similarly, WP:NPOVHOW has guidance for what to do if you believe content is promotional and not NPOV.
Articles being in your opinion poorly sourced, not notable, or promotional isn't evidence that the editors who created them have a COI. WP:COICOIN has guidance on what to do if you believe there is a COI, which isn't casting WP:ASPERSIONS. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Does knowing musicians who have written their own Wiki pages count as evidence? Also, if an artist is not notable yet they have a Wiki page then it is obvious they have written it themselves, e.g. the recently deleted Nicole Brune page. Darklordofpinup (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Does knowing musicians who have written their own Wiki pages count as evidence? No, knowing that other musicians have written their own wiki pages is not evidence that the same has happened in this case.
if an artist is not notable yet they have a Wiki page then it is obvious they have written it themselves No, that's just one possibility. It is also possible that it was written by someone else who mistakenly thinks the artist is notable. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:YangGang2024

Aside from having a username that suggests a political motivation, this editor has been primarily involved (over the course of their fewer-than-two-dozen lifetime edits) in trying to push the virtually unknown Perry Johnson (businessman) as a "major candidate" at 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries.

Of particular interest, this editor uploaded File:Perry-Johnson-Photo.png to Commons with the assertion that they were the author of the image. However, that image appears to be from website of "The Perry Johnson Foundation", where this photo has resided at least since March of this year. Either the uploader is misrepresenting their authorship/authority to post this image, or they do have such authority, which would necessarily stem from an undisclosed COI.

I believe at least a topic-ban is in order here. BD2412 T 02:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Darius Saint-Robinson

Article contains POV-pushing language. The edit summary for the creation of the page suggests that the user either has a COI or could be an undisclosed paid creation. User has only made contributions to this page. I am unsure as to whether I should notify the user in question. Willbb234 16:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like the user had a conflict, but they haven't edited in over six months, so I'm not sure anything needs to be done. I don't find the article content that concerning. It can certainly be improved upon, but I don't think this is the place for that issue. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Some of the language certainly seems to have a POV. Willbb234 18:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The place to address that issue is Talk:Darius Saint-Robinson -- Pemilligan (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Notabotin

I stumbled across Notabotin a couple days ago, and the edit pattern immediately struck me as COI. They had just created Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay, which I nominated for BLPPROD as it had no sources; two have since been added to the article, though they're external links, but at least one of them seems strong enough to prevent BLPPROD from taking effect (I'm likely going to nominate it at AFD assuming I didn't do something extremely dumb and trout-worthy here and completely misunderstand the situation). Either way, I stumbled across their contributions to Burdwan Medical College afterwards, and the edits there looked extremely COI (here's a diff of their major contributions to it).

After seeing all that, I left a COI notice on their talk page, which was promptly removed at the same time they removed the BLPPROD notice. They also then created their user page, which reads weirdly... along with blanking mine for some reason. At this point, I don't think I can get them to have a talk page discussion (I really doubt they'll interact with me after blanking my user page...), so I've come here instead. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The editor has since blanked this COIN section, has removed the AFD notice on Mukhopadhyay's article, and has self-rated the Burdwan Medical College article as FA-class, all without engaging in any discussion. Is this grounds for a block? I think this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE, though they were never actually warned (outside of a {{uw-coi}} given by me) before a recent stretch of three level-4 warnings after their latest spree of edits. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
They have again declared the college article is a Featured Article. I think it's time for a block. Can an admin please oblige? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Triantares at Elive

Lourdes directed me here from ANI. I'm looking for independent confirmation of WP:COI, though Triantares denies it. I feel they should declare more than a vague general COI, and request and discuss proposed edits, other than the most trivial, at Elive. Meat partners users TheTechRobo3641 and Thanatermesis have declared COI.

WP:SPA with WP:NOTHERE, WP:MEAT, for Elive, since June 2020. Earlier draft histories seem missing, because of a history merge mentioned at May 2023 AfD, and changed article names. Another effort was Draft:EliveLinux. AfDs were:

No consensus, 26 May 2023
delete, December 10, 2019
delete, March 22, 2016

User page shows no particular difference for Elive versus several other topics listed, and claims to "take care to avoid such bias." Knows about COI: At recent AfD asks if others have COI: "Could it be that you have a 'conflict of interest' (COI) here?" Recently at Triantares User talk: Responding to "Managing a conflict of interest", says "This Elive community is so small that I am considered the 'go to' entity when it comes to writing (or correcting) English prose, that's all." Reality: Is one of a few "Trusted Users" at Elive forums. At Triantares Talk, I suggested more explicit declaration for Elive, and quoted them at Elive Forum, "Be carefull [sic] about going around and adding [deleted] all over the place. Although it might feel like "as it should be", it will send WP moderators in a flurry if they get the impression you're abusing WP for PR (which in fact you are :shocked: )." Triantares deflected: "Deeming any connection or collaboration as 'close' is actually over the edge IMO, merely feeding distrust and a condescending attitude." At Elive 3rd AfD: "Now the term 'assuming bad faith' has fallen: That was the reason I stopped wanting to have anything to do with WP for the last few years." [Had they done anything other than Elive?] At their Talk in June 2020: when warned about puppetry with user Thanatermesis, by EditQwerty. deflected with: "Others did help me out (in true FOSS manner) on my other submission (Elive), which we saw as a joint effort..." Anyway, I tried to be as polite and vague about off-wiki activity as I could, but got no traction, and received accusations and insults. I only looked off-wiki because the COI editing was so glaringly obvious to me, and I was curious about why. Thanks for looking at it. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Depends. I have no idea what status "trusted user" grants, but this feels like the equivalent of trying to write an article on your favorite YouTuber; it should probably be discouraged, but that isn't really COI.
Think of it this way. If administrators were the equivalent of the "trusted user" group in Elive (which, by the way, I would guess trusted user is not a moderating role, but who knows), all Wikipedia administrators would have a COI with Administrators on Wikipedia, and also just in general all editors would have a COI with Wikipedia. Should those be considered COI? Probably not, but if "trusted user" isn't a moderator-level role, I don't think you can say there's COI from Triantares. If you're worried about PROMO content sneaking in, keep an eye on the article (or the user) for a while. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify (as I am an administrator on the forum), while "Trusted Elive User" is not an admin role (in reality it's just a badge), Triantares is an admin. TheTechRobo (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Marginataen

Promotional editing and COI go hand in hand: a COI can be a purely personal matter, and is not necessarily connect to pay. In the light of the above conversation, the points made by Økonom, and the excellent analysis of a number of crucial edits by Bishonen, and particularly the almost painfully repetitive refusal of Marginataen to answer the very basic question, what other conclusion can we draw but that there is indeed a conflict of interest? I fully agree with Bishonen's p-block, with the note that if COI editing seems to happen in related articles, that block can be expanded to cover those articles as well. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 20 June 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.

The editor Marginataen extensively edits and creates pages related to the Danish politician Mikkel Bjørn and his former and present party (New Right (Denmark) and Danish People's Party, respectively), seemingly following a conscious strategy of getting Bjørn mentioned in as many articles as possible, apparently violating Wikipedia:NPOV, in particular the principles of due weight and balance, as well as WP:COI. The article of Bjørn has a clearly positive bias, omitting criticism and serving effectively as a platform of Bjørn's views. The editor also tries to mention Bjørn prominently in other articles like here and here, even creating articles of the village in which Bjørn was born (Rårup) and local Danish schools which Bjørn has attended like Horsens Statsskole and Jelling Seminarium. The editor's personal connection to Bjørn seems to go beyond mere sympathy, as witnessed e.g. by the personal details not publicly known that the editor has formerly been able to write when originally creating the page of da:Mikkel Bjørn Sørensen, and by the personal photos uploaded by the editor, portraying Bjørn over several years from political conferences to his own private office.

The editor has formerly received several warnings and blocks at the Danish Wikipedia site, chiefly for related problems, in particular ignoring warnings about editing too closely connected pages. The editor has evaded answering a talk page request to make a full disclosure of the editor's relations to Mikkel Bjørn and Bjørn's present and former affiliated organisations. Økonom (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I am interested in writing about Mikkel Bjørn and have in that regard, quite naturally, created pages about things associated with him. If Økonom wants to frame that as a deliberate strategy, that's his choice.
Økonom's examples: In Lars Boje Mathiesen. Økonom was on the edge of Assume good faith by attributing me the false motive of "advertisement for fellow politicians". Who do you think I am, Økonom? The fact that 1 in 5 MPs (20% of the group) leaves the party specifically due to Lars Boje becoming new leader must be a significant and notable event concerning his leadership. Since I pointed this out to Økonom here, he stopped trying to remove it.
In the Denmark in 2023 article, I just thought an MP changing party would, almost per definition, be a notable event. As a politically interested person, this I would have done no matter which MP it was, but the fact of the matter was that Mikkel Bjørn was the first MP to switch party this year. After Økonom pointed this out to me, which was completely fine, I considered its notability and didn't try to put it back in again.
I don't think I need to comment much on why it is objectively justified to mention Mikkel Bjørn, a member of the Danish Parliament, on a list of notable people from the little village of Rårup and why the same applies for the schools he went to. The articles about the schools, Årsskriftet Critique and Rindalism (the latter having nothing with Bjørn to do) are all translations from Danish Wikipedia, where I to varying degrees have tried to add additional information. They are not of high quality, as the articles in Danish they stem from are not of high quality. Therefore, Onel5969 notified me that Årsskriftet Critique had been moved to the draftspace, for which I thanked him minutes before Økonom notified me about this discussion.
Ad hominem arguments: Økonom says I added details not publicly known to Bjørn's article. I just briefly tried to look back, but I don't want to spend a lot of time and think it would be more honorable just to state what it was, so I can react to it. Regardless, I, as I have publicly stated on my user page, isn't my time on Danish Wikipedia something I'm proud of.
No matter Økonom's reason for doing this, I can't help feeling a little "haunted" by him as seen right now in his attempt to judge me for wrongdoings from 7 months ago after I have faithfully served a 6-month block on Danish Wikipedia – in the meantime having edited English Wikipedia with little to no issues. If I for instance added Bjørn's name to the Danish article about Rårup under the list of notable people from that village, I think I'm well-reasoned to believe that Økonom would instantly delete it simply because it's me and he would accuse me of "conscious strategy". Please tell me if this is wrong, Økonom.
On Mikkel Bjørn's talk page on the Danish Wikipedia Økonom wrote that articles shouldn't be an "exhibition place for the statements and views of the biographied person". This I find to be a totally wrong attitude. A big part of a biographical article about a politician is to describe his or her views objectively without the article itself taking a stand. Why else would so many articles about politicians have a heading titled "Political views" or "Political positions"? Just see a much more established article like Bernie Sanders.
Also, I would really like to positively improve Danish Wikipedia by translating, among others, the articles Mikkel Bjørn, Nye Borgerlige and Murder of Emilie Meng into Danish of which I have been a main editor. However, I'm afraid that Økonom will remove my translation just because it's me. If this is true, I find it greatly regrettable that improvemts can't be made simply due Økonom judging my track record and not the quality of the articles. My shortcomings are after all not the fault of the articles. I don't say that the English articles are perfect, but they would be a much better starting points for improvements than the current Danish articles.
Be the change: Økonom expresses that the article about Mikkel Bjørn has a "positive bias, omitting criticism and serving effectively as a platform of Bjørn's views". As stated, it is disariable that a good article objectively represents the opinions of the depicted when reliable sources exist. Politicians will always be criticised for their views by people on the other side. This does not make it encyclopaedic relevant per se. If Økonom are thinking about his expulsion from the KU, I actually greatly expanded on that and wrote in the edit summary, "I've tried to lay out the facts about his expulsion as soberly as possible. Feel free to improve upon it". If Økonom is aware of some encyclopaedic relevant criticism that is not yet mentioned, "omitted" in his words, I think there is nothing in the way of adding it. The same is true if he finds something in the article to have a positive bias. All that we can have a discussion about with anyone else who might want to contribute and, if needed, solve disagreements on the talk page. Just note that positive bias is not merely mentioning his views, as they have been reported by reliable sources.--Marginataen (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@Marginataen, you avoid addressing the central issue, which is your apparent violation of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: The guidelines requires you to disclose fully your relation in any such case, and generally strongly discourages any direct editing in cases with a COI. As you know, this has been pointed out to you several times before, on both the Danish and later English Wikipedia sites, but you keep ignoring these guidelines. Økonom (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Økonom You don't address my point about translating articles into Danish or anything else I wrote. I can write the translations in the my sandbox on Danish Wikipedia and then send them to review. I will comment on your inquiry but please also react to what I write.--Marginataen (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have removed Marginataen's subheaders and replaced them with bold phrases and adjusted the indentation, hope that is all right. Please don't bloat up the page's table of contents in such a way, Marginataen. Bishonen | tålk 11:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC).

Oh, that's much better. Thank you, Bishonen! Marginataen (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Marginataen, the role of this noticeboard is to discuss the problem of COI, and most of your former response does not address this issue at all. It is inappropriate to start discussing e.g. hypothetical future translations into Danish here; in any case, that question would be a matter to discuss at the Danish Wikipedia site. Økonom (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Marginataen so far has kept refraining from responding to the question of his undisclosed COI. His clear interest in Mikkel Bjørn's extensive biography and advancing Bjørn's name and position in several other articles, his knowledge of unsourced and not publicly known details about Bjørn's career and the personal photos taken of Bjørn in his private office and at political conferences uploaded by the editor, all indicate a close personal connection, though. As can be seen at his talk page, Marginataen has formerly written three articles on subjects personally connected to Bjørn, which have been deleted due to a UPE or COI conflict. I would like to learn the opinion of other editors to the present apparent conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Økonom (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Økonom Make a decision. Do you want to ban me from only Mikkel Bjørn or also Nye Borgerlige and Dansk Folkeparti? As I am interested in writing about Mikkel Bjørn, I have quite naturally created pages about things associated with him. As I have already said, I don't know which "unsourced and not publicly known details" you are talking about. Yes, I have been taking pictures of him when I've been in Copenhagen and once when we were at the same political conference in Finland. The same I've done with File:Henrik Dahl, Deadline.jpg, File:Sólbjørg Jakobsen, 2023.jpg, File:Christian Holst Vigilius, 2022 beskåret.jpg in addition to the minister from the Social Democrats Kaare Dybvad (File:Kaare Dybvad Bek hos Årsskriftet Critique.jpg). It is, however, true that I've been writing more about Mikkel Bjørn and Nye Borgerlige. This, I can say for a fact, is largely due to you unrightfully trying to prevent me from doing so, making me even more keen on doing it as well as me knowing about it. You said that the article about Bjørn "has a clearly positive bias, omitting criticism". You are still more than welcome to say what you mean by that. I invited you to edit the article on your talk page, which you declined. Marginataen (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, the "three articles on subjects personally connected to Bjørn," that were moved to the draftspace are: Christian Egander Skov (does not mention Bjørn), Christian Holst Vigilius (does not mention Bjørn) and Årsskriftet Critique (which is purely a translation from da:wp with the addition of "Notable contributors," where I, among others, listed Bjørn). I don't know whether your abuse of power on da:wp and your attempts to stop improvements to pages about right-wing politics are politically motivated or due to the long history of personal controversy we two have had in the past. The fact that it is not based on my content is clear, as you haven’t deleted anything on Mikkel Bjørn or Nye Borgerlige because you do know that what I write is good, whereas you on the Danish Wikipedia would have deleted everything and threatened me with blocks. It is certainly not because you have anything against editing en:wp and were, as soon as I committed a misstep just today, quick to delete it (see history on Mette Frederiksen). You have also openly told me on my Danish user page that it is not about the content but the fact that I write it, repeatedly making claims that I have a COI. Marginataen (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I repeat that the sole focus of this thread is your apparent undisclosed COI, violating WP:COI, so I shall disregard the allegations of abuse, etc. that you make. I find your edits to give the relevant articles a bias as well, but that question is not crucial to the present thread. You keep evading directly answering the question of your COI, but I think the evidence as presented above speaks for itself, as does your frequent uploading of Bjørn pictures and, until his change of party allegiance, of other pictures related to his former party. --Økonom (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry for using the term abuse of power. I just think it's fair to assert that you are harsher towards me than other Wikipedians, which may be quite understandable looking at our history from back when I did bad editing on da:wp. I have stated that I've taken some pictures of him and, before February this year, also of others from the NB (in addition to plenty of politicians from other parties), mostly when I’ve been to Copenhagen.
Yes, I was a member of the party. The things I did on da:wp It was not something anybody except myself knew about; it was just sort of my way to help. Today, I don't have contact with anyone in the NB. My main motivation for writing the NB article is to tell the story of what happened. I think I have done this faithfully to Wikipedia's principles without controversy with any other editors. As I don’t consider myself to have a COI, I don’t "avoid" addressing it.
I must admit that my main reason for putting effort into the Bjørn article is largely due to you, in my opinion unjustly, trying to avoid me from it.
For the sake of the noticeboard, you still need to answer whether you want to ban me from only Mikkel Bjørn or other pages, too. Marginataen (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I think nearly all the relevant information and sources there are to be found about the subject currently have now been added. Therefore, I now see the task as a matter of how that information is laid out for the reader in the most encyclopaedic way. When this is hopefully resolved through the peer review process, I will consider my job editing the article virtually done.
How the facts are laid out is not a topic for this noticeboard. As a general consideration, I'll just say that historical facts are easier to deal with than political positions and refer to the policy {{WP:PUBLICFIGURE}}
What the noticeboard chooses to do is out of my hands, and I'll accept any ruling. I would like to request "Mikkel Bjørn and related pages" to be either specified or just changed to Mikkel Bjørn as that article is obviously the primary course of concern for Økonom.
Thanks, Marginataen (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bishonen, @Økonom
Conflict resolution: As I want this dispute resolved as civilly as possible, I would like to put forward a proposal. I am aware that I mentioned solving it through peer reviewing but have since realised the waiting time may be several months and other solution are possible. My suggestion is:
Økonom makes a comment on the talk page in which he states all his considerations about the article like he's kind of already done (could be wording, specific text proposals to change, add or delete text etc.) Following that, I'll similarly make a comment with my considerations. Thereafter, we both agree to mutual non-interference and let the remaining Wikipedia community discuss the article. Here, I would make invites to join in on the discussion at the common forum of Danish Wikipedia, Portal:Denmark, Portal:Biography and Portal:Politics. When consensus is close to be reached, we are both allowed to give our "closing statements". This requires that the focus of the discussion is the text itself and not the author’s motives etc., which is a topic for this noticeboard. What do both of you think? Marginataen (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Not realistic, I'm afraid, Marginataen. You two sitting back and "let[ting] the remaining Wikipedia community discuss the article", here at the English Wikipedia, is unlikely to suddenly awaken an interest in Danish politicians which has hitherto been lacking. Did you notice how nobody but the two of you (and, slightly, myself) have edited this very thread? There's a reason, and I highly doubt there's enough interest in Danish politics on the English Wikipedia for the method you suggest. As for Portal:Denmark and the other portals you mention: portals, as such, frankly don't seem to be of interest to many. Look at the history of Portal Denmark: the last edit was a year ago. Last edit but one was three years ago! This is not a special problem for Denmark; it's more that nobody likes portals, or is interested in them. (I frankly don't understand why all the portals aren't marked historical and put out of their misery.)

There's an unspoken assumption in our rules for dealing with conflict that there's plenty of interest in everything, but that's sadly not the case. The lack of enwiki interest in the politician at issue here, Mikkel Bjørn, should not mean that an obvious supporter of Bjørn, such as Marginataen (because I have to agree with Økonom above that Marginataen edits Bjørn's article like a supporter), gets to have a field day with the English article after being blocked from the Danish one. Marginataen's editing is painfully detailed; there seems to be little Bjørn has ever said that is not quoted by Marginataen, who by contrast does not include the slightest criticism from anybody, that I can see. On the contrary, Marginataen also seems keen to quote admiring things said about Bjørn. (Here's one: "Mikkel Bjørn is an excellent and conservatively nationally rooted politician who has God, king and fatherland tattooed right into his heart"). The idea of ending - ending - a political biography with the sentence "Asked at the same occasion what it would be if he could change one thing in Danish society, Bjørn replied, "Mitigate the consequences of the liberal immigration law of 1983. Many bad things have happened in the wake of that law. Terror, parallel societies, social control, cultural disintegration tendencies, relatively heightened crime and so on" is particularly egregious in my opinion. Biography articles here aren't supposed to be showpieces for a politician's views. The way you have presented those views is really not a lot like what happens in the article Bernie Sanders which you mention, Marginataen.

I conclude that this article needs some admin action. I for my part have slightly edited it, but I don't believe anybody could say I'm involved, so minor and neutral as my edits have been. I have page-blocked Marginataen from editing Mikkel Bjørn for six months, while leaving the talkpage open for him to discuss and make suggestions. If I should be made aware of similarly promotional editing at other articles, especially from now on, Marginataen, there may be further blocks. Bishonen | tålk 14:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC).

Thank you for taking the time to write such an elaborate rationale, @Bishonen. On Friday, I'll write down my considerations about the article. After that, I'll have hands off and let it be up to others and only maybe give a closing statement near the discussion's conclusion. I would like to invite people from the Danish Wikipedia since many of them speak great English, can read the sources in Danish and might have an interest in the article as it is a Danish person and because I plan to translate however it ends out into Danish. I totally respect your decision which makes sense and I've never claimed not to be a supporter. Feel free to start editing it already before Friday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Marginataen, as an answer to your question, your conflict of interest is relevant to all the pages in which you have mentioned Mikkel Bjørn and the controversies connected with him and the late conflicts in New Right. Presently, these include New Right (Denmark), Nye Borgerliges Ungdom and Lars Boje Mathiesen. --Økonom (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It is not you who decide what I can or can not edit. I was blocked for promotional editing, not COI as far as I understand. Marginataen (talk) 09:49, 13 June 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.

Justyna Zander

Autobiography created by a WP:SPA. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:124:52C2:4E4B:4AD1 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no redeeming features in that article. I've moved it to draft. It looks like an agency effort. Its massively promotional and completly non-encyclopeadic. scope_creepTalk 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I am happy to rewrite this article with scientific details.
Question: Since I am the subject matter and WP:SPA. is this even allowed? Or do you prefer to delete the entry altogether?
Please let me know. Justynazander (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Update: I received some guidance on Wikipedia IRC, edited the article and resubmitted. Please kindly let me know if this is appropriate or whether it should be edited or deleted. Justynazander (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Justynazander, the main problem for your article is whether you are "notable". For Wikipedia, that means receiving "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the yourself", see WP:NBASIC. If suitable sources exist, then it should be possible to work on removing promotional language. If they don't then the article is unlikely to be accepted. TSventon (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure thing. Thanks for clarifying. Justynazander (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, my COI notices to the user several weeks ago were for nought, so I brought this here. So far, I see 160 edits at Wikipedia [26], including the creation of an autobiography at a foreign language wiki [27]. The real clarification, if Justynazander were truly interested in our guidelines and contributing in a non- COI fashion here, is to not write about yourself. There's only one reason this account is being used--self-promotion--and WP:TBAN is worth considering. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Dear Editor,
Wikipedia is new to me and a natural use case is to test something new on myself. And yes, in multiple languages to get a sense of what works and how. I made small edits on other pages as well.
TBH, I am truly disappointed by you suggesting to TBAN me. I provided my nick name (Justynazander) as my real name (Justyna Zander) to be fully transparent and I am trying to adhere to the rules that I read to the best of my knowledge.
Should this page be deleted, please feel free to simply decline the publication.
Best regards, JZ. Justynazander (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again.
The article went under scrutiny again:
1) changed the tone as much as possible,
2) modified and added secondary and tertiary citations/references,
3) deleted all photos.
4) Since I am WP:SPA, it is impossible to change the COI.
Thank you for all your remarks. Justynazander (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And you continue editing as a COI; see also WP:OWNERSHIP, Justyna. You're not here to improve Wikipedia. You're here for you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Editor, I was asked to improve the neutral style and sources. Anyway. It is fine to delete it. I now learned how to use and contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you for your assistance! Justynazander (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Nick.deligtisch

User has been warned about disruptive edits, after which they disclosed that they were a paid editor for the company on their User talk:Nick.deligtisch page, but have not been following WP:COIEDIT policy of making edit requests and instead making broad direct modifications including removal of sourced content such as diff here. Raladic (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  • This user is disruptive both from COI and from poor-quality edits; I can't see them being a productive editor even if they follow COI rules. Their attempts to whitewash corporate histories are clumsy to the point of CIR; see this edit where they removed mention of a 170-year-old disaster. It's nigh time for a block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I really tried to reason with him, leaving him a long talk page message, but no matter what he keeps removing things; as Pi mentioned, trying to whitewash the P&W article by removing all mention of an 1853 collision (from an FA, to boot!) is just laughable. I initially directed him to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure so he can't claim ignorance. I've reviewed a wide range of his edits. Much of what he's done has been to remove things that are encyclopedic and sourced because apparently G&W doesn't want them public, including information on primary commodities carried (because listing this will apparently make potential customers think the railroads only carry those things???), abandonments of lines, and in general anything that makes G&W look bad. Norfolk Southern Railway's PR guy is perfectly capable of properly following our rules about PAID, so I don't see why Nick cannot other than he is unwilling or incapable of understanding. Either way I think a block is needed here to protect the encyclopedia; us volunteers are having a hard time keeping up with someone who's job is to edit Wikipedia (poorly). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Now a day later, they filed a COI-editrequest for removal of that content. So they now know the process. But the request to remove that content is ridiculous in at least four policy/guideline and basic-logic ways. I left a sharply worded decline and a sharply-worded comment on their talkpage. I do not object to an indef as CIR. I don't care whether it's willful COI as part of their internship with the company or simply inability to understand and follow our content standards. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Now today they willfully removed their COI disclosure on their user page [28] and immediately went to go and edit articles directly again, adding unsourced information again. I have reported the user to AIV as it doesn't look like they are here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really COIN, but still relevant to nick. [29] The amount of usage of the word ‘we’, especially on his fourth point, is ringing alarm bells in my head that best fit WP:HACKED. Multiple users of the account, but named to not have WP:SHAREDACCOUNT trouble.

Am I overthinking this? MM (Communicate?) (Operations) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I took that as the intern speaking on behalf of the company as instructed by the intern's boss. DMacks (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Editor has now removed the only thing that approximated a COI disclosure for Genesee & Wyoming from their userpage,[30] while resuming making edits to many pages with Genesee & Wyoming-related content and no longer disclosing in edit-summaries either. So that's COI edits, with full knowlege of our policies and guidelines about that, and now into UPE for declining to disclose. I'm indef'ing. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Good block. All of these warnings and he decides now is a good time to try and evade scrutiny? I sure hope he wasn't actually being paid... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

National Cleanup Day

Those reasonably familiar with investigating promotional editing research will find through open internet search that there's strong indication of the aforementioned users working together. To avoid conflict with outing policy, I can't discuss the specific details. Stevejewett (talk · contribs) were advised about conflict of interest editing in March 2021 by MB here, yet engaged in promotional editing again in June 2023. Bennelson8801 removed template messages themselves in the article they appear to have a professional relationship in Special:Diff/1107209668. Although good faith was assumed, the creation of keyword spam like redirects and adding a see also link to their own organization after having been warned about COI is suggestive of promotional intentions. Stevejewett's edits generally revolve around their events/organization, such as in this edit into Amarillo, TX. Also, making this addition of links in July 2021 despite the COI message on their page in March of the same year. Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Stevejewett openly discloses on his userpage that he is the founder of National CleanUp Day. Because that information was disclosed voluntarily, no violation of WP:OUTING is committed by mentioning it here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Drm310:, it was in reference to how Bennelson8801 is believed to be connected to the organization behind these events. Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Channa Wijesekara

My article states that A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. I need someone to help me refine it Nethushar (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_198&oldid=1165124595"