Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

• International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meta Voyager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psmidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• XZealous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

International Churches of Christ is again the subject of COI editing. JamieBrown2011's COI has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 203#International Churches of Christ. Meta Voyager is part of "a congregation that operates independently, but has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ", as described here. JamieBrown2011 has today removed material critical of the church from the article and added mention of the testimony of a witness saying that church isn't a cult, the inclusion of which was previously discussed at Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case and lacked consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"cult" is a really useless term, it just provides condemnation. Secretlondon (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources describing it as such, but ultimately that's an article content debate, whereas the issue here is editors associated with the church editing the article to portray it in a more positive light. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SecretLondon. A simple google search of the word “cult” provides hundreds if not thousands of references describing multiple different church groups as “cults”. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with CordlessLarry, there has been lots of discussion, over a period of multiple days, if not weeks, on the Talk page and consensus was clear over the changes that that needed to be made.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with google. Academic writing in religion would/should never use the word cult. However, for Wikipedia. if a reliable source called it a cult we could use that, but some newspapers are not great on these issues. Secretlondon (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly encourage Wikipedia to avoid using the word "cult" as much as possible (which is in pretty much all cases). The word is unencyclopedic and uneducational. "Cult" is clickbait (or its equivalent for pre-Internet uses) that businesses deploy to grab attention and sell copy and that cultural mainstreams use to marginalize socially constructed "others" (link to Megan Goodwin, "Making the American Religious Monster", presentation at 2022 Fairfield University American Studies Conference). A similar argument is made more formally in Judith Wisenfield's New World A-Coming (New York University Press, 2017), esp. pp. 12–13. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes cult is appropriate; there a few (see Category:Cults) and it's difficult to imagine an article on e.g. the Kidwelly sex cult that doesn't use the word 'cult'! More frequently, it's appropriate to discuss how/whether something has been classified as a cult in RS (e.g. for Sahaja Yoga). In general it's movement members who object most to the term. In fact for Sahaja Yoga proponents were very keen to use the word cult to say the movement was not a cult when they thought a Belgian court had ruled that way. When it was discovered the court in fact ruled the other way, their enthusiasm for any mention of cults waned. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think it most appropriate to heed the most reliable sources, which for this topic would be

publications by academics in religious studies. As far as how to write about such topics, by way of example, Goodwin wrote an entire academically book about sex abuse in religions without using the word "cult" (as she mentions in her paper "Making the American Religious Monster"; the book being Abusing Religion [Rutgers University Press, 2020]). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

In this case, we do have scholarly publications that use the word cult in relation to the subject. However, this is more a matter for the article talk page than here, where the issue under scrutiny is COI editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed books which aren't about cults won't use the word "cult" (and religions which have sex abuse scandals aren't necessarily cults just because of that). Scholars like Lorne L. Dawson are interested in cults and write about them naming them as such. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, a Wikipedia administrator, has mischaracterized my involvement in a minor edit as a Conflict of Interest. In support of my request that his actions be reversed, I offer the following additional information. I simply repositioned for readability purposes a reliably sourced single sentence about an expert witness that had already been written and published by another editor in a paragraph authored by a third editor, Nowa. Prior to any editing of the subject paragraph, Nowa consented to edits being proposed to that effect. That’s it – I made a minor edit to improve the article by cutting and pasting an already published sentence. Cordless Larry references my response to a welcome letter I received from another administrator that included a suggestion that I disclose any conflicts of interest. In relevant part, here's a more complete description of my disclosure: (1) I disclosed my membership in a congregation that has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ, (2) I stated that I have never been compensated as an employee or consultant to the church, (3) I shared that I have a general interest in Restoration Churches in the USA, (4) I informed that I have legal training and experience and am familiar with conflicts of interest, (5) I expressed my view that advocacy on a topic that you care about does not constitute a conflict of interest and (6) I have confined my comments to the Talk page of the International Churches of Christ article until a consensus for change has been reached. I’m confident that a review of my comments on the Talk page will show that I have researched and reported only on Wikipedia policies with an intent to improve the article. I respectfully request that Cordless Larry remove his posting about conflicts of interest as they pertain to me. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having received no response to my request to remove the posting about me from this COI Noticeboard, I have reached out on this topic directly to Cordless Larry on his Talk page in accordance with WP:ADMIN. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your message and further explanation on COI. I've already stated that I don't believe I have an actual conflict of interest and, if I did, most conflicts are resolved by voluntary disclosure. However, I intend to honor the spirit of the COI guidance and comment only on the Talk page until a consensus is reached on any issues that might concern me. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Psmidi, an SPA with a COI who showed up on the article talk page today, several years after their last edit. It wouldn't surprise me if off-Wikipedia co-ordination between ICOC members was going on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding XZealous, another new editor who's very keen to dismiss any concerns about use of non-third party sources, removing a template highlighting that problem despite having its relevance explained to them on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See seemingly related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#COI label vs Good Faith editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a great illustration. An editor with an apparent COI claimed they are stone-cold neutral trying to change Wikipedia's guidelines on COIs to make COI editing okay (for, you know, self-assessed stone-cold neutral editors with COIs). Unfortunately among the Wikipedia corps there is a poor understanding of COIs and in particular a common misconception that it's all about the "end result" of content. Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Béla H. Bánáthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• White Stag Leadership Development Program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• btphelps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Initially, I sensed something was off when I noticed they were inserting self published primary source references into may articles, such as plaskett.family and adding tourism guide like contents. COI was suspected, because they were single handedly responsible for the insertion of the overwhelming majority of that self published personal website blog reference. They've created the article

btphelps has overlapping interests. This is not a COI. This is simply throwing mud and seeing what sticks.--evrik ^(talk) 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik:, there's sufficient evidence that contradicts that.

Functionary users: Please refer to March 11, 2024 email titled "Off-wiki evidence on user:btphelps for suspected UPE" addressed to

paid-en-wp. Graywalls (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:COI for the meaning of conflict of interest on Wikipedia. You are quick to claim there's no COI, but have you done any checking on your own? While Wikipedia privacy policies doesn't allow the discussion of the specific evidence, anyone who does a bit of their own research on this should easily find the blatant COI between White Stag and the user in question. Graywalls (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, so I can now say btphelps is a co-director of White Stag, per their self reveal as they have not had it redacted/oversighted. White stag was founded by Béla H. Bánáthy. Extensively writing about their own organization as well as those closely associated with it and inserting links to contents to the organization they direct as references to numerous related articles is a COI behavior. Graywalls (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, you act like you smell blood in the water and I can see you are enjoying circling in for the anticipated kill. Exactly which subject do you accuse me of having a COI? You initially accused me of a COI about the Big Sur related articles. I challenged you to prove that and you could not. Because it does not exist. Failing at that and apparently provoked by my refusal to succumb to your attacks, you dug deep and now accuse me of a COI having to do with Bela Banathy and tenuously his founding of the White Stag organization in 1958, which he left to others to run after about 1965. Exactly how did I financially benefit 50+ years later from writing about Bela Banathy? Or the White Stag program?

I first wrote that I was co-director of White Stag in 2008 on WP here. That position lasted for two years. The content on my WP user page that you cite lasted much longer than my volunteer position. I was never employed by that non-profit. It did not then and does not now have any employees. The idea that I might somehow benefit financially from it is laughable. When I was an active volunteer with that organization from 1968-1984 (long before WP existed) and 2008-2009, I paid out thousands of dollars in personal expenses to serve as a adult volunteer and paid hundreds of dollars yearly in fees for the opportunity to serve.

I wish I got paid for writing on WP. It might make up for having to deal with nincompoops like you whose primary work on WP consists of deleting and criticizing what others have contributed. Adversarial, demeaning, patronizing, confrontational editors like you are the reason editors like me with nearly 40,000 edits since 2004 quit.

BTW, when you proposed deleting the White Stag Leadership Development article, did you apply any of the WP concepts of courtesy and strive to notify anybody in the Scouting portal who might have had input over the validity of that article? I certainly didn't have a chance to respond, as I am no longer a regular contributor, due in part to fellow editors like yourself.

Maybe you didn't notice but when I began making contributions to the Bela Banathy article in 2008, he'd been dead for five years. Please, please, I beg you, explain your train of thought that I somehow financially benefitted from writing about Banathy. Who paid me? What proof do you have other than mere suspicion? The weight is in you to prove that UPE exists. This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. Otherwise you are merely wasting everyone's time. I'm holding my breath in anticipation. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Evrik, Z1720, BusterD, and Ritchie333:, seeking your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btphelps (talk • contribs) 21:25, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

I would say conflict of interest is a spectrum ranging from being paid to edit particular articles (either indirectly or because one's paying job includes keeping the public image polished) through articles about family or friends whose reputations matter to you and onto belonging to a large organization (e.g., Catholic Church or Boy Scouts of America) and on to former connection to just general interest. I don't think Wikipedia frowns on most American citizens editing articles on their state (though if you are the press secretary of the governor, things are getting too close) or on the USA itself or most Catholics editing articles about the Catholic church or alumni editing articles on their university (unless they are adding themselves as prominent alumni). Also Wikipedia CoI has become stricter over time. In other words the boundary shifted. The Béla H. Bánáthy article was created in 2004 (he died in 2003) and not by @Btphelps. He first edited that article in 2008 and seems to have removed some serious POV issues from the article. I also checked his link to his user page in 2008 and he is up front about his connection to White Stag Leadership. I also checked the White Stag Leadership 990 form (2014 [the earliest easily available] and the most recent) and they have no paid employees (and not a huge budget). My judgment is he is not a Paid Editor though there was an admitted connection with White Stag and possible significant CoI at the time, but, the fact he announced the connection makes the fault more minor. My own view without knowing what was in the White Stag Leadership article is that it likely could have been merged into Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and that article improved as regards references to third party sources. That Btphelps admires Béla H. Bánáthy is obvious but then most major editors of particular wikipedia articles either admire (or abhor) their subject. There seems to be no evidence (and no money in White Stag Leadership's budget) that he was a paid editor for either article. Erp (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OUTING prevents me from discussing those evidence further. Graywalls (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

before I nominated it for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Btphelps:, to respond to: This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. since you have not directly introduced yourself by your identity outside of Wikipedia, I have to be careful with what can be posted here since posting anything that connects user name to real life identity is strictly prohibited, unless you explicitly authorize. Even then, I'd feel more comfortable if you introduced yourself first (strictly optional though) before I post it. Graywalls (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result:_) --evrik ^(talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of finding it, now Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined) -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary break)

This is also something to look at: Talk:Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)#Pinetreeweb_and_other_non-RS. Btphelps disclosed they're the author of that contents on pinetreeweb. @SandyGeorgia: Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see discussion of GA reassessment at Talk:Béla_H._Bánáthy/GA2 Graywalls (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI's def is so broad and vague that it can be easily capitalized on by someone with an axe to grind. Saying there is a COI on someone who has been dead since 2003 is certainly outside the intent of wp:coi. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop your allegation of "axe to grind". This is not what this is about. I noticed something I believed was a COI, and more probing found more suspected COI. That's all there is to it. Even though the founder is dead, the company he founded is still around and it isn't unusual for companies to want to maintain page on its founders. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting to editors here to read some of the comments recently made by arbitrators at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Proposed decision#Conflicts of interest. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Btphelps:, We haven't heard you comment in a while Do you give permission for editors to publicly share evidence found off-wiki in this discussion even though it may reveal your identity and/or your affiliation with various organizations? Without your explicit consent, those details can't be shared here. Graywalls (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the company WikiExperts which was banned in 2013 has a new website and is offering services to academics. They claim to follow Wiki policies and I can't show any specific edits from them but if there was a previous ban maybe it's worth investigating. Disclosure: I work as the Wikipedian in residence for NIHR, editing with a separate account. Adam Harangozó (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you heard? it's okay now! (or at least that's the message seeming to come from numerous admins and arbs of late). The new mantra is "it's only a matter of concern if the quality of edits is poor". Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to act from our end if there is no real way of identifying which articles they have worked on. This should be a problem for WMF Legal, but they won't act, and they certainly won't tell us if they ever do so, thus as far as we know they will never act on paid editing. If we can identify an article WikiExperts have worked on I'm happy to block and delete. - Bilby (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know WMF Legal have actually been quite proactive in chasing down paid editing outfits. Obviously they're limited in what they can do, and lawyers don't usually make a habit of speaking openly, but I'd say it's always worth giving them the heads up... – Joe (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers will also start with things like sending a formal letter that people not on the legal teams and not managers of the relevant company will be unaware of. If that results in the firm ceasing the relevant activities (stopping editing completely or editing in compliance with the rules) then that's a complete win for us but there will be no fanfare or anything we're likely to be aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Américas Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I previously served as a co-coordinator of this book award, but I am no longer affiliated. Is it OK for me to make updates to this page? Thanks! Travels&Treks (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! When in doubt, best bet is to put an edit request on the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Burning River Buckets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 199.18.215.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User with history of vandalizing both the Burning River Buckets and American Basketball Association (2000–present) pages has admitted that they are the owner of the ABA's Burning River Buckets basketball team on their talk page. TheNewMinistry (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ongoing. I've requested ECP page protection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them from editing that article for three years. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BeiGene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A. Hari Reddi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anand Reddi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nyg58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kablankblank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nkmillsmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mtpmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crileymiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• UofMMedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kyehyun Park (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sjbmediaupdate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Honeyboo2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AFMRwesternsection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orthonews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article has receieved no edits that aren't maintenance/copyediting or COI edit requests for many months, and then suddenly on 27 March through the 29th, an absolute flurry of purely-positive, financially-boastful content was added by editors who have only edited this and related articles, two of whom has since admitted to being paid for their contributions. Many accounts were created minutes before their first edit and have only edited this article. Kimen8 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:UPE. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

There seems to be more to it than that. A previous, properly declared COI editor had been making reasonable talk page requests. This new bunch seem to be downplaying the company's Chinese origins. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, whitewashing it. Its common. It was Chinese compny on the 24th March its HQ is now Cambridge, Massachusetts instead of Beijing, with a new lede as "global company". New cancer drug is confirmed with change from biotechnology company to oncology company. scope_creep^Talk 17:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At what point do we just roll back the whole thing to (IIRC) the 24 March version? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see this edit for example.

They have all (well, all but a couple later ones) been informed they should declare COI/UPE, because I posted a talk page post tagging them all and mentioning it.

Kimen8 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UofMMedia, AFMRwesternsection, Orthonews have all edited A. Hari Reddi, Anand Reddi, BeiGene, and little or nothing else. Anand Reddi is a BeiGene VP, and I would hazard a guess has some familial relation to A. Hari Reddi. Jfire (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, I would hazard a guess that "UofMMedia" is "Univeristy of Michigan Media", considering all of the edits to Anand Reddi, who "is a graduate of the University of Michigan". Kimen8 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, if Anand Reddi and A. Hari Reddit aren't related, they do publish together. Kimen8 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a month of EC protection for

WP:SPI but that would be more trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Not hearing any objection I've put

WP:ECP protection on the BeiGene article for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I've nominated the Anand Reddi article for deletion. Jfire (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Norwikian

Above user has posted on their user page an email they recently received. This email is from someone advertising their editing services and they are using an email domain that suggests they are an admin. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a known scam. Unfortunately there's little we can do, but if you/they forward the email to [email protected] (meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department) they might at least be able to do something about the use of the Wikipedia trademark in the domain name. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leontia Flynn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Maeveflynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maeveflynn ‎appears to be the subject's daughter, or some other close relative, and claims to be editing the article in accordance to what "the subject wishes it to be." Request for clarification on the user's talk page has not been answered, nor has the request to propose edits at Talk:Leontia Flynn.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a final warning at User talk:Maeveflynn. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet in the world of Wikipedia, quality and authenticity often leave much to be desired, accompanied by dubious pricing schemes and questionable promises. ... Established in 2017 as a Wikipedia agency, Augusta Atlantic has carved out a niche in providing unparalleled Wikipedia services to a global clientele. The firm, originally established as ‘Weltraumagentur’, has since become one of the largest collectives of Wikipedia writers and consultants in the German-speaking area."

Questionable promises. Right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that their activities are primarily occurring in DeWiki, and not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very possible. If so, they don't seem to oppose expanding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Faysal Aziz Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ovais Mangalwala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The image on Faysal Aziz Khan has no exif and may be a copyright violation. The image on Ovais Mangalwala appears to have been taken at a public event. Nether of the objections to deletion proposals displays anger or other untoward behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Durgesh Agarwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Ritesh K. Hada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Rioconn Interactive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KERALAMAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:KERALAMAN is creating draft articles which are very poorly sourced - sources appear to the first few Google searches about the subject and have included significant copy vios.

Of the Drafts created so far, the first two are business people and the last an advertising agency. My concerns are the disparate nature of the subjects, the liklihood that these subjects would be wanting a Wikipedia article and the casual way all three Drafts have been thrown together. These all are strong indicators of paid for editing and they are all very unlikely targets for new articles for a newly arrived editor.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Billy Mitchell (gamer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E This person is almost assuredly either the subject of the article trying to whitewash their article or someone related to the subject of the article. Their only edits are on this one article and they have been regularly arguing against the truth, as the subject of the article seems to like to do. Often taking people to court for defamation for trying to out his cheating. I'm actually not sure how they are even able to edit as they don't seem to meet the requirements to edit semi-protected pages. Perhaps their edit history is from before the page being locked. Just seems fishy as the only people that believe the things he is asserting is the person himself and his legal team. I attempted to notify this person via the templated COIN notice but as they are an IP user, they do not have a user page. If there is another way to notify, please just let me know and I will do so. Thank you. Ditchdigger456 — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP has only edited the talk page not the article. "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." Where did that discussion take place; and what is the "problematic material"? IP's contributions were all made over a two-day period in January. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ibru Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ibru family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alex Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Maiden Alex Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oskar Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emmanuel Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Emmanuel Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cecilia Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Felix Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Goodie Ibru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jay Kenechukwu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dahunsitemitope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit history for Jay Kenechukwu is self-evident, though this is what caught my attention [1]. Ibru family article especially could use a going-over from non-affiliated editors, what with its scrapbook-like photos of non-notable family and their business holdings. Many peripheral edits have been to add Ibru family members to other articles--the impression is that of an account here primarily on the family's behalf. Not so sure about removal of cite tags at Egbert Udo Udoma, or mass deletion of cats here [2], either. There may be an affiliation between the two accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I choose to study a certain people and make edits to their pages to reflect recent events or exploits, I don't see how that amounts to a conflict of interest. I have a right to make edits to pages I choose to as long as those edits are backed by verifiable citations from reputable sources and not my personal opinion and bias.

So you really do need to prove the conflict of interest here. Absolutely nothing is self evident. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"scrapbook-like photos of non-notable family members" you say? SMH

I just studied the Ibru family page again, and every photo of members on that page is publicly available on the Internet and is backed by atleast one verifiable citation. Or is Wikipedia no longer about independent and verifiable citations from reputable sources?

So what are you on about? Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anything significant will come of this, but I might as well post it just in case. I came across this listing on Craigslist: Long-time Wikipedia contributor needed. The post avoids including any specific information, so perhaps this is only useful as a warning, but there may be a reason to look out for possible issues in new articles on nonprofit founders (as if there weren't enough reasons already). —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article like that described in the ad ("the story is only documented in court records") won't get very far. Schazjmd (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 136.173.162.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I’ve raised an issue relating to possible conflict-of-interest regarding the IP range which Wikipedia links to the European Parliament off-wiki. I’m a bit confused by it, as the IP has disruptively edited articles regarding scandals about the parliament and its members. The talk page says the IP’s edits are monitored, but I can’t seem to find anything in the archives about any action that’s ever been taken. The IP address is 136.173.162.129 It can be found here: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474

Do I need to put the COI notice on the IP’s talk page, even though Wikipedia is already aware of this as they link the IP to the parliament on its talk page?

I will not notify the forum of this notice as per

I’ll also just add that I wanted to be clear transparent to notify Wikipedia about the off-wiki thread, as some other relevant points were raised such as this being the whole IP range, and not just the singular IP I initially thought it was. And also why the IP doesn’t just create an account to hide the possible COI edits. It’s all very confusing, with some relevant points raised in the thread, which I can’t take ownership of. (and, again, I won’t notify the off-wiki thread of this notice). TheSpacebook (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSpacebook: Yes; as noted at the top of this page you are required to notify someone that you are raising a report about them here; and to attempt to resolve issues with them before doing so, Historic material on an IP page is irrelevant in that regard, because the IP may be used by different people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Badshah (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Parth1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was previous blocked for promotional edits and has never declared COI. Later admitted "work[ing] with the PR team of Badshah". Northern Moonlight 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CapitaLand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Collaborators (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Undeclared COI (possibly paid) editing in the subject article, and then post-declaration, continues to make clearly contentious and clearly promotional/advertorial edits in contravention of COI policy.
Also, copyright infingement from: https://www.capitaland.com/en/about-capitaland/who-we-are.html. Melmann 09:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User is already blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]