Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 164

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User Aronnax1

Related ips

The related spamming has been going on since at least 2007. Aronnax1 has a likely COI and would like recommendations on how to proceed, so I'm starting here first.

Arronax hasn't declared a COI, but has said I'm more of an amateur hobbyist/historian.[1].

Arronax has stated More than happy to describe my position and area of expertise on my user page as recommended. Feel free to make any other recommendations. [2]. Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @Hipal: Could you please provide some diffs by the account (not the IPs – all but one are extremely stale and can't be technically linked to it) that you consider to be spam? – Joe (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I note that both of the quotes above are incomplete; please see the diffs for the full quotes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to get the COI addressed: some guidance on what to declare and how; the relationship to pamela-green.com, Korero Press, Wolfbait Books. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page: – Joe (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The point of my going to COIN first was to address the COI. You took the time to glance at the ip's. I assume you looked at Aronnax1's contributions. So to address your request for diffs on spamming: All of Aronnax1's edits appear to promote pamela-green.com, Wolf Books, or Korero Press. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It's Wolfbait Books, an imprint from Korero Press, and heavily promoted on pamela-green.com. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It looks ambiguous to me; could be a COI, could be somebody with an interest in those topics who naturally happens to use a lot of sources from the niche publishers that cover them. That's why I asked if you had any slam-dunk diffs. If not, Arronax1 has said they don't have a COI and made an effort to discuss your concerns, so perhaps take that on good faith. Many of their edits seem helpful. – Joe (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
"Helpful"? Diffs please.
has said they don't have a COI Where did you get that from? They said they are not being paid, that they are an amateur historian that's worked with numerous organizations (on what I think it safe to assume are topics related to their Wikipedia editing), that they would like to describe their position and area of expertise. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The claim "All of Aronnax1's edits appear to promote pamela-green.com, Wolf Books, or Korero Press" is false. Unless you can show that there is a prohibition on citing books from those imprints, then there seems to be no evidence of any wrong-doing by Aronnax1. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
To repeat myself: This noticeboard is for addressing conflicts of interest. I started this discussion to get some help for Aronnax1 declaring their interests. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of my posting at COIN was to get help with Aronnax1 declaring their interests. How I proceed from there will depend upon the response (SPI, RSPAM, RSN, BLPN). If you want to work on such discussions, please provide evidence and let me know. Thanks. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the above comment here, from my talk page. I reiterate that you have shown no evidence of any CoI or other wrong-doing by Aronnax1 (despite being asked for diffs, in this very section, two and a half days ago). How you proceed should be in one of two ways. 1) Show such evidence or 2) drop the stick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Arronax1 has said they would like to make a declaration and would like other recommendations. They quoted “Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources.”, which suggests a strong COI. That's evidence enough for me to come here and request help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
No, they did not "[say] they would like to make a declaration", and no, “Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar are encouraged to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information in the form of links to their resources.” does not suggest a COI of any sort. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
We disagree. I don't see how quoting that material suggests anything else. It was made in response to COI concerns. It all comes down to Arronax1's relationship to "their resources". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
As the adage goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. If you insist that Arronax1 "[said] they would like to make a declaration", provide a diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry if there's some confusion here, but I think my very first comment was clear and included a quote. Please drop it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Your first comment did indeed include a quote - but not a quote that supports your claim that Arronax1 "would like to make a declaration". As I said above, you should either provide evidence for the claims you are making, or drop the stick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
And please stop trying to split part of this discussion onto my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the only stick here is the one you're creating.
"More than happy to describe my position and area of expertise on my user page as recommended." to me means that Arronax1 would like to make a declaration. Let's not split hairs.
I've gone ahead and addressed Arronax1 directly. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, not entited to your own facts. In case you hadn't noticed, Arronax1 has not edited since your post a week ago (which I have only just seen), in which you told him "...we should proceed with the assumptions you've been spamming the links for 10+ years". For shame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Please drop it. This is disruptive. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ed Iacobucci

Given the repeated posting which appears as vandalism involving a BLP, as well as unsubstantiated sourcing, the editor in question has been politely asked to cease. Kevinjonavoraza (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The above (which was malformed, and which I have therefore refactored) seems to relate to this diff. No evidence to support the claim of CoI is offered. Bmf 051's only edit to the article in question was this one. Bmf 051 has not yet been notified of this discussion; I will do so now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
On further inquiry, all of Kevinjonavoraza's edits bar one relate to this issue; and that other edit relates to the University of Toronto (where Iacobucci is Dean) and has been redacted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a WP:BOOMERANG if I've ever seen one. I suggested @Kevinjonavoraza: may have a COI, due to their username containing the surname of a person discussed here (i.e. "Azarova"). I tried to start a conversation about it on their talk page, rather than immediately reporting it on this noticeboard, because I thought that would be more constructive. But the user retaliated by reporting me for a COI instead (with no evidence). Similarly, I notified them about rules regarding edit warring, but did not immediately report them for violating WP:3RR in an attempt to resolve the issue through discussion. Instead, they retaliated by copying my warning to them word-for-word (including my signature) and pasting it onto my own talk page. Not sure if they are trying to accuse me of edit warring (again without evidence), or if they're again just trying to deflect attention from their own behavior. I don't think Kevinjonavoraza has any intention to resolve this through discussion, so I doubt they will give any input here about what exactly they think I've done wrong. Bmf 051 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Definitely a boomerang. Note that the academic's name is Valentina Azarova and the OP's username is Kevinjonavoraza. It's similar but not the same. The OP's edits have been very anti-Azarova, including accusing her of abusing legal systems via lawfare (in an edit I revdel'ed on the main U of T Faculty of Law page) and misrepresenting sources to baselessly accuse a U of T hiring committee member who resigned in support of Azarova of being under a conflict of interest investigation (in an edit I revdel'ed on Ed Iacobucci. I want to assume good faith, but it would be a remarkable coincidence that someone with such a similar name turns up within short notice of the controversy and makes these edits. IMO it's more likely that the username was made mockingly.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
"Avoraza" is just "Azarova" spelled backwards. I believe the "Kevin Jon" refers to a vocal advocate of Azarova, based on what I've read. So I now think their whole username is intended to be mocking, and that the OP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to grind an WP:AXE. I admittedly had never heard of the subject of the article, the controversy mentioned in the article, Azarova, or any of the other people mentioned in the article, until I came across the OP's edit-warring behavior on Special:RecentChanges. I only got involved in an honest attempt to mediate. So being accused of a COI is a bit unexpected. Bmf 051 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't catch the backwards spelling, which makes the case for a bad-faith actor stronger. For the record, the "Kevin Jon" likely refers to this other legal scholar, who's posted on Twitter about the whole incident (e.g. [3]). Bad faith actors will tend to project. Thanks for your help on the article, it's much appreciated. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Kevinnonavoraza was blocked for 2 days this past Monday for edit-warring and has not resumed editing. If they do resume, please let me know and I'll deal with them as needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Santiago Lodré and all the Paulina Rubio related articles

and dozens of Paulina Rubio-related song, album, and discography articles

Santiago Lodré's 5-year edit activity focuses almost exclusively on the music artist Paulina Rubio. Their editing shows more than a fan interest — instead their edits show link spam, inflation of sales and certification, music charts, and other promotional tagging and cross-reference tagging, rather than any interest in verbiage content (which a typical fan would be interested in). Recent corrective edits, reversions, and cautions by edit-summary, have resulted in this editor vandalizing other non-Rubio BLP articles, particularly to articles related to Rubio's rival, Thalía. (rivalry)

The prior username of Santiago Lodré was User:Agencias DieneyCity and I believe this person is a PR agent for Paulina Rubio. Evidence of name change: [4] [5] [6] [7]. It looks like they "retired" in 2014 [8] but created the Santiago Lodré username in 2015 and resumed the same editing. (Not entirely certain of the details because some of this evidence is from the Spanish Wikipedia and I am not fluent.)

Using XTools Top edits per namespace and counting only articles where editor made 10+ edits: I found that 46 of their 50 top edited articles are directly related to Rubio, representing over 80% (1,626 out of 2,013) of all mainspace edits. The remaining 4 articles in the top 50 are Nadha, Feels (song), Love (Thalía album), Thalía discography. I did not check the other 127 articles (332 edits) with less than 10 edits.

I cautioned the editor on their user talk page a month ago [9]. Their user talk page (archive copy) is littered with cautionary messages about Rubio-edits from other editors extending back 5 years, including:

  • adding content without a reliable source (2015 [10])
  • using unreliable music charts (2018 [11])
  • inflating the certification numbers for Rubio albums (March 2019 [12])
  • a second caution against using fake charts in Rubio articles (May 2019 [13])
  • inflating the sales of Rubio albums in articles (August 2019 [14])
  • a second caution against inflating certifications (August 2019 [15])
  • a second caution about adding unsourced content (August 2019 [16])
  • another caution about Rubio sales (Nov 2019 [17])
  • more inflated sales (June 2020 [18])
  • and lastly my month-ago caution about promotion/advertising (August 2020 [19]).

I was first alerted to Santiago Lodré by another editor (FanDePopLatino) on August 27, 2020, who pointed to two [20] [21] insertions of pro-Rubio content cited to Rubio youtube videos into two non-Rubio articles; neither citations verified the content. It was External link spamming. When FanDePopLatino reverted SL's edit, SL re-added the content with a different citation that was completely irrelevant to the added content. [22]

SL has added pro-Rubio content and linkspam into other non-Rubio BLP articles such as:

  • Kylie Minogue, inserted Rubio's name and a citation that does NOT support the context [23]. It's still in the article.
  • Madonna, inserted Rubio's name and two citations, neither of which supports the context [24]. The content has been removed from current version.
  • Selena Gomez, added Rubio's name (and citation to PR-garbage article [25]) implying Gomez was influenced by Rubio when the Spanish article merely says that Gomez said she liked Rubio's songs even though she doesn't understand them (the Spanish lyrics). I reverted the content for "didn't verify". Even after googling the subject I was unable to find any "influence"; merely "I like it" comments from Gomez.

Other examples of odd edits include:

  • Doubling certified sales of a Rubio album from 300,000 to 600,000 when the citation article is clear on the 300K figure [26]
  • Removing content and citation from a Rubio-competitor BLP article with the untrue edit-summary of "Irrelevant source, it is a copy of Wikipedia" [27]

These edits as a whole point to what I think is a WP:UPE, but certainly is someone with WP:COI. Normal Op (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have had problems with this user a few times. He makes it appear that any edition I do is to diminish Paulina Rubio and to value Thalía, although I like both artists. I was the one who started collecting sales from the two singers and sometimes undid inflated sales from both: here, here. There was a problem with the Billboard chart as well and on several occasions I tried to make him read the article correctly but he simply ignored it. The biggest problem is that when someone undoes Paulina Rubio's inflated sales he goes to Thalía's articles and erases the information and says that everything is inflated and unreliable, that's what happened in the last editions of Thalía's albums: Love, En extasis , Amor a la Mexicana, Nandito ako, Thalia discography, Thalía (English language album).--88marcus (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree with points expressed by Normal Op and 88marcus. As it was pointed out, I've also noticed this user (Santiago Lodré) usually makes wrong revertions, add questionable content and fancruft in all Rubio related articles. With his behaviour and edit-warring history with several users, could be appropiate have an admi taking care of this situation. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
It's true. That user (Santiago Lodré) has constantly been making unconstructive edits to Paulina Rubio articles such as spamming to link to other artists (which I recently removed), adding false/unsupported certifications, adding back fake/unofficial charts after they had already been removed, and retaliation vandalism on Thalía's articles with rude/passive aggressive comments like on here and here. The other editors (88marcus and Apoxyomenus) and I try to make edits from a neutral point of view but the user Santiago Lodré keeps edits warring with us and vandalizing other articles if he doesn't get his way. After Normal Op helped me out with a separate/unrelated issue, I reached out to them about the current situation so we could get a third opinion from an experienced editor because everything had started to get way out of hand and I knew that if I reached out to 88marcus or Apoxyomenus (and we correctly reverted Santiago's unconstructive edits again) then Santiago would just start edit warring with us again like they have done multiple times. FanDePopLatino (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ragunath Shanmugam

The user is obviously connected to the subject as seen here. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: You're required to notify anyone you report here (I have now done this). I've also cleaned up the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Ragunath Shanmugam continues to edit war at the article, without responding otehrwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Terry Oroszi

Wikiedit5687 solely makes edits which promote Terry Oroszi and Vikram Sethi ([28], here. [29]) The editor also frequently logs out and edits as 184.59.126.219 making the same promotional edits. ([30] and [31])

As an IP they removed COI templates [32] and [33] as well as with their Wikiedit5687 account [34]. They have been COI templated [35] and even outright asked [36] but they refuse to engage and simply continued removing COI tags from the articles.

The odds are high they work for Greylander Press as that is the one connection between the two subjects; they both publish books through that press. Helper202 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Just noting another connection between the two subjects is Wright State University, which appears to have a whole host of connected people (some clearly notable, others questionable) with resume-like articles. Melcous (talk)
This is true about the Wright State notable people bios. Many written in the same resume style. It is interesting that the Info Box for Oroszi doesn’t list her alma mater while her bio page does.Go4thProsper (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Economy of Iran

He says beggars are unrelated to poverty but this is more like paid editing. he is been very constructive in his edits on iran and iran military but i think he is not in iran economy. Baratiiman (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, does that mean that you are saying I am being paid to edit Wikipedia? Pahlevun (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Baratiiman: Removing an image from a good article is hardly an indicator of paid editing. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
what happened to context? Baratiiman (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Baratiiman: I don't see any context in which removing that image shows that the user has a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
is the image irrevelant or not? Baratiiman (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@Baratiiman: That is a content matter better handled at the article's talk page. You asked here if there is a conflict of interest, and the answer is a clear no. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. @Baratiiman: this does not appear to be a paid editing issue. It is a dispute about a photo that should be discussed to consensus on the talk page Go4thProsper (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman has form for bringing content disputes to this page, with no evidence of CoI; they are also aware that discretionary sanctions apply to topics relating to Iran; see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Pahlevun and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_159#FLAT EARTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Mansfield College, Oxford

I am reporting this as an example of a single purpose account only editing a college article, which has not responded to a question about paid editing. I would like some advice on how to proceed in this and similar cases.

User MansDev's first edit was in July 2019. "MansDev" seemed quite similar to Mansfield College Development team, so I gave them a standard warning about usernames which implied team use and they changed their name to "Dev at Mansfield College". In August 2019 the user then uploaded a file with the source "college photoshoot" so I asked on their talk page to clarify their relationship to the college. They did not reply and their next (and latest) edit was in April 2020. TSventon (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • They haven't edited since April, and you warned them about the lack of disclosure in August, so I don't think there's anything to do here. Their COI is pretty clearly disclosed in their new username. The file you mentioned was uploaded to Commons and they don't have the disclosure requirement we do. – Joe (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Joe for clarity, I warned them about the lack of disclosure in August 2019 and they haven't edited since April 2020, so they have ignored or not seen a message about paid editing. I agree their COI is pretty clear, so they appear to be breaching Wikimedia's terms of use on paid editing (as well as the en Wikipedia:Username policy), even if they are not breaching policy on commons.
This is an example of the issue raised by ElKevbo at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 32#What comes next for non-responsive editors after a COIN discussion?. TSventon (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Christian Theological Seminary‎

When CTSindy was warned in 2018 about our COI policies and practices, he or she replied that he or she is "the Web/Social/Digital Media Manager for Christian Theological Seminary and it's part of my work to make sure it is updated." I strongly advised to cease editing his or her employer's article but he or she has returned to editing it without complying with WP:PAID. ElKevbo (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Username "Indy" is short for Indianapolis, so "CTSindy" = Christian Theological Seminary Indianapolis. Reported to WP:UFAA. Also rolled back recent edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You replaced the validly-cited name of the organisation's new president, in post since July 1, 2019, with the name of someone described in April 2019 as "Interim". Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Pigsonthewing I find it fascinating that you seem to hang around COIN mostly to criticize those who come to post here, rather than to help constructively on COI issues. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP - So true. The Noticeboard is a place to resolve issues and help users in good faith, not to inject an adversarial tone and attitude. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Generation Yes (Scotland)

This user was obviously connected to the organisation, repeatedly supported edits by referenceing internal unpublished information, then after engaging in an edit war, managed to obtain the deletion of a page under Criteria for speedy deletion: G.7. This was not in good faith, it was seemingly to further a political agenda. Vitalis196 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than a COIN case, though I agree that the G7 was not appropriate. Recommend that you all consider dispute resolution. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Manoj Verma (IPS) request AfC acception

Please find if there is any error correct it as this article is considered to be a police head of Barrackpore, an Indian city in West Bengal. Nobody is accepting this article because of less reference but the maximum reference I could provide I gave now I can't find more about him. I am not an advertiser to advertise this article. I'm telling this before. Dibyojyoti RC (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

{{Request edit}} declined as inapplicable here; @Dibyojyoti RC: This is not the place to request a review of your draft article. Please follow the guidance left on that draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

MDPI

Something weird is going on here. In the past weeks, several drafts have been created for journals published by MDPI. They mostly look alike, but are written by different authors (mostly newbies) (one example linked to above). I currently have no time to look into this, but perhaps somebody here can look into it. --Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Your example is a red link, as is the Draft: equivalent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that. Corrected the link. The other articles can be found by looking at "what links here" at MDPI. --Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Randykitty, that's suspicious indeed. SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Elena_shijingjing. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
And looks like we hit the jackpot here. It looks like there has been some possible sockery surrounding a lot of articles about MDPI journals, I'd suggest folks take a look at those. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I've added another journal to the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anthony Baxter

The subject editor was asked on 4 September, when the draft was declined, whether they had a conflict of interest. The decline notice said that the draft should not be resubmitted without answering the question about conflict of interest. The draft was resubmitted on 5 September without answering the question about conflict of interest. The draft is not being declined at this time because conflict of interest as such is not one of the reasons to decline a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, per this there's not much question whether they're Anthony Baxter. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability I’d say that qualifies as a COI. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Noam Shalev

It was upload as a draft by the paid editor user:Ovedc, wasnt accepted and afterwards upload by other editor, maybe its a sockpuppet or they are working together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.166.68 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The article no longer shows as a draft. Has it been accepted as a BLP article? Go4thProsper (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The article by ovedc was rejected, but afterwards other editor copy it and seems he upload it to the mainspace, maybe they work together for money — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.136.136 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I have moved Noam Shalev to Draft:Noam Shalev (2) as the article had obviously copied content directly from Draft:Noam Shalev (which was declined twice at AfC) without attribution. This situation could definitely use some watching. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this a proper application the policy?

See User talk:Staszek Lem#October 2020 and below. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

So what now, shall I put the template

on all my 1000+ articles or only on the ones about Stanislaw Lem? Or you have some other suggestions on " resolving the problem that the template refers to"? Also, is this really a policy to slap scary templates on users with 10+ years of editing without any attempt to talk colleague-to-colleague? Staszek Lem (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, is there a template indicating that I have never threatened to take legal actions against any Wikipedian or any other afiliate or volunteer of Wikmedia and its projects? (And no, I didn't stop beating my wife yet). Staszek Lem (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the template addition at Stanislaw Lem. This is a case of WP:DTR if I've ever seen one, as well as "Don't template the GA unless you have actual objections to the article's content". signed, Rosguill talk 05:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • This is thanks for, but sadly, he is not the first one, only the first belligerent one, and I am afraid not the last one. Is there a generic way to address the issue of not beating my wife of misplaced "coi" templates? Staszek Lem (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      Have you tried more bold on the template? signed, Rosguill talk 05:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      Have you seen the scary templates in my talk page I linked in the beginning? Staszek Lem (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      Yeah, and they're concerning. My previous reply was facetious, I genuinely don't know what remedies there would be in general beyond a notice on your user page, which itself really shouldn't be necessary... signed, Rosguill talk 06:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      Instead of an "in your face" template, have you thought of simply explaining that the similarity of your username to the article subject does NOT mean there is a connection or COI? Or changing your username? (I did that when too many people were guessing negatively about my old username. I finally gave up and just changed it.) Normal Op (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Guys, you are not helping. I need a policy, not just a goodwill. If you have nothing to say, thank you. explaining that the similarity of your username to the article subject does NOT mean -- oh, really? Do I need to explain that standing facing the wall does not mean I am pissing on it? How about vice versa? How about you have to prove I am pissing on the wall? Staszek Lem (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

...OK, I found it myself: WP:WTRMT:

If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example: Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed;

Now, since you are sitting on this board, you better remember this rule now. Cheers, Staszek Lem (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Your entire post was a rude, emotive and somewhat ambiguous complaint; you never once asked for help finding a specific policy. Don't insult those who were trying to help, just because you reject their suggestion. Normal Op (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes it was emotive. In fact I was mad, because it was not even the second incident of this kind. Point taken, It was my mistake, because you chose to pay attention to emotions, and didn't even see my question: Or you have some other suggestions on " resolving the problem that the template refers to"?. By the way, you also failed to notice it was not a complaint. I know a proper place for complaints against users. Also, I was not sitting on my thumbs, offended, I was actively browsing the policies myself for an answer, because, as I said, this incident was not an exception, and I needed a spoon of alphabet soup for quick responses. After a good night sleep, my sincere apologies and regret. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Lexicon Branding

These accounts have been spamming links to Lexicon Branding across multiple articles. Examples include Special:Diff/978437859 for Noorapedia, Special:Diff/981202956 for AshleysEdits, and Special:Diff/981219749 for Chm12. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noorapedia. — Newslinger talk 08:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The SPI revealed a new account that had not yet edited any articles:
All of the above accounts have been blocked, and the promotional edits have been reverted. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel like I've seen UPE user pages that say exactly "Happy to be a part of the community!" before, but I can't remember where. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoodaba/Archive, expand the collapsed box(es), look for "community". User:Meloncoco → "Happy to be part of the Wikipedia community!" ☆ Bri (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing by User:John_P._Sadowski_(NIOSH)

As a reasonably uninvolved administrator (I made one comment regarding the root of the problem and another comment agreeing with Guerillero's consideration of a block but am not substantively involved in this dispute) I am closing this discussion. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) has been entirely forthcoming about their paid relationship and has gone beyond the mandatory disclosure to comment on what editorial input others have on his editing. Investigatory, on the other hand, is effectively a single-purpose account whose purpose seems to be to go after the CDC. While there may be grounds for questioning the reliability of the CDC with regards to COVID, I do not see a convincing argument that Sadowski is acting as a mouthpiece for the organization. I suggest that Investigatory find a non-COVID topic to edit about for a while - you are getting dangerously close to a WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW block. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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


I object to the CDC's paid editor contributing to the COVID-19 articles. A pertinent example is the Talk:Transmission of COVID-19 do you know, that was written by the paid editor from the CDC with a vested interest. It was approved with a WP:IAR process and was factually incorrect. The CDC has a number of vested interests in editing Wikipedia, and has CDC also has been accused of political interference ---Investigatory (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is apparently the DYK in question. The DYK process was followed properly, the hook was factually correct and confirmed to be so by the reviewer, and I have followed all procedures required of paid Wikipedians-in-Residence. @Cwmhiraeth and 97198: I'm pinging the reviewer and promoter to confirm. User:Investigatory is casting aspersions that have no basis in fact, which is odd for an account that is less than a month old. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The DYK would have been disputed by following any of the ECDC references, namely that the COVID-19 virus is known to be airborne. Perhaps one of the most important questions of 2020, that should not be edited on Wikipedia by an agency with a vested interest. --Investigatory (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The DYK hook didn't even say that it wasn't airborne. Further, I extensively used ECDC, WHO, and academic sources in writing the article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The DYK hook also said that it was known to be transmitted via contaminated surfaces. The WHO and the ECDC have said well prior to your DYK hook that it has never been shown to be transmitted via contaminated surfaces. This is COI editing, and American centric bias. The CDC cannot be editing wikipedia articles on COVID-19 when it disagrees with the rest of the world, for its own vested and political interests. --08:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Investigatory (talk • contribs)
Neither WHO nor ECDC have made any such statement.
WHO: "People with the virus in their noses and throats may leave infected droplets on objects and surfaces (called fomites) when they sneeze, cough on, or touch surfaces, such as tables, doorknobs and handrails. Other people may become infected by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, noses or mouths before cleaning their hands."
ECDC: "The virus can survive on surfaces from between several hours (copper, cardboard) up to a few days (plastic and stainless steel). However, the amount of viable virus declines over time and may not always be present in a sufficient amount to cause infection." John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes they have. indirect transmission through fomites that have been contaminated by respiratory secretions is considered possible, although, so far, transmission through fomites has not been documented. from the ECDC well prior to the DYK on the 30th of June. And from the WHO, Despite consistent evidence as to SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces and the survival of the virus on certain surfaces, there areno specific reports which have directly demonstrated fomite transmission. Your agency says that it is thought to, and not the main way the virus spreads and your DYK hook said it was proven. This is paid political editing. --Investigatory (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I have always found John P. Sadowski to be scrupulously fair and entirely neutral in his editing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure he is generally. But he is a paid editor of the CDC, and it's only fair to recognise that there is a conflict of interest for a national public health agency with its own response to COVID-19. All national agencies should be topic banned from the area. If the CDC were to recognize the virus as airborne, it would have massive implications for hospitals in the USA. They updated their guidance and they retracted it. This specific example and the allegations of political interference in the USA are enough for a topic ban for the CDC. I find no fault with John personally. --Investigatory (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. I and others gave that other nomination a hard time so John's work is getting reasonable scrutiny. The DYK process is a formal review which helps ensure that such new work gets good attention.
  2. My general impression is that John edits in good faith and their work is productive and reasonably well-informed.
  3. The science of COVID-19 is not settled and the received wisdom for aspects such as use of masks and transmission has changed significantly in the course of the pandemic. This naturally makes it difficult for any of us to cover it perfectly.
  4. I was not previously aware that NIOSH is part of the CDC. This is not obvious because in other countries, such as the UK, such agencies are separate.
  5. It's not clear how John's WiR activity is done operationally. Do CDC/NIOSH management direct, supervise or review the editing activity? Are there formal objectives and targets? What input have other CDC/NIOSH staff had to an article such as Transmission of COVID-19?
As the COVID-19 topics are controversial and vital, I suggest that John be especially forthcoming in disclosing the details of their work on them to clarify the extent to which it is intellectually independent.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
John's editing here looks fine. I'm not sure how someone can have a conflict of interest with a virus, and it's clearly in the interests of our readers to have knowledgeable editors working on articles concerning the pandemic. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The conflict of interest allegation comes from the fact that John is paid to edit by the CDC. The CDC has a vested interest in not declaring that the virus is airborne, and it is transmitted via contaminated surfaces. Reason being, that it has massive implications for hospitals in the USA, millions of dollars worth of workers compensation claims, on top of forcing hospitals to use expensive airborne precautions. So we need to at the very least know if the CDC is directly managing John's editing activity. At the time he wrote the DYK hook,
    1. the WHO & ECDC were clear that the virus has never been shown to be transmitted via contaminated surfaces, and the DYK hook said that fomite transmission was proven.
    2. He omitted that the virus was known to be airborne, as per the WHO and the ECDC, and most reliable WP:MEDRS sources. I allege that this may have been directed by management in the CDC, with the evidence of their changing guidance and political interference. I propose a topic ban for all national public health agencies.
    I fear that the DYK hook may have had its own public health ramifications from the 80k+ people both inside and outside the USA who read it. --Investigatory (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Investigatory's point is unclear. The hook in question started "that transmission of COVID-19 is known to occur through respiratory droplets...". Respiratory droplets are much the same as airborne transmission and there is currently a proposal to merge the two. The CDC's advice to US hospitals includes mask wearing and other sensible precautions against airborne transmission so it's not clear what expensive measures Investigatory thinks are being suppressed. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It was me that proposed to merge the two. They're not the same at all, for hospital workers, it involves wearing two completely different types of masks. Airborne requires N-95 masks, which are hideously expensive at scale. Surgical masks do not protect against airborne COVID-19. That is the expense, and also the workers compensation claim in multiple countries, because the masks were wrong in the hospitals. --Investigatory (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've just closed a fork of this discussion at WP:AN#Should paid editors from national public health agencies be topic banned from COVID-19. @Investigatory: Please let a consensus form here and, if nobody agrees with you that John's editing is a problem, let it be and move on, rather than raising the same issue in multiple venues. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I linked to the discussion here from AN, so it wasn't a forum shop. National public health agency paid editors should not be editing these articles, because of the massive public health implications. There are too many conflicts of interest, and especially with John, completely undeclared --Investigatory (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • This is nonsense - we need these editors and they use sources. As I said at AN this is just like the objection from creationists to our requiring evidence on articles about evolution. This should be closed -----Snowded TALK 10:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
      • with respect, there are many editors looking over my allegations which are far more complicated than a creationism debate. The CDC has a vested interest in not declaring the virus airborne, and wikipedia, unfortunatley, parroted them, because of John. We are not an american centric encyclopedia. The CDC should not be editing articles about a worldwide pandemic. User:Snowded] you have not considered the issue at all. --Investigatory (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Please don't say 'with respect' when you obviously don't mean it. I have considered the issue and an editor from CDC is subject to normal rules of evidence and has experience. Your interpretation of COI is perverse to say the least and I think this just needs to be closed as I can't see any real support for your view. Time wasting ... -----Snowded TALK 10:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
          • This entry is absurd. The CDC have a duty of care to protect public health in America. It has NO vested interest in promoting anything apart from public health and it is absurd and vexatious for the originating editor to suggest it. scope_creepTalk 10:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
            • The CDC should not be editing a worldwide article directly. Its not very hard to understand. The CDC has had a very different interpretation to the rest of the world on many issues. They should be considered a reliable source, but should NEVER be allowed to directly edit wikipedia to WP:CENSOR it. They have direct political interference. --Investigatory (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
              • If you carry on with this, without support then I think a case could be made to topic ban you -----Snowded TALK 10:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
              • Another absurd and vexatious comment from an relatively new WP:SPA editor, who is looking to get blocked. Our policies say otherwise. It is trusted source, from a excellent editor and unlikely to change. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
                • Blocked for what? What case to topic ban me? I haven't done anything at all. That's ludicruous, and i've been civil the whole time. You havent looked at my allegation on its merits, at all. --Investigatory (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue here is not absurd but Investigatory has not explained it well. Here's a recent item from the British Medical Journal which seems to explain what the trouble is: CDC publishes then withdraws information on aerosol transmission.

    Two other scientists said in the Washington Post that the CDC was wrong and that airborne transmission had been known for months. Joseph Allen from Harvard’s school of public health and Linsey Marr from Virginia Tech’s engineering department, wrote, “Many scientists have known that airborne transmission of the virus was happening since February. The CDC somehow failed to recognize the accumulating evidence that airborne transmission is important and therefore failed to alert the public . . . When you talk or sing—or even just breathe—you emit a range of particles of different sizes.” Some particles are large and fall to the ground within 6 feet, but “there are also thousands of particles that are smaller than five microns. Such particles stay aloft for minutes to hours and can travel all the way across a room on natural air currents.”

So, if we have respectable people suggesting the CDC has got this wrong, it is naturally an issue if paid CDC staff are writing our articles on the matter.
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou very much andrew, I am very new to wiki after a very long time, and you can definitely explain it better with the policies. CDC staff shouldnt be writing our articles because they're so contentious, and the different agencies have such varied views worldwide. --Investigatory (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
That is not the case at all. It sure has been under tbe spotlight and politically interfered has certainly upset working patterns and folks lives. That doesn't negate the fact that it has a duty of care. There is always dissenting voice in the science community, that is their lifeblood. However, that doesn't indicate a wholesale abrogation of their duty on the part of the hundreds of scientists that work there. A single paper isn't sufficient to draw that conclusion. scope_creepTalk 11:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Its not a single paper. Both the WHO and the ECDC disagreed with the content of the DYK at the time, and it still got on our main page, due to the CDC's paid editor. That's a major issue. --Investigatory (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The DYK was so factually incorrect both in regard to fomite and airborne transmission, when the rest of the world's agencies disagreed. The CDC repetitively changes their advice, many are saying due to political interference. John must declare how much oversight and political interference his editing is subjected to. Otherwise a topic ban for all paid editors from all national public health agencies is in order. --11:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Investigatory (talk • contribs)
  • First, it's obvious that this is not Investigatory's first account. Legitimiate new users don't quickly find their way to GAN, AfD, COIN, etc. That being said, I'm assuming this activity falls under the privacy clause of WP:SOCKLEGIT and strongly encourage Investigatory to make the appropriate notifications per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to avoid being outed in a WP:SPI.
Next, I know almost nothing about John P. Sadowski (NIOSH). To the best of my knowledge, the first and only interactions I've had with him were within the past few weeks when he reviewed a DYK submission of mine.
Finally, the important stuff. Historically, CDC has been considered a highly reputable and reliable source. Unfortunately, in today's world, we need to acknowledge that agencies such as CDC are operating under considerable political pressure. It is not out of realm of possibility that manipulation of wikipedia articles for political purposes is happening. We need to be aware of that possibility and vigilant in our fact checking and challenging of sources to ensure we only use reliable ones. But, that's a long way from a topic ban for all paid editors from all national public health agencies. John has disclosed his COI as a CDC contractor. That's all we require. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of talk here about the CDC as a reliable source and how to navigate when the CDC's findings are complicated/confusing/conflicting/whatever. That is a completely separate issue which I'm sure the fine folks at WT:MED can help sort out. At issue here is whether John's COI is damaging our articles or disrupting process. There needs to be more evidence than just that he has a COI and that he's using CDC sources, because we generally want people to use CDC sources. There needs to be evidence that John is pushing CDC sources over other sources in ways that contradict our policies, or that he is writing positively (or removing criticism) about the CDC in ways that contradict our policies. Thus far all I see are arguments that someone with John's COI should not be allowed to edit articles (not true) and issues with CDC as a source. At this point, diffs of actual problematic edits or we shouldn't continue to subject a long-time editor to a misunderstanding of our COI policy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  • It seems fairly clear that John is working primarily from CDC sources. For example, in the DYK that I reviewed, he said that "Much of the text is closely paraphrased from public domain U.S. government sources". This was one of my objections when I reviewed the DYK, as I pointed out that, "the article seems to be mainly written from a US perspective. As the US is not doing very well in this pandemic, its policies should not be given undue weight as best practice. ... the US context matters for the hook because it says "recommended workplace hazard controls". This does not say who recommends them and whether the recommendation is reliable. It seems to be implicit Americentrism – that US standards are the only ones that exist and that they are trustworthy. Other places have workplace standards – see COVID-19: EU-OSHA guidance for the workplace, for example." Andrew🐉(talk) 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • So here's the root question: is John primarily using CDC sources as a consequence of his paid relationship with NIOSH/CDC? As has already been said in this discussion, CDC is considered a reliable medical source, and changing it to be unreliable wrt COVID would require a discussion. Writing from the perspective of one's own country is a problem, but not one exclusive to paid editors. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Now, I heavily distrust the federal government (as any intelligent red-blooded American ought to), and it's indeed my opinion that it (including the CDC) has said lots of dumb and contradictory shit about the coronavirus over time. However, the current imbroglio is simply baffling; some guy who works for a federal agency does not need to get personally raked over the coals on his talk page and multiple noticeboards on account of the agency (comprised of thousands of people) being daft. Not to mention the maddeningly specious nature of the complaint -- the hook for a DYK entry was approved without the author having strictly adhered to the letter of an overall wordcount increase requirement? For real? What is the connection between this and an alleged overall pattern of tendentious editing on behalf of the CDC? If you want to talk about that (which is a discussion I could actually imagine being productive), just make the post about that, for crying out loud. There's no need to bring some random guy (whose behavior in all of these matters, as far as my rigor permits me to examine, is unimpeachable) into it. jp×g 16:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
To answer some valid questions that have been bought up: I'm pretty functionally independent in my editing. I'm a contractor and not a federal employee, and I have freedom to decide what edits to make on my own. They don't even have to be approved by anyone in advance. Second, my general self-imposed rule is to use less than half NIOSH or CDC sources when writing articles, for the sake of neutrality. (In the very early days of the pandemic I bent this self-imposed rule for a few articles in the interest of speed, since it's easier to quickly adapt public domain text, but I've long returned to following it.) Transmission of COVID-19 actually cites each of ECDPC and WHO more times than CDC. I'm aware of the controversy about aerosol transmission, but I have no involvement or inside information about it; I read about it in the news just like everyone else. When there's controversy like this, keeping neutrality by working from multiple sources is important. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

[37] curiously they updated their guidance anyway just now so the issue is mute from my end. However in the future I think it is inappropriate for the CDCs paid editor to use CDC sources when they disagree with other sources. Comments about me are less relevant, these are valid questions I’ve asked to be asked if the encyclopaedia is to remain neutral. —Investigatory (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Investigatory, I wouldn't go quite as far as it is inappropriate for the CDCs paid editor to use CDC sources when they disagree with other sources, but I would expect that all reputable points of view be represented, per WP:NPOV. If the CDC says, "The sky is green", and WHO says, "The sky is pink", I would expect both opinions to be presented, with references to the appropriate WP:RS for each statement. As long as that's happening, I think we're fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It was more nuanced than that, the CDC said the virus wasn’t airborne, the ECDC said it was known to be airborne. So the CDCs editor wrote a DYK hook that excluded the ECDC as a source and preferentially quoted the CDC, omitting that the virus was airborne. It’s like saying the CDC says the sky is green, the WHO says the sky is pink, so our DYK hook stayed the sky is green. —Investigatory (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: User:Investigatory apparently just tried to remove nearly the entire content of Transmission of COVID-19 without explanation [38]. (It was reverted by User:JPxG.) Please include this in your considerations. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it’s out of date, erroneous and needs a rewrite. Simply following BRD, i didn’t have time last night to finish it. The issue here is whether the CDCs paid editor should be citing their own sources in preference to the ECDC, on the main page. —-Investigatory (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be many issues here, frankly. jp×g 00:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevant thread on WP:AN

There's an important and relevant thread currently on WP:AN, which COIN regulars should take a look at. The thread is WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Blocking a paid Wikipedia editor. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The latest chapter in beauty pageant socking

Something still smells bad around the beauty pageant space to me (see COIN archive 151 for background). Checkuser just found a user whose master account Sasha Boudville was created in 2016, and used at least one sock account in addition to anon editing. According to analysis I filed at their SPI, Dyhp612, created in 2017, appears to be the master account of a long-term active abuser as well (25 confirmed socks so far). My intuition is that we're not at the bottom of things yet.

The reason I bring it up here is this is a big business and these aren't necessarily just enthusiastic fans. There's evidence of fairly non-fan-like use of proxies, potentially international coordination, and unusual persistence.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/F.222xdWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sasha BoudvilleUser:GaritoSoWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeekMoody19Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DevilBlack69Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kasidet29Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenebimoWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dyhp612Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RachellegenerosoWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky GrooveWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinovaWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas

This plot shows the unusual density and longevity of sockfarms in this space. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I checked RadyoUkay819 and DevilBlack69 today. They are located on different continents and do not appear to be using proxies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup


Articles listed above need new eyes ... high potential for COI issues ... created and edited almost entirely by accounts blocked for one reason or another. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions proposed

There is a new initiative that COIN regulars might want to know about: WP:AN#Community general sanctions for beauty pageant articles -- Bri.public (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions adopted

The AN discussion has been closed: There is consensus that any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, may be semiprotected indefinitely by any administrator, citing this general sanction in the protection log. I really hope this helps ☆ Bri (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sockfarms and bundled AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxanne Allison Baeyens bundles over a dozen beauty pageant articles, about half of them are created by sockfarms that have been mentioned at COIN. - Bri.public (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Neocatechumenal Way

More eyes are appreciated here, where the article has had a string of connected contributors, and a heavy reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources for a lot of stuff. Elizium23 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 - I agree. Eliziun23 has edited it a number of times and has flagged the correct issues. There are two other accounts that have repeatedly edited the page, one of which has deleted their account and the other of which has stated a COI on their talk page but continues to edit the page directly. The subject matter is quite detailed but does appear to rely almost entirely on primary sources. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Who has "stated a COI on their talk page"? Diff or link, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Goswami666: Promotional editing & other problems

 – — Newslinger talk 10:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The user has been restoring promotional content on Republic TV and related pages with minimal intiative in participating in discussions. Unsure if this is case of WP:COI, although note that the username is the same as the surname of one of the founders. The area has been also been the subject to COI editing in the past (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 162 § YashPratap1912 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YashPratap1912/Archive). Otherwise has an likely history of disruptive editing on multiple other articles. Sequence of recent diffs is as follows; date and time are in IST:

On the page of Republic TV.

On the page of Republic Bharat TV.

Anyway, at this point I've lost patience with someone who keeps re-inserting promotional content and whose only means of communication with me is through edit summaries. Also note that they have been the major contributor on Republic Bharat TV since the COI editing and have in fact exacerbated the issue. With their whole array of talk page warnings on past issues, I'm assuming they have a history of behavior similar to this. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, I think this report would be more suitable for the conflict of interest noticeboard. Would you like to move this over there? — Newslinger talk 08:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, I wouldn't mind it. I posted the report here because I think the user's conduct issues extend more than just COI editing (if it is that at all, rather than motivated by plain advocacy). Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
user:Goswami666 has had 14 warning from various editors, since they joined a year ago. scope_creepTalk 12:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is COI editing; other than adding the "highest viewership" thing (which could be promotional) I don't see anything else to suggest they're anything but a fan of the channel. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The following edit is unacceptable:

  • Special:Diff/982625483: Changed "right wing" to "English language", with the edit summary "fixed typo, vandalism". No typo was fixed in this edit. Considering that the "right wing" descriptor is well-supported by the remainder of the article, Goswami666's edit does constitute vandalism.

— Newslinger talk 22:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A promotional sentence like "Republic Bharat has met a huge amount of success with the UK audience and has been regularly topping the Indian news genre.", added by Goswami666 to the Republic Bharat TV article, is non-neutral and should not be used in the article. I'm also skeptical of the reliability of most of the sources cited in that article, including BizAsia, Devdiscourse, MediaNews4U, and Best Media Info. — Newslinger talk 07:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, From what I understand, most of these are advertorial sites. On top of that, they neither respond to concerns when brought up nor fix their pattern of editing. I asked them for a third time to respond to this report (Special:Diff/982912556) but they have kept editing without any changes in behavior. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mario Telò

Teva123 has been editing Telo's article with edit summaries including "Adding biography infos, sourced by Mario Telo himself". COI messages on user talk page have gone without response. Greyjoy talk 11:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

And now we have a brand-new account coming by to remove the COI template. Color me suspicious. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Both accounts have been blocked for socking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Good, quick work Andy Mabbett, GeneralNotability, and Greyjoy. That’s the way the system is designed to work. Nice catch. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Zvi Sever

This is an undisclosed paying entry , look in the paralel hebrew entry https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%A8 and here https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%A8 Haaretz article about him show that he is lying about being a professor. https://www.haaretz.co.il/blogs/taliherutisover/BLOG-1.8973307 !-- Template:Unsigned IP -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.120.124.5 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A WP:BEFORE couldn't identify him. An examination of his supposed Phd thesis found many inconsistencies. It is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zvi Sever. scope_creepTalk 08:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You repeat lies you have already admit you were wrong.
for his PHD, its in google books [39] and The National Library of Israel [40] also in Tel Aviv University Library Catalog (Zoology-Phd) [41] - Tel Aviv University is the biggest University in Israel.
there is a letter from University of Indianapolis that he was member in the Biology Departmentas Associate professor in the University of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States in the years 2003-2020 in his website letter from University of Indianapolis in his website, look like it was upload afer the post in haaretz website
articles cites his work: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]
This is not undisclosed paying entry, i already write that i didnt get money to write this article, Zvi sever is well known for his His part in the Operation Gown - military operation conducted deep inside Syria by Sayeret Tzanhanim, the reconnaissance platoon of the Israeli Defense Forces' Paratroopers Brigade. It took place on October 12, 1973, during the Yom Kippur War. he write an research abot the operation: Zvi Sever, and others, Paratroopers' Regiment: Thirty Years of Yom Kippur War Operations, Tel Aviv, 2005, in The Yom Kippur War Center website
also google it and see how many Citation record he have for Hystrix indica: [60], one of the leading expert for Hystrix indica אור פ (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:אור פ

אור_פ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An undisclosed paying editor. He wrote Zvi Sever, Ilana Belmaker, they are payed in Hebrew by the same editor Katvanit. Sever's Hebrew disclosure and Belmaker's Hebrew disclosure He wrote Yoni Assia, which deleted three times and involved paying and sockpuppets that were blocked. He usually create entries about marginal subjects in a PR pompous style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.38.171 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

IP editor didn't notify, notification sent. I tried using Google Translate on the linked cross-wiki disclosures but didn't have much luck figuring out how they prove paid editing, if anyone here is better than my he-0 I'd appreciate some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralNotability (talk • contribs) 01:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability, There are two threads open on this page regarding this user. He replied in the other one. Idan (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Zvikorn, d'oh, thanks. I'll have a look at that one. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
He wrote also Nurit Shany, entry that is very similiar to the hebrew one which was written by two paid editors, one of them Yinonk is blocked indefinitely in the english wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.196.18 (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Godfrey (businessman)

User:Knownauthor has written a very interesting edit summary in response to my question about conflict of interest, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Mike_Godfrey_(businessman)&type=revision&diff=983841472&oldid=983840828&diffmode=source The submitter writes: 'I've read the feedback comments and have edited accordingly, taking them into consideration. I am not connected to the subject but have been writing about him to pitch an upcoming documentary and felt that a page was warranted. I have deleted anything with links to Twitter and have only left content in which links to mainstream news. I have tried to be as impartial and neutral as possible, referring to actions which may be considered "scams" and have backed every quote up with a mainstream link'. That is, the editor states that they are pitching a documentary. I have tagged the draft as conflict of interest. What other action is in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

They need the ToU notice on their talkpage as provided by {{uw-paid}} - Bri.public (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Your evidence that they have been paid to write this article is what, exactly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:CURATOR and WP:EXPERT apply; we welcome subject experts who contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia. Or do you have some evidence that the edits introduced improper content? If so, please provide specific diffs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Examine it closely. The first reference that points to company contact page, offering a service and makes an assertion most folk wouldn't know and doesn't mention the person and the 2nd ref is a company contact page that the majority of the people in world, also don't know, and offers a service. The 3rd is offering a services, the 4th reference is offering a service, and the 5th is about the TalkTalk hack, and the text, discusses how it happened, and how his service that can fix a fix such an an event. The whole article is an advertisement. You don't need diffs to spot it. It is not BLP scope_creepTalk 09:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of Godfrey's death, so what makes you think he's not a living person? While we might not need at least some of the links to which you refer, its an exceedingly common mistake for good-faith newbies to add links to subjects mentioned, as citations, in the manner of the first two you mention. It would be pretty ridiculous to write about a businessman without mentioning his business activities. Still no evidence of CoI, let alone paid editing, is offered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is the correct thing to do and certainly you get folk that make mistakes in their selection of sources, as they're is no guidance in that direction, but I don't think that is case here. The editor could have asked. It is very very hard to determine if a person is being paid without that person confirming it, but when you interact with lots of paid editors and paid for articles, you get trained in what a paid article or a paid editor actually looks like. It takes a while, a long while but it is an organic process but even then you still get taken in. It become a gut feeling, and there is probably hits and misses, but it mostly works and that is worst aspect of it. We don't have the tools to fix it and it has made mockery of 5p and Wikipedia and us, as a whole. The reason I said it was not a BLP as it reads as a advertising article, disguised as a BLP, or it looks that way. 9 of 30 the references are non-rs and rest are very poor. The owners company is 3 years and 6 months old, so it is startup. I understand your sentiment, but the editor did say they were creating a documentary/doing a pitch. What better way than a Wikipedia page on their non-entity. It was a good call to reject it. scope_creepTalk 10:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It was a good call to reject it for the reason given at AfC, but that was nothing to do with a CoI (for which there is still no evidence), and if the former is rectified it should be published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
User:scope_creep, User:Pigsonthewing - First, I didn't reject the draft. I declined it. There is a difference. Second, the conflict of interest is right there in evidence. The author says that they are pitching a documentary. That probably means that they are pitching a documentary. That looks like a conflict of interest. It may or may not be paid editing. It probably isn't paid editing, because they may be the producer for the documentary, and we don't know whether the documentary will present Godfrey positively or negatively, but the documentary is itself a conflicting interest. Third, does anyone else have an opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That is not, in and of itself, a CoI for reasons explained in the pages I referred to: WP:CURATOR and WP:EXPERT. "Reject" and "decline" appear to be synonyms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, just a pedantic note: for AfC reviewers, "decline" means "not ready yet", while "reject" is reserved for "topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia" (per WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions). Schazjmd (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
User:scope_creep - On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. When you said it was not a BLP, you meant that it was not written in the proper style for a BLP. But of course if the subject is alive, BLP policy still applies. You didn't mean that it was a BDP, but, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing - You ask if there is evidence that the edits introduced improper content. I assume that you mean to be asking whether the acceptance of the draft would have introduced improper content into article space. My answer is that the acceptance of the draft would have introduced improper promotional content and unreliable sources, which is why I declined to accept the draft. You say that there is no evidence of a conflict of interest. Maybe you and I read the curator guideline differently. We agree that curators, like other experts, are encouraged to add content to Wikipedia that reflects their knowledge. But being in a hurry to create an article in Wikipedia to "pitch a documentary" seems like a use of Wikipedia for a non-encyclopedic purpose, even if there is no profit motive involved. At least that is my opinion. Maybe you and I have different interpretations of the role of curators and other experts. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I mean "did any of the edits by Knownauthor - for which I requested diffs - introduce material that has PoV bias in manner that was due to the editor having a CoI".
I see no evidence that the article was created [in order] to pitch a documentary; perhaps you have a diff for that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Censorship of YouTube

User has been hardblocked for promotion and their username. In the future, this can be reported directly to WP:UAA for quick action. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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


Adding citations into the above linked article. Username directly matches the URL/company of the citation added.[61]

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.

Possible COI editing by User:Lazer921

Looking at pages they've created, all the deleted ones also happen to be on the client list of Rodriguez's website which is linked from the Gina Rodriguez (pornographic actress) as official page. Lazer921 has been maintaining this article over many years. This strongly indicates this user's undisclosed editing is likely professionally connected to Rodriguez. I haven't exhaustively checked their contribution, but their other contribution also happens to be mostly on Rodriguez's clients. Graywalls (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the chance of UPE is very high. Blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge Global and Jake Braun

There strongly appears to be a pattern of conflict of interest editing by User:Spartaneditor for articles connected to the Washington, District of Columbia organization Cambridge Global and the person Jake Braun. More information and particular edits are listed at User_talk:Spartaneditor. The user did not respond on their talk page and removed a COI label for Jake Braun without giving an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.78.11 (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor notified. I would certainly like to hear their explanation as well. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed the edit history and agree with the concerns that have been raised, especially regarding the edits of User:Spartaneditor. This appears to be a nearly single-subject interested account. I will be interested to hear their response. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Their response has been to, once again, remove the COI tag. Blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Disclosure of COI

I wanted to disclose that I am a paid intern for Opotek LLC. in Carlsbad, CA. One of my tasks will be to participate in the editing process for pages related to lasers and possibly create a Opotek LLC. profile page. I am currently studying the rules regarding article creation and editing. I wanted to disclose this to share my background. Carl Alexander Hughes (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Carl Alexander Hughes, thank you for your disclosure! You should use the articles for creation process when writing the article, and any edits to pages where you have a conflict of interest (say, any edits to lasers that relate to your employer) should be made through edit requests. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have done a preliminary search on Opotek. At this point, it doesn't appear to pass notability criteria, so I wouldn't recommend submitting an article for creation just yet. Graywalls (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Fatherhoodchannel.com and PAIRS Foundation

URLs: (I removed most of them already)

Pages:

User:

User MerlinsMagic appears to have a long-term conflict of interest with PAIRS Foundation and Fatherhoodchannel.com. The URL was inserted into numerous articles many of which I have removed, but this one user added overwhelming majority of this URL into articles. A few examples: Special:Diff/519107074 and Special:Diff/440491067. Adding FatherhoodChannel in August 2020 Great majority of their other contributions over the year have something in common with Fatherchannel or PAIRS foundation. Fatherhoodchannel is ambiguous about who it is and one other editor opined it's not a reliable source. The user states they're not paid, but a follow up question to clarify professional relationship was not answered. Graywalls (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The English Pug and the French Poodle

I added the "connected contributor" template to the article's talk page following this edit. Feel free to update or post helpful user talk page notifications, too. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Included at the head of this page are two notices: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.", and in red "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion..." I see that the above link to Art&Brio's talk page is still red. You have already reverted Art&Brio's Edit (their first and only contribution, since 2018) as unsourced, even though in part it cites "A bronze plate anchored beside each character". What would you like us to do? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing I assumed page watchers assisted with appropriate talk page (article and user) COI and disclosure templates. Noted re: request to notify editors who are mentioned here. I'll try not to use this space for simply reporting COI editors if that's not helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco Eagle

I reverted this edit, but did not post any talk page or user talk page templates. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


@Another Believer: Included at the head of this page are two notices: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.", and in red "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion...", yet you tell us you have not done any of this, and when you posted here the above link to Alxmontiel's talk page was red. What do you expect us to do? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, See above. No worries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Leinco Technologies, Inc.

I would like to create a simple article (page) about a company, which I am the marketing director for, Leinco Technologies, Inc. I have publicly disclosed a contract of interest. But this article would be based on corporate facts (who is Leinco, where is Leinco located, what products or services Leinco sell, who founded the company and when, what fields of business company operate in, etc.). I do not feel there would be any bias, as I am not using this for a marketing tool. All sources of information would be cited (our direct leinco.com site and other published articles).

Do you feel this would get published? Any advice on moving forward with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leinco (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Leinco: Our notability guidelines for companies are at WP:COMPANY. We strongly advise against writing about your own company; see WP:COI and, as you are employed there, WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The New Art Fest

Primary interest is in promoting this, and spamming across the platform by adding links to multiple artist bios. No response to COI message. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I added links to some notable artists to show the interconnection of the festival. Erase them, if you think that they are not relevant. I have seen one artist, who was former "festival de Cannes" participant and one artist who was Whitney Biennals participants. But consider that we can see the Donna Strickland effect: when Donna Strickland got the nobel prize she had not an wikipedia article.
Imagine that an 14 old girl in Lisbon gets from his art teacher the order to make a PPT about the new media festival: what exactly should she find in wikipedia? a festival without artists?
Of course I understand what you mean: some years ago I created the wikipedia article for the artist Katerina Belkina (proposed for erasing after some minutes) and the page for the cult travel show Orel & Reschka (there was a real lack of Western sources about this cult series, but it was never proposed for erasing, . Both articlöes exits until today, develop well, but about movies everything is relaxed and fun, in art everything is cooked with 2000 degree Fahrenheit.Ernstludwigstein (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ernstludwigstein: Katerina Belkina was created by User:Katerina Belkina in 2016 - I think you are referring to the German version, de:Katerina Belkina. We have no article Orel & Reschka; again, I think you refer to de:Orel & Reschka. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
One again we have a report of "No response to COI message", when the message left on the user's talk page requires no reply unless there is a CoI to declare. The claim "primary interest is in promoting this" is backed with no evidence and is not supported by the user's editing history. No evidence of CoI is provided. The requirement "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." is not met. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I see the problem: during the last days I got a letter from the tax department, whatsapp messages from my childs, ssome emails from students, some emails from Netflix about new movies... but not a COI message. With a citation from the movie "margin call": Can someone explain me in Plain English what it means?Ernstludwigstein (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ernstludwigstein:, the conflict of interest message is on your talk page at User talk:Ernstludwigstein#October 2020. Please could you confirm whether you have a conflict of interest when writing about The New Art Fest? See the conflict of interest guideline for more information. TSventon (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a message on Ernstludwigstein's talk page, under the obscure heading "October 2020", which advises, among other things, "disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles..." It does not request any negative declaration, where no COI applies, nor - to the best of my knowledge - does any Wikipedia policy require one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Andy Mabbett I have informed Ernstludwigstein where to find the message they were given about COI (as you say the heading was obscure) and to ask them if they have a conflict of interest (as they have not been directly asked previously). It is up to them whether and how they choose to answer. TSventon (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I have currently a real conflict of interests because I have 200 pages of student works on my desk, they have to be checked, and I am paid by the governement and the taxpayer to do this job. and I can not further invest time in this current wiki issue: I wanted to create a really nice showcase to teach students how to create a wikipedia article, but I see that its much more difficult then some years ago. So it is a showcase, but it shows something different than expected. About the event: IMHO an event where "Venice Biennale" participant and Guggenheim Bilbao artist, Whitney Bienal participants and festival de Cannes participant come together in the finest museums of town is relevant. And all things are interconnected because so much museums, countries, artists and cureators are linked: Its one of this things that made wiki great. But I see that times are different: I grew up with articles like this: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium_Galactica ... big part edited from people like me at this time with just and IP adresses , and the article has 0 references (in words: zero references) until today. Concerning the Lisbon festival article: I think we have here in the discussion something like the Asch conformity experiment ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernstludwigstein (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hu Zhiying

User:Jujiang has been advertising Hu Zhiying on both Chinese and English Wikipedia since 2012, see deleted revisions of Hu Zhiying (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hu Zhiying), and zh:胡志颖. On Commons and English Wikipedia, User:Jujiang attempted to launder Hu's work through what appears to be third-party websites, see commons: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jujiang and Special:PermaLink/980265074#The artist has agreed to the CC BY-SA 4.0. (Draft:Hu Zhiying). The conflict of interest is apparent yet User:Jujiang entirely denies any connections to Hu. I submit this to the board for determination. -Mys_721tx (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether there is a conflict of interest, we should rely on evidence instead of "feeling". Otherwise, an error will occur. The artists certainly have the right to determine the copyright ownership of their own pictures and texts.
And I recreate "Draft:Hu Zhiying" without using copyrighted material.
Once again, I declare that I have no "conflict of interest".--Jujiang (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @MER-C and Scope creep: Could you comment on the promotional materials? -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The artist Hu Zhiying is a artist, who has work in multiple collections and exhibitions all over the world. The article itself that is in draft, is promotional. Jujiang has picked up the language that is written in the briefs that are presented with all these exhibitions and collections and written the stuff straight into the article and due to fact the editors English isn't particular, nor their editing skills, it has arrived in seemingly promotional manner. I've looked at a bunch of the references with promo/flowery language and it reads likes that in the exhibitions briefs. That is how it is. It is that kind of puff, artistes use. Some of it in the article is straight up puff and promotional and it will pulled. scope_creepTalk 17:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The guys work is in numerous collections all over the world. He has work in the Saatchi Art collection. That one reference should have informed anybody looking at it, that it was notable and it should have been addressed years ago. scope_creepTalk 17:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You mean the self-published Gallery and Dealers profile on Saatchi whose domain (https://web.archive.org/web/20200807004605/https://www.globalgalleryguide.com/) is defunct for a while then hijacked by a Japanese gambling site since August? Masquerading a self-published page as Saatchi Art collection desperate at best. -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Saatchi Gallery and the Japanese website are completely different and have no connection in any way.
    Please publish your own things in the Saatchi Gallery for everyone to see. --Jujiang (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Because of a copyright issue that needed to be resolved first, I did not get to assessing WP:N or WP:NPOV for the draft. Hu Zhiying's work is apparently in the Saatchi Gallery collection and so the artist may meet WP:NARTIST #4. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The Dealer and Gallery profile on Saatchi's website is where those parties advertise their own venues. The particular reference was an exhibition in Art Piziarte, not in Saatchi. -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
And here is the terms of use of the Saatchi Global Gallery Guide, most notably "[y]ou acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for all Member Content that you make available through the Site". At some point in 2015, Saatchi moved the Dealer and Gallery profile to the now defunct Saatchi Global Gallery Guide. A UGC site does not satistify WP:BASIC. -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The supposed MoMA exhibition does not exist in the MoMA list of exhibitions, neither is Hu in the list of artists, Whitney, the Met, nor the New Museum ([62], [63]). The supposed Louvre exhibition is an event organized by See.me, not involving Louvre's collection. Renting Louvre for an event is also routinely done; using Louvre as an event venue has no inherent notability. Hu's supposed exhibition in every venues with a wikilink either does not exist or is greatly exaggerated. -Mys_721tx (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Snowycats: Would you like to comment on those supposed exhibitions? -Mys_721tx (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. Mys 721tx should avoid discussing my article. Since April this year, he has been criticized by five people for his mistakes for the copyright reasons of the article "陶博吾" I wrote. So far, however, he has refused to admit this mistake and has always held a grudge against me for this reason.
  2. The revised Draft:Hu Zhiying meet WP:NPOV, WP:NARTIST, and reliable sources WP:V (texts and videos, with sufficient WP:SECONDARY sources), so it is valid. Of course it can be continuously improved. --Jujiang (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Hu Zhiying does not existing in the artist rolls of the museum listed. That is an objective fact. Simply repeating "Draft:Hu Zhiying meet WP:NPOV, WP:NARTIST" will not change the fact that those supposed exhibitions are misleading at best. Alas you decided not to defend that but to poison the well. I will be more than happy to supply the context you omitted. There were only four people participating in that discussion. Notably there are clear consensus on what you wrote constituting in-plant advertisement ("别高兴太早，你写的东西软文气息太重，即使不侵权也还有不少地方需要改。"、"可以看到，即使古今多誉的文学大家，在维基百科上也不会如此来写。这种文体不适合写作百科全书，故还应作些修缮。") In the offending passage, a 93-character sentence is 22 Levenshtein distance away from the source material. That is a blatant copyright violation. -Mys_721tx (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Text messages for Wikipedia services

Just FYI, I have recently begun receiving spam texts apparently offering Wikipedia services. I received one today from a 1-855-number reading "You've been shortlisted for a personal profile on Wikipedia, get in touch asap", followed by a link which I opted not to click. Still, this is the second text appearing to offer some sort of Wikipedia service that I have received in as many weeks (I ignored and deleted the first), so I thought it worth mentioning here in case some issue does develop from this. BD2412 T 03:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Presume it's a phishing scam. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 05:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@BD2412: Could you name the spammer? I'd like to make sure they are listed in WP:PAIDLIST ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
There's no name in the text, and I'm not clicking the link. The phone number (there being no privacy expectation in the phone number for an unsolicited spam message) is 1-(855)-494-0779. BD2412 T 15:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible UPE

Akil Ashraful created Akil Ashraful (now in draft) and uploaded File:Zinia Zafrin Luipa.jpg which I'm unable to find online. The user was asked to disclose their relationship with the subject twice but after the second warning was issued instead of replying they started using IP addresses to submit their draft for review. GSS 💬 03:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akil Ashraful. GSS 💬 06:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_164&oldid=1164976232"