Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 203

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Nigel Wilson (businessman)

Another editor has highlighted to me a promotional edit by NicolePunch on Nigel Wilson (businessman). There have been two series of edits by this editor here (September) and here (November). There was another similar edit (also November) by an IP user, which was immediately followed by a smaller edit by NicolePunch. Non-neutral and unreferenced statements include "High quality management team" and "provides quiet leadership".

Another editor warned NicolePunch about conflict of interest in October. I had also suggested that they look at

WP:BOSS
. This doesn't seem to have made a difference to their actions.

Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I've left them a sterner warning about undisclosed paid editing and will keep an eye on the article. SmartSE (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Larry Long (singer-songwriter)

Can regulars here take a look at this, and offer comment on how to best proceed? User:Larry Keith Long hasn't actually confirmed that they are the singer-songwriter, but I'm assuming so - if not, this is impersonation, which also would need dealing with. The user has repeatedly added themselves to the Pete Seeger article, [1][2][3] despite being reverted, and having been informed of Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines. [4]. Their earlier edit history likewise consists almost entirely of adding self-promotional content to the Duluth lynchings article (e.g. [5]). And I'd note here that while the user:Larry Keith Long account hasn't edited the Larry Long (singer-songwriter) biography, that needs looking at too, since it contains a great deal of unsourced content. I'm going to assume good faith here, for now, and suggest that this CoI editing is most likely a consequence of being unfamiliar with Wikipedia's purpose and policies, but it clearly needs acting on - at absolute minimum we need communication from the user, and an agreement to comply with guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Long page needs a copyedit at best, but perhaps what it really needs is deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wolfram Aichele

As I mention in my talk page comment here, I have concerns that one of the above subjects or someone close to them is creating their articles, written in a promotional and poorly sourced manner with low to no notability. Furthermore, looking at the contributions of the two users mentioned above, I see the history books written by Giles Milton linked in various bibliographies without apparent special merit in the respective places. Hiko (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Gregory Gutin

It appears like G.Gutin edited his own Wiki biography. I aplogize, but I don't understand the instructions about using 171.66.11.96 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Henley & Partners – undisclosed COI

The article on

WP:COI editing. When a disclosed PR employee for the company (User:Sarah Nicklin) was unable to add puffery and remove negative RS content through edit requests on the talk in March-June 2022, the editor User:ANLgrad (created in July 2022) started editing the Henley and Partners page to add poorly sourced puffery to the page and remove negative content sourced to high-quality news outlets and academic publications. In other words, the new editor started to do what the other COI editor had failed to do through edit requests. ANLgrad has not disclosed that they have a COI, but their editing bears the hallmarks of a COI editor: aside from the whitewashing on the Henley and Partners page, they add a lot of primary source details on immigration rules and visas in different countries (precisely what a Henley employee would do: the company is an investment migration consultancy). Thenightaway (talk
) 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Tomasz Misiak

User with name similar to article in question is removing sourced content, implicating other parties, adding their own

WP:SYNTH. See edits: [6], [7], [8] MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs
) 15:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The article about Tomasz Misiak is primarily based on allegations stemming from a marital conflict. The links and references justifying the claims in the article are sourced from press materials inspired by or constructed within this conflict. The person creating this material uses it for defaming my person and has lost legal cases as a result, even being sentenced to criminal charges for her actions. The quoted press materials are selective and mostly belong to the so-called government media of the Law and Justice regime, which has politically abused the prosecutor's office in Poland. This matter may end up in court because Wikipedia is being used for further defamation of my person. This material has little to do with real facts and is a compilation of opinions and legal events presented from a one-sided perspective. Please provide instructions on how to make the necessary corrections to such content before I involve a law firm." Tomasz1973 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Below are sources showing how situation is in reality which has been removed by You
https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/byly-senator-po-bedzie-podwazac-zeznania-zony-co-dalej-z-glosnym-sledztwem-6951748968639424a
https://www.onet.pl/informacje/onetwiadomosci/kulisy-zatrzymania-bylego-senatora-w-tle-wojna-malzonkow/wrbqz0k,79cfc278
https://www.pb.pl/wojna-o-wizowy-kontrakt-trwa-1135578
https://www.newsweek.pl/polska/misiak-pozwal-rzeczpospolita-sprawa-misiaka-opisana-przez-rz/gqnwjn6
https://polityka.se.pl/wiadomosci/zona-musi-przeprosic-senatora-misiaka-nie-wolno-jej-podawac-informowac-o-zyciu-rodzinnym-aa-hEWF-VBz6-8eWY.html
All of this are free idependent media on the contrary to movement related media used in current arcticle version Tomasz1973 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Suryabanshi Suraj

First see this User talk:LordVoldemort728#Clarification on Wiki Page Reversion. The account is controlled by social media team of Suryabanshi Suraj, an Indian politician. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 07:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Knockout mouse reference spam

Many years ago, these users made well-intentioned contributions to numerous articles, adding the results of their research project to articles about genes. It stopped after

original research. I propose removing them all, but given the tedious nature, it is probably best-suited to someone using automated tools. I'm posting here to make sure that there is a consensus to remove before trying to find someone who can take care of it more effectively. SmartSE (talk
) 18:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing them all. By the admission of the user, they were added primarily to promote a particular group’s work, rather than add value to the article. Quite often as well, they describe mouse data in articles specifically just about a human protein/gene. GraziePrego (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Well,
stale drafts and at worst spam. I will try to have a more detailed look when I have more time. JBW (talk
) 14:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I based my comments above on "just a very quick check". I have now checked more thoroughly, and I have found that the userspace pages were made by another editor, who seems to be unrelated to the accounts mentioned by SmartSE. The pages don't seem to be spam, and they were probably working spaces for material to put into articles. They could be regarded as stale drafts, and some of the links in them may be questionable, but they are just long since abandoned userspace pages, and it probably isn't worth putting time and effort into dealing with them. The promotional content of the articles is a different matter, and removing it would be a good idea. JBW (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@JBW: Yes I know - quite a while ago! Unless there are any objections here I'll see if someone can use AWB to remove them all. SmartSE (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Jasper AI

I found a strange page Jasper AI were are many suspicious users pushing for keeping the page on its relevant AfD discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper AI. I think there is a hidden conflict of interest. Slarticlos (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:QuillBot

There are huge problems with this draft:

Draft:QuillBot - as it has been over 3 times moved to mainspace from the draft. no Conflict of Interest measures were applied yet. Maybe it's time to pay attention. Slarticlos (talk
) 10:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Just see the history of the draft and you will be thrilled Slarticlos (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Atlas VPN


Looks like Atlas VPN is using non-notable SEO links and / or making money on ads and referrals websites as sources. 74CenturyAD raised edit count adding and removing unnecessary commas. Added link [9] to paid services not related to article content.

MtNRE (not active in EN wiki, active in RU wiki) translated the article into RU wiki. Currently a discussion is ongoing on RU wiki regarding this at https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Форум_администраторов#MtNRE,_возможные_нарушения_ВП:ОПЛАТА (in Russian). Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  • False alert! The edit you warned as the adding a paid link ([10]) is just an official website of the Italian singer Mina https://minamazzini.it/e-la-scarpa-che-fa-il-dissenso/ - here is the link. And the page is about that Mina's singer album: Il cielo in una stanza (album). It's definitely not a paid link insertion. Was glad to help you :) --Slarticlos (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I was referring to the link below to discogs website which sells albums.
    The concerns regarding Atlas VPN still stay however. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Artaxerxes

I came upon this user's edits in the article Our Community Place which had writing style not consistent with encyclopedic writing. It listed quotes and client testimonials that gave an appearance of PR copywriting style, such as 

In December 2021, Nickles announced that OCP had just purchased their first property. "It’s sort of a pilot program, so if it works out well, hopefully we will do another one.” As Vance Fowler, 45, who has lived at a property owned by OCP since December 2021, stated:
To have the ability to get in and out the rain, to take a shower when you want to, to go get clean clothes. You would be surprised what you take for granted that homeless people don’t even have a chance at having.

After reviewing other articles they created, they're written in similar style not appropriate for encyclopedia. The user has not disclosed their affiliation. The improper emphasis on primary source, direct quotations suggest possible public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Elli:, as you have been removing the UPE template from Little Grill Collective, I am tagging you here to invite you to comment on this matter. Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the ping; I've read your posts here (and did so before removing the template initially) and found the evidence presented unconvincing. Could there be a COI? Maybe, but it doesn't seem particularly likely to me compared to them just being a fan/having an interest in these topics. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Artaxerxes:, do you have any relationship with any of the articles you created or have been paid to do so? Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Willie Aucamp

User is removing cited content and replacing it with unsourced BLP -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

European Theatre Convention

SPA account who has presented themselves as representing the article subject, so

WP:PAID is likely. Nat Gertler (talk
) 16:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Space Race

As disclosed on SchmiAlf’s German User page, he is the editor of “Helmut Gröttrup – Raketen, Banknoten, Chipkarten” (English: “Helmut Gröttrup – Rockets, Banknotes, Chip Cards” and the author of “ Gröttrup und das Universum der erfinderischen Zwerge” (English: Gröttrup and the universe of the inventive dwarfs“). Both of these books are for sale via various booksellers, for example JVC and Amazon. He has made extensive edits on the

German influence on the Soviet space program, Space Race, Smart card and Soviet rocketry. Many of these edits are promoting Helmut Gröttrup, which I believe are a conflict of interest as this would result in selling more of his books. SchmiAlf has not disclosed this conflict of interest and when I raised the issue on his talk page he denies this is a conflict of interest. Many of his actions and edits are controversial, including posting links from his private web page which raised reliabilty and copyright issues, as detailed in this Reliable sources Noticeboard discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_421#using_your_own_cloud_for_providing_documents_which_cannot_be_found_otherwise_in_the_web
.

SchmiAlf also appears to know members of the Gröttrup family, in contravention of

wp:COISELF
.

An example of an edit that I believe contravenes

WP:COI is this edit of the Space Race article
. Note that this edit of the article was made prior to discussions being concluded on the talk page. This edit concerns a theory SchmiAlf has been pushing for the last 12 months that overstates German contribution to the Soviet space program. Helmut Gröttrup was the key person in this issue, so promoting this theory is in SchmiAlf’s interest as it will result in more interest and sale of his books. Note that there are many other edits that SchmiAlf has made relating to promoting this view. Ilenart626 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Along the line of @Ilenart626's allegations:
  • Helmut Gröttrup (1916-1981) is a well-known personality who worked with Wernher von Braun and Sergei Korolev for the German and Soviet rocketry respectively and invented the smart card in 1967 (see here). The English Wikipedia article was created back in March 2006.
  • The public celebration of his 100th birthday anniversary in February 2017 raised my interest to learn more about him. Therefore I started reading historical analysis, such as Ordway/Sharpe, Anatoly Zak, Asif Siddiqi, Boris Chertok and many others who all have acknowledged him as the leader of the German team in the USSR from 1946 to 1950. There are also many sources in German language only (e.g., Magnus, Albring, Gröttrup, Uhl, Mick, Michels) and Russian language which provide additional background. I started comparing the German and English Wikipedia for more information and continuously contributed to both Wikipedias since my first edit on 19 July 2017 (see here. I edited other related topics (e.g., Klaus Riedel, Operation Osoaviakhim, V-2 rocket) and accidental topics when I saw need for improvement (e.g., security printing, cash, euro banknotes, analog computer).
  • From the mid of 2020 I compiled Gröttrup's exciting life under two dictators with considering his guilt and responsibility for developing deadly weapons into the biographical fiction "Gröttrup und das Universum ...". It was published by a small German publishing house in October 2022. It is available in German language only (with no intention to translate it to English) and there has been no mentioning at all in the English Wikipedia (neither the book as a source nor myself as an author).
  • By the spring of 2023 I was asked by the speakers of the 100th anniversary to support them as the editor of the commemorative book "Helmut Gröttrup – Raketen, Banknoten, Chipkarten”. In October 2023 it was self-published by all authors to include the speeches and a short summary of Gröttrup's life from my part, with no intention to translate it to English. I added it as a reference to the Further readings section of the Gröttrup article as it is a direct source (from contemporary witnesses) for Gröttrup's biography but I deleted it after the potential COI was raised (see diff). Some 2017 speeches (from his daughter Ursula Gröttrup and rocket scientist Olaf Przybilski) are available as PDF sources but not linked for special references of the article. They are not otherwise available in the web.
All of this proofs my long-term contributions to the English Wikipedia for sharing relevant information with no personal interest in promoting the books. In addition, knowing his daughter Ursula Gröttrup is just normal under the circumstances of my investigations for access to personal letters and his inheritance handed over to the Deutsches Museum. I did not promote her in any way in Wikipedia. Therefore I do not see any reason for
WP:COISELF
as argued by ilenart626.
There is yet another observation to be considered: In June 2022 Ilenart626 edited the Gröttrup article with deleting undisputed facts (and references) of his leading role of the German team in the Soviet rocketry (see diff). In parallel, he created the new article
Space race, Soviet rocketry and Soviet space program (missing above!) with pushing the statement "after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet rocket program was marginal" (or the like), even in the Lead, to downplay the German influence on the Soviet rocketry during the years 1948-1949 (see survey). As an example, the following diff of 9 July 2022 shows the uncommented deletions in Soviet space program which never made it to the German influence on ... article, among them also valuable references to Encyclopedia Astronautica which he removed systematically as being "unreliable" without presenting a specific reason (see also Reliable source noticeboard
).
All of this points to the real origin of our dispute because his point of view completely deviates from what I have learned about the German rocket scientists in Gorodomlya, e.g. by the space historians Anatoly Zak and Ordway/Sharpe as quoted in talk page of Space race (which includes the reason why I changed the article based on @
WP:COI. What's next? SchmiAlf (talk
) 15:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
SchmiAlf, I note above that you admit to editing / authoring books about Helmut Gröttrup and of knowing his daughter Ursula Gröttrup. As per
WP:COI and only make suggestions on a talk page, after disclosing your COI. Everything else you have stated above is irrelevant.Ilenart626 (talk
) 23:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused. If Asif Siddiqi contributes at Wikipedia, is he not allowed to edit spaceflight articles per WP:COI? I don't think subject-matter competence is prima facie grounds for COI. (@SchmiAlf has other issues—specifically, verging too close to OR, which he seems to have moved back from and explicitly said he'd refrain from. --Neopeius (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I’ll have to let an Editor who is more familiar with COI answer your question regarding subject matter competence.Ilenart626 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Ilenart626—this is not an accurate characterization of @SchmiAlf's edit. All he did was take my proposed language, which is derived from the Zak citation already in the article (which no one has disputed) and update the article. I think we can put this issue to rest at this point as the original point of contention is moot. --Neopeius (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Neopeius please see my reply at Talk:Space Race. As per my reply to SchmiAlf above, this COI has not been resolved.Ilenart626 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Michael Abramoff

This article has previously had issues with COI editing and paid editing. Here is the previous report on COI/N. This editor was warned for potential COI editing in 2020. Their edit history suggests a COI, which they have not disclosed. Kimen8 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no interest with Michael Abramoff. The reference to Google Scholar was inaccurate so I updated the post. Retinarecorder (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
You seem to have a particular focus on ensuring it stays up to date and you have a blasé attitude to following consensus on standards of referencing. You also seem to have coi. scope_creepTalk 08:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Jan Rotmans

The page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Rotmans) is created by paid editor, please find the evidence below:

Editor: https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01bfb4d3cfe85e7304

EVIDENCE: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~0154185af1ca527006

EVIDENCE: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01e2b4d69b8d40b85b

Another page published by her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Transkriptor

Another page published by her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Penn_(entrepreneur)

Suspected sockpuppets

Please run checkuser, Obvious gaming of autoconfirmed to post spam like Simon Gillett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simon_Gillett), Simon Gillett user's page was locked as sock puppet on 26 November 2023. Now, this user is using older sleepers that were previously stale. I'm sure there are more out there.But checkuser should help as they might have created a lot of sleeper accounts to game in future. 39.48.13.144 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In case the job listing at https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01bfb4d3cfe85e7304 is removed, it lists in her portfolio: SIGA Technologies and Dawn Ostroff. Kimen8 (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the known socks are blocked and the articles deleted. The upwork account is fairly new yet has been pulling a lot of jobs lately, but I know a few people who are aware of them, myself included. - Bilby (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Crewe Railroaders

I believe the article linked has a number of users with COI, the edits do appear to be in good faith (removing vandalism, updating minor bits of info) but wasn't sure what to do about it so thought putting it here couldn't be bad. I've put the twinkle COI message on their user pages, but they appear to be single-use accounts since more than one of them exist so not sure how much that would help. I've never actually discovered COI before so was not sure if it needed taking further/reporting/etc. and was hoping someone more experienced could advise/handle the situation better than I can. I've added the article to my watch list and will keep an eye on edits. Thanks!

Talk to me!
20:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  • All the unsourced content and mention of non notable players can be cut. Some of the COI accounts have unacceptable usernames, and ought to be blocked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    I'll get on that, thank you :)
    Talk to me!
     08:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I was accused of being paid? But I'm not?

I apologize if this is in the wrong place, but I've tried to not prove that I'm not getting paid (which is rather impossible) after being accused of being paid for writing an article.

To be honest, this whole process has been EXHAUSTING. I kept following the advice and it would change - and, frankly, when I tried to look at other articles (which I was told you cannot because apparently all other articles on Wikipedia don't actually belong on Wikipedia and therefore cannot be used as benchmarks for anything), but being a fan of horror and thinking, "I could make some things better here" and trying to give credit to a podcast (which did not have enough articles at all to put on Wikipedia) and then looking at one of the hosts who had a really long career and a bunch of articles...well, apparently the best way to get someone to stop trying to advocate for an article is to accuse them of getting paid to edit an article and never reply when all they can say is "I'm not tho?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matt_Weinhold

All I know is that apparently if I ever try to edit this article again, I can be permanently banned. It's been frustrating because as I legitimately read through the process of accusing a person, a single editor can just "feel" that someone is getting paid with no proof and that's that. And then they never have to directly respond to the accusation.

Is there some affidavit or swearsy thing I can sign? Seriously, I have no idea how to prove I'm not getting paid. Especially when it's based on nothing. And no one will respond to it. Midwesterngal (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Midwesterngal, what is your connection to the subject of the article? Why do you feel so strongly about creating it? – bradv 04:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
You trying over and over and over and over again to create the page of a non-notable person is a sign that you are. Additionally most likely you have a conflict of interest in creating the page that you haven't disclosed. It's best to be open and transparent and you should have been at the start. Appears as though that ship has well and truly sailed. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
My connection is that I'm a fan of the Monster Party podcast.
I couldn't find enough articles to make the Monster Party page, which I wanted to do. Of the 4 hosts, Matt has the most notable entertainment career. And I looked at other winners of the Seattle Comedy competition that had pages + the fact that if you search wikipedia, you already find him listed for his stuff. I kept editing because I'd never done a page before and I'd get advice to continue to edit and fix things.
So - I guess if you create an article, miss some things, take the advice and keep trying to fix it - and check it against other things, you're paid?
Literally zero dollars. If it helps, I can prove privately I have an actual job not at all related to entertainment, horror or writing that pays more than enough that doing a side-gig as a wikipedia article writer (and a super terrible one at that) would not be a thing.
But that's the proof? That I wanted to really get this done as a fan? For a podcast that I'd listened to for a decade? Midwesterngal (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
And I'd like to make it clear - when I looked at the other winners, his career seemed like a slam dunk. This has been frustrating. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand what disclosure I would make? I am not getting paid. I don't even live near the person. Literally in the Midwest and he's out in California.
Again, I'm unclear - the responses ask you to continue to try to edit, other winners of the Seattle Comedy Competition have much thinner resumes and I would get conflicting advice (it wasn't neutral, get better sources) and I would. That's literally it. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
If you care that he has a page, stop editing it. If he's as notable as you say he is, someone else will create the page for him. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to add one more thing - I searched this page and was unable to find any discussion of the liklihood that I was paid. Which seems to be the norm from what I've read here.
Person gets a hunch, comes here and asks for opinions. Which seems to make sense - because otherwise this method could just be used to bully individuals if a person can just throw that accusation up on any article they want. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
someone else will create the page for him But then you would accuse that someone else of having a COI, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
As I said, If he's as notable as you say he is...
The notability isn't currently there. That's been the issue all long. If and when he becomes notable and satisfies
WP:GNG why would there be an issue in someone else creating the page? MaskedSinger (talk
) 12:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
So, when you wrote If he's as notable as you say he is, someone else will create the page for him you did not mean {tq|If he's as notable as you say he is, someone else will create the page for him}} but actually He is not as notable as you say he is, and if someone else creates the page for him, they will obviously have a COI too.
Why don't you just drop those evidence-less COI accusations and talk about GNG instead? You know, "Address the issue, not the user"? (I get wrongly accused of being paid by Big Pharma or Big Whatever often when I just disagree with people, that is why I am sensitive about this.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Don't have the energy to do this again. Shabbat Shalom. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes a passionate fan will appear to be a paid editor due to their passion. If you aren't paid, then you're not paid, but perhaps you should step back from this topic for a time and edit about topics for which you are less passionate. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but some feedback to your people - the way I have been treated and the overall tone from many of your editors has been a very negative experience. And then there are the very dense "guidelines" that are really paragraphs of very little concrete things "write from a neutral point of view" and "have these sources but not those and have enough" followed with enough padding in the form of ways to reject just about anything outside of the highest-level common sense things if someone really wants to. I received so many different bits of feedback and addressed them as they came up - and the goalposts kept shifting.
In other words, your editors created the very case you're describing - they started saying "please fix this thing," and I did. Then I would need to "fix that thing," so I did. Then I would "need to go do this other thing," so I did. And now I have hit some magical internal threshold of "editing the article too much" so I can be accused of "must be getting paid" - that's insane.
Need I also remind you that Wikipedia has huge holes in many, many, many areas? To the point where Reddit gleefully runs the article of the woman that contributed thousands of female scientists to Wikipedia every few months? Imagine if she had been told "you seem too into these dames who science, if they're truly important, other people will do it!" Honestly, only so many people who go to Wikipedia contribute - and you're all acutely aware of the number of those that will continue to contribute after trying to get the first few articles done. That's truly an insincere offer.
Plus, I'm still forever accused in that article of being "paid" for an article - it's on there, it's in my history. I would be tainted on anything I did going forward. No one has once offered to take this label off. Nothing I would contribute would be worthwhile, for I am marked as guilty. Because a person wrongly accused me and I'm guilty without ever being acknowledged when I was accused by those editors. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Everything you just wrote makes me think you're a paid editor. While you're here, read up on Streisand effect. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @
WP:AGF. The editor has stated that they are not paid, and the article they attempted to contribute has been declined. They have given some feedback about the hostility they have faced as a new editor, which is not unique. There is very little separating a paid editor and a fan, so unless you have evidence, please stop. Greenman (talk
) 11:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
If they were a paid editor, how would you expect them to act?
Keep submitting the draft over and over and over and over and over again to be accepted? Check
Protest on a noticeboard that they aren't a paid editor? Check
The fact that you would paint me as some sort of villain here is laughable. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:AGF from you. The user has stated in response to the red flags pointed out that they are not paid. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. It is as Greenman notes, often hard to tell a passionate fan from a paid editor. 331dot (talk
) 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I struggle to grasp what this has to do with me. People accused her on her talk page of being a paid editor. I had nothing to do with that or reviewing the draft. I only came across her when she posted here and I was like - "yip, that's exactly what a paid editor would do" and the statements since only reinforced it. I'm not allowed to have an opinion? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Having an opinion and expressing an opinion are two different things. Piling on with more accusations after the user has said they are not paid is unhelpful, will probably drive this editor away if they haven't left already, and violates AGF. If you have no evidence contrary to what this user has said, then that needs to be the end of it. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Shabbat Shalom. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a perfect system.
Write an article - have to fix issues - fix those issues. Get more issues to fix - fix those - have it reviewed and fix those. Because notability is subjective, then accuse person of being paid.
If person denies being paid, they must be paid.
It's incredibly difficult to disprove a negative. I've even checked in my city. There was apparently a position with the public library created in 2021 in my city to be the "wikipedian in residence." You can check that IP vs my IP and see that I am not there - although, full disclosure, I DO have a library card. So - there's your super slim link? Except they were working from the special collections on things like civil war and pioneer oral history. Again, if I were part of that, I'm super bad at my job.
This is utterly ridiculous. Midwesterngal (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Midwesterngal I have removed the paid notice from your draft and put in the edit summary that you say you are not paid. Keep in mind that as a volunteer project sometimes the left hand does not know what the right hand has done or not done.
I'm sorry that you haven't had a good experience. I see that you dived right in to the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- article creation. New users greatly increase their chances of success and reduce their frustration if article creation isn't the first task attempted. (it probably sounds like I'm blaming you but that's not my intention at all) Many thousands of users are very successful Wikipedia contributors without ever creating a single article. We usually recommend first gaining experience by editing existing articles, it's a good way to learn what exactly is being looked for in article content before going higher and attempting the more difficult task of article creation. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for removing it. It felt really terrible to be accused of that and not really have any recourse.
I also appreciate that you're assuming best intent. For what it's worth - in my real job, that's my approach. I deal with developers and mistakes are made. When they are, we fix things and then asses what everyone could do to fix things so the whole system is better going forward. Midwesterngal (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes, the consistency in following the recommendations from the Wiki Talks with regards to drafts can make one seem like a paid contributor. However, you can declare on your profile if that is the case, or if you are a passionate fan, as you said, you can also contribute to other related topics within the subject matter. In no distant time, you will easily understand the platform and want to participate more in the improvement of the Wikipedia publications at large for a more transparent, unbaised readers' experience. So don't let the discouraging comments and constant tags sway you into feeling desperate or making harsh comments toward other editors. Editing on WikiPedia is a unique process one has to learn over time. Nsbfrank (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Film related sock farm

There are currently several SPIs at the moment regarding film related pages being edited and/or created by a sock farm. Some are registered accounts and some are from an IP range. Two SPI that are relevant here are Nauman335 and Helloo 68. The page in question here is

WP:UPE. Note that Jeevan is not currently blocked as the SPI is still open waiting for review.--CNMall41 (talk
) 09:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I am also pinging @
WP:BANREVERT would still apply here, especially with an UPE bludgeoning the process. --CNMall41 (talk
) 09:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
My only comment is that it was hasty for me to request a G5 without noticing the edits made to make the article ineligible for G5. Since the subject of the article passes notability requirements and there are multiple editors who are willing to improve the article, I wish said editors the best of luck in their endeavors. Panian513 16:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, CNMall41 I had created this page with good faith. and I had not directly created this page CNMall41 with proper draft and finally i had submitted to AFC. See I'm not a sock CNMall41 please try to understand. Jeevan shree (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Your creation of templates that were also deleted under G5 is telling, especially when you create them by not putting spaces between the names in order to make it seem like they weren't previously deleted.--CNMall41 (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Is this Deleted previously, hey I doesn't know yah. Why I had created without space means see I will tell you in a detailed manner. Before I'm creating this template I Referred so many templates. I saw some templates like without giving space.For example:
1)KeralaStateFilmAwardforBestFilm
2)FilmfareAwardforbestMalayalamActor
Based on this idea,I had created that new template CNMall41 Jeevan shree (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
CNMall41, I have given several warnings to them to disclose the COI ([11]). I believe the article shouldn't be deleted just because it was created by a sock. That is why I purposefully made an edit to make it ineligible for G5. The topic concerns a well-known actor in Malayalam cinema who passed away in 2016. Thus, I don't believe that any UPE is involved. My belief is that there is a personal or professional relationship between the sock farm and Jishnu Raghavan. I would like to ping UtherSRG who deleted the article last time. I think it should be undeleted, moved to draftspace and let go through the AFC process. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Adding references is not sufficient to make it G5 ineligible. The article is still the same content. I have G5'd it, and the subsequent copies Jeevan has made, and blocked them as a probable sock. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@UtherSRG: What about the content addition from IP's. If I remember correctly, the version deleted by Liz had some content added by IP's. Is it the same editor behind those IP's? Thilsebatti (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want to work the article, I can provide the references used and you can start fresh. Identical restorations and recreations will be G5'd. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Thilsebatti:, The IP's are likely socks as well. The link I provided in the filing above shows that. For the previous deletion, I cannot see the deletion history. Are you able to show me what you are looking at so I can compare with the IP list of likely socks I have compiled? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helloo 68‎‎ - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Thilsebatti: (edit conflict) I think your barking up the wrong tree here. As far as I can see the process has been followed exactly with the originating editor blocked and the article deleted. It won't be back in this incarnation. scope_creepTalk 14:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Scope creep: I am aware of the precise reasoning behind G5. Even with this much socking, I would still have created Jishnu Raghavan myself. However it seems that the person behind the account Helloo 68 is obsessed with Jishnu Raghavan. They act as if they are the owners of the article. I'm also not much interested in maintaining film related articles and we have an upcoming NPP backlog drive in January. I will be fully focused on the drive if I'm not busy in real life. So I'm pinging Aadirulez8, Arjunsoumithran and Jayashankar8022, some editors who are focused on Malayalam cinema related articles. If any of them see this, I request them to assess the circumstances and if they're interested, take the responsibility, create the article and maintain it. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
If you are aware that the person is "obsessed" with the page, and read the filings above with the links I provided, then know that this is something that has been going on with multiple pages for a while and is a DUCK for UPE (see this). Given that information, I find it strange that you would make an edit to advocate keeping the page, then ping others for them to create the page if they see fit. It is disheartening when myself and other editors take time away from editing what we like to edit in order to keep Wikipedia free of this kind of crap. In the end, the reward goes to the sock farm. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

SOCK is now back as User:Vicky Kumar26, recreating the page under the title Jishnu Raghavan Alingkil due to the original title being locked. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Lincoln Fenner

User's edits have all been related to Fenner and his work, including uploading images such as movie posters as their own work. COI notice was left in early 2021 with no response, and paid warning has now been placed on talk page, but promotional editing has continued with no engagement. Melcous (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them and sent the bio to AFD. I also added another user and another article to the above. It looks like more AFDs may be in order. SmartSE (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Beyond Vision

Long term admitted COI, with persistent re-creation of articles and drafts promoting Beyond Vision. They seem to have requested the most recent draft--also rather promotional in tone--be deleted, though the template hasn't been correctly applied. At any rate, notwithstanding other main space edits, this is their primary reason for being here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We are all here in a public encyclopedia to make contributions. As a beginner, just like novel content creators with little knowledge of a platform, one tends to struggle to get hold of the platform, but over time, as we forge ahead, we understand the platform more and tend to greatly participate in the platform by making more positive contributions, adhering strictly to the guidelines for transparent and non-promotional encyclopedic publications. So norminating me to be blocked on this prestigious independent platform is a bit harsh without acknowledging other articles I may have improved by studying and learning from other great writers on Wikipedia. Unless, of course, Wikipedia is no longer an open, independent public encyclopedia, then I will understand. In the meantime, I'm focused on improving my encyclopedic writing skills, learning different topics by thoroughly reviewing them, correcting grammar and promotional tone errors, and searching for notable citations to validate their various claims. Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge; we all learn from mistakes for a better future. Nsbfrank (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
A quick look at more recent edits indicates further concerns: promotional tone, addition of unreliable sources, mass spelling and syntax issues, and a whiff of AI-inspired content. We can add diffs to those edits I just corrected or reverted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out those mistakes. I believe the purpose of editing existing live publications is to learn how to enhance one's writing skills on Wikipedia. There are about 77,533 incorrect active articles now on Wikipedia, with huge credibility flaws such as publications with less than 10 words, punctuation errors, spelling errors, and blatant promotional language with absolutely no citation. The pages I've attempted to improve were considerably worse before I updated them; hence, by correcting my errors, we collaboratively improve Wikipedia publications. So while I appreciate your contributions and your focus on policing me with various allegations, which appears to indicate that you desperately want me removed from this platform, please keep in mind that this is an independent platform in need of passionate editors much more than sheriffs. Nsbfrank (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
No, article space is not the place to "learn how to enhance one's writing skills," any more than it's a site for repeated entry of promotional content. I've reverted numerous "credibility flaws' by you, and will add the links to these tonight or tomorrow. In the meantime, it's easy enough for administrators and other editors to view them. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Brooke Medicine Eagle

This s.p.a. is a fervent, almost worshipful admirer of the subject and admits to having been asked by the subject to either make the article more favorable, or get it deleted (see the editor's talk page) "with active intention to transform her current biography... Brooke herself has asked me to help - she would like me to go as far ask ask to have page deleted entirely if the edits I am suggesting are not permitted to remain."

This article is not new to such edit activity. Another s.p.a., User:Rickgmt, was doing similar complaints with similar language, but hasn't edited since early 2013. Orange Mike | Talk 03:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Blisseffect from editing Brooke Medicine Eagle. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Tom Zubrycki

Tzub wrote a very promotional article on Tom Zubrycki. Tzub self identifies as the subject, eg [12] "Added 2 additional films that I've recently directed and produced". After COI was point out to him a second time he properly stopped editing the article directly but stated "I am currently getting assistance from a professional Wikipedia editor." [13]. Soon after a new SPA who clearly has experience came along and edited the article [14], adding a lot of link spam, and removed the tags. This looks to me to clearly be a case of undisclosed paid editing. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion at
WP:MEATPUPPETS. -- GreenC
21:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Genesys International

A more experienced editor would probably be able to solve this issue before bringing it here, but I'm not that editor.

Recently, I noticed changes being made to this article by this editor that I (and a few other editors) thought looked like advertising. I asked

WP:COI
guide for a third time, they have attempted to make the appropriate disclosures on their user page and the article page. However, the editor in question is still posting content directly to the page that appears to be worded in a promotional and non-neutral manner. I'm very inexperienced at dealing with COI issues, and I'm having trouble explaining Wikipedia's policies to this editor in a way that they can understand. I'm posting this here because I'm really out of my depth and I don't entirely know what to do next.

(Note- I did ask about possible steps over at the

help desk and was recommended to bring the issue to the more experienced editors take over. That's most likely irrelevant, but for the sake of transparency, I thought I'd mention it. ) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk
) 07:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I'm a product manager at Genesys International Corporation Limited, while reading wikipedia I found my company has a page created here but with just a line of information. Hence, wished to add more details and introduction to the company as I'm well aware of it and take care of what it does for other readers to know. We tried taking reference from other map companies like TomTom and Google maps. Taking inspiration from these I tried adding more information and after being educated by @GreenLipstickLesbian tried making it further neutral and an attempting the introduction to the company not look promotional. I would still like to add what we do and what we've done as we're a listed company on the stock exchange hence only public verified information can be uploaded there, I'll be using all citations possible to assist others to find the source of information.
Also, this is just an attempt to learn Wikipedia editing as my personal thing and I do work for the organisation, but this is a personal task that I took interest in (meaning not being paid to do this).
Have tried following what @GreenLipstickLesbian told and looking forward to any further suggestions that I should be aware of. Thanks! Shikhar.jaiswalgen (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I have firmly advised Shikhar.jaiswalgen on their talk page to refrain from editing Genesys International, and to make formal edit requests on the article talk page instead. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Shikhar.jaiswalgen (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Pau Pérez-Sales

This user's edits all relate to Pau Pérez-Sales or to linked topics (Liberation psychology and Torture (journal)). Some of the text they have added to the Pérez-Sales article reads promotional: With more than 20 years of professional experience, Pau Pérez-Sales played a key role - this statement is sourced to a book by Pérez-Sales. The editor has uploaded an image of Pérez-Sales which is marked as "own work", and has twice added the website of Pérez-Sales as an external link to Torture (journal). The editor has been asked twice on their Talk page if they have a conflict of interest, but has not responded and has continued to edit the article. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Revanth Reddy

Article being heavily edited by user with name similar to subject. Also heavy edits from an IP over the last couple days. User was provided a COI notice on their talk page but has not responded. Just requesting eyes for anyone more familiar with the topic. CNMall41 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I also just notified user of this thread. My oversight for not doing it when originally filed. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE
at Euler polynomial

More eyes, please. Interest of the

WP:UNDUE. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk
) 02:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Gilles Epié

The editor has acknowledged a personal relationship with the article subject and does not seem to understand how this presents a conflict of interest. They continue to make edits despite more than one warning. BlueWhale89 (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

AlanMichaelSheppard

This user page, the only edition in Wikipeda, seems to be self-promotional from websites like https://www.alansheppard.com/ and https://www.alansheppard.com/about. May an administrator have a look and decide if the page is or isn't proper. Pierre cb (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

COIN concerns on Jim Mellon and elsewhere

WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk
) 20:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Swiss Mister in NY

In a recent BLPN discussion Swiss Mister in NY seems to be denying they have a COI with Emmanuel Lemelson albeit without explicitly saying it. They have weirdly accused those established editors opposing their changes of having a COI [18] Emmanuel Lemelson seems to have a long history of COI editing take a look at the template at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson. What I found interesting is this account is actually fairly old although with very limited edit history especially before 2023. When I explored that edit history it got even more interesting.

Swiss Mister's first major (undeleted?) contribution seems to have been creating Intelitek [19] back in 2011. They returned to that article this year for some updates [20]. This was about a year after Special:Contributions/Grahamceline had made a hash of trying to update it. Per the discussion at User talk:Grahamceline, it seems Grahamceline had a COI regarding Intelitek.

Then in 2013 they added mentions of Distil Networks to 2 different articles [21] [22]. Distil Networks was deleted quite a few years later in 2018 and per the AFD, had been created by WMF banned (Meta:Special:CentralAuth/Gogo Rulez) Special:Contributions/Gogo Rulez. Putting the WMF ban aside, about 2 years later an editor open with their COI User talk:Tonybdistil was involved so we know there was some COI relating to Distil Networks. Gogo Rulez themselves added Distil Networks to the Content protection network article [23] and about a month later at the time they were adding the mentions to the article article, Swiss Mister in NY removed the orphan tag from CPN [24] [25]. CPN itself was created by Special:Contributions/Prelude after noon back in 2012 [26]. But given the long time between creation and the interesting addition of Distil Networks, I'm not sure what to make of that even considering this interesting comment from Prelude [27]. (Distil Networks has been bought by Imperva so I suspect any COI risk has changed.)

A few months later still in 2013, Swiss Mister reappeared and one of the things they did was write in support of keeping some images labelled unfree [28] for Michael Dweck. As remarked in the discussion Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 15 the changing of the Flickr account to say it clearly belonged to Michael Dweck made it seem possible it was being done in response to the discussion. And interesting enough Special:Contributions/Avian appreciator who uploaded the images, seems a long term SPA regarding Michael Dweck. Note also this wasn't Swiss Mister's first interest in Dweck. nearly 3 years previously back in 2011, they had tried to add a NFCC image [29] [30] [31].

I'm not an admin so cannot see anything deleted like the history of Distil Networks. Also to be clear, I'm not accusing Swiss Mister of being a sock of the other editors. In fact for most of them I think it seems more likely they are not a sock.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick scan through the 85 deleted edits on Distil Networks didn't show up anything particularly interesting. —Smalljim  11:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I have notified everyone I mentioned in my comment except for Gogo Rulez as I don't see a purpose in notifying a globally locked editor banned by the WMF. Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Seems like an awful lot of investigative work for someone to undertake because an accusation that two editors have been circling a biography and reverting other editors and even an admin for well on half a dozen years or more was found to be "weird." And only to conclude that I'm probably not a sockpuppet at work! Hey, thanks! Regardless, I hope that someone will let me know specifically which of my hundreds of edits has weakened Wikipedia in some material way? Until then, I'll continue editing in the ways that I have been, but probably avoiding articles where vested editors have assumed an

ownership role. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk
) 14:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems like awfully long way go saying that the accusation of COI is spot on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Is that the new standard for COI investigations? I mean, who actually loses their password to Wikipedia? That seems very suspicious to me. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The standard for COI investigations is "Is there a COI?" what isn't part of the COI standards is "weakened Wikipedia in some material way" because COI editing weakens wikipedia no matter the quality of the edits. You appear to be acknowledging that you do in fact have a COI, you just don't to say as much explicitly but you also don't want to deny it because you appear honest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
While I don't feel required to even say this, I assure you I'm not being paid by any company to edit any page anywhere on Wikipedia. I am not Mr. Lemelson, nor am I a member of his family, nor do I live near him. I don't know what more you need me to say, but I have a feeling it will never be enough. Like I said, this all seems like an unusually vigorous defense of two editors who have taken personal control of a biography for the better part of a decade. I'm happy to edit elsewhere, and if I should ever get up the courage to concern myself with that biography again, I'll seek permission from the ruling editorial pair on the Talk page. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A few days ago I set out the history of COI editing on

involved to take any admin actions though.  —Smalljim
  11:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Elliott Sharp

Fenderjoe edits nearly exclusively on Elliot Sharp and articles peripheral to him for many years such as adding his name into record label pages. COI notice left on talk page, but returned to editing the same page with no explanation. Tamberrrr removed maintenance templates without explanation and appears to be a sleeper associated with the article subject. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Zheng Chongbin (artist)

This article is being originated by an editor with 37 edits. When the article has been nominated for deletion, the editor asks: Please just let me know what exactly I need to do to get this article published. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I can confirm that I am an independent researcher and do not represent the artist. I am new to writing on Wikipedia and this was the first and only time I tried to write an article here. I am willing to take feedback on board, that is why it is important for me to understand what exactly needs to be improved about the article as I believe that the general guidelines are already addressed in the article. For more details, please see my answer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zheng Chongbin (Artist). Many thanks. Artbranch (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Torres Castle (Al Hoceima)


Apparent UPE: Ali Maalouf makes 8 pointless

wikify edits, writes the draft and submits it for review within ten minutes. Ali Maalouf then contacts several experienced editors for review. Four and a half hours later new editor Trabeltomed moves the draft into mainspace. Trabeltomed's prior edits were all made today: 11 wikify edits to game the system. While there is surely puppetting of some type, I'm concerned about promoting a tourist destination probably for pay. Chris Troutman (talk
) 22:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no advertisement or anything like that. It is a cultural architecture that you can search for through Google. As for (Trabeltomed), I do not know the reason he moved the draft and I did not contact him. I contacted some officials to review the article. I will only leave you some sources. You decide to decide.
https://ar.hibapress.com/details-415938.html
https://achamal24.ma/archives/24247
https://dalil-rif.com/permalink/30177.html Ali Maalouf (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Both of these accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Just curious, but what is the evidence? Miracusaurs (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Miracusaurs: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simodabir0. I provided my rationale above, which is "evidence" enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Richard A Cohen

This comment and follow-up are in response to a recent COI notice regarding my editing of the Cohen BLP, archived here. I have responded to ALL questions about my interest in the topic and my relationship to the subject, and refuted concerns about any COI on the Richard A. Cohen and Generalrelative talk pages months ago. In the meantime, Generalrelative has continued to foster a biased, anti-encyclopedic Biography by:

1. Removing all self-published books by Cohen, listed not as sources, but simply as a biographical record of Cohen’s work and ideas, claiming “It is unclear that this list is of encyclopedic value.” This is despite the fact that several of these books have been re-published by professional publishing houses in as many as 8 languages, and in any case self-published works are included in the publications lists of many biographical Wikipedia pages. I am not aware that Generalrelative has removed any self-published work from ANY other page. Wikipedia cautions about using self-published works as sources, but has no rules preventing these as part of a subject’s work, teaching or accomplishments (duh!).

2. When I responded by listing the original versions of 2 of Cohen’s initial works, published independently by respected Houses (Oakhill and Intervarsity Press), Generalrelative removed even these as well, stating “establish consensus on Talk Page before re-adding disputed content,” despite the fact that this was NEW content, and had not been disputed by anyone. When I pointed this out on the article’s Talk Page, Generalrelative responded, “If Cohen's work is accepted by mainstream scholarship, you should be able to show e.g. supportive reviews of his books in mainstream publications. Absent that, even books published by non-vanity presses are probably not notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.” Again, I doubt that Generalrelative would suggest that “Mein Kampf” be removed from Hitler’s biographical page for lack of mainstream acceptance, and question whether he has removed professionally published works from ANY other biographical Wiki page.

Despite this questionable requirement for “positive” scholarly reviews as a test for newsworthiness (in a biography!!!), I am linking below and posting for Generalrelative a review of Cohen’s very first, Oakhill published “Coming Out Straight” from Library Journal, where a gay-identified librarian and sexuality scholar called it a “…comprehensive, well-written, well-organized, and heavily referenced guide,” and calls Cohen’s approach “… sympathetic and rational,” calling it "recommended for libraries with large gender collections." Generalrelative has continued to roll back every attempt I made to list Cohen’s published books, justifying it with concerns about my purported COI.

3. Wiki Manual of Style states clearly that articles on controversial topics should be written “from a neutral point of view,” include BOTH SIDES of a controversy, and that lead paragraphs be a summary of the article. Yet Generalrelative has violated these guidelines by identifying Cohen with “Conversion Therapy” (even in this COI complaint) while removing Cohen’s own statements to the contrary, and eliminating his written works that clearly demonstrate Cohen’s legitimate, research-based therapeutic perspective. He has removed references to Cohen’s personal journey and experience, while retaining negative (even false) characterizations of Cohen’s life and work referenced from activists who clearly consider him an enemy, and have an axe to grind. This is effectively censoring Cohen, distorting a biographical article and perverting Wikipedia’s encyclopedic intent. Despite Generalrelative’s mild, polite demeanor, it is these egregious actions, as well as auto-rejecting my own and others’ attempts to seek balance, in the guise of a purported COI and claiming “consensus” which is 2 people, he and Zenomonoz, an aggressive, apparent activist who was himself accused of sockpuppetry, that prompted my “intemperate remarks” about feeling cancelled myself. It is 2 accounts vs 1... what "consensus" is that?

I have clearly responded to the COI questions [[32]], and stated my affiliation, as a psychotherapist, with the subject of this article. Nothing I am accused of- having a positive point of view of Cohen, or a single-purpose account, is in violation of wiki rules, nor does my past and present relationship with Cohen constitute a COI (“sockpuppetry” is addressed in a follow-up comment). I am only guilty of experiencing a learning curve as an editor on Wikipedia, hence the improperly uploaded photos and overly-promotional rhetoric when I first began. I have, however, always sought balance and fairness, and have never unduly removed controversial or negative content unless the information was false and defamatory or the presentation was misleading and I could prove it. The edits of Generalrelative described above, however, are in violation of the rules and intent of Wikipedia, and I call upon Generalrelative (again) to reconsider them, and voluntarily correct these errors.

Truedad21 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In his now archived COI notice, Generalrelative questions whether a comment posted by Lukehhuneycutt, claiming that the Cohen article has a clear negative bias, might be sockpuppetry, apparently suggesting that this comment was either manipulated or made incognito by me (the comment was on the article itself, and made no reference to me or my opinions). The red flags he pointed to were the facts that the Lukehhuneycutt account was created 4 days before this, its only posting. In the interest of the same transparency and truth I have tried to demonstrate regarding my affiliation (or lack thereof) with Cohen, I will explain my relationship (or lack thereof) to this independent comment:
Once Generalrelative began consistently rejecting my attempts to restore balance and neutrality to the article by rolling back any and all of my edits based upon my purported COI, I decided to encourage others to read the Cohen BLP and respond to it as they saw fit. Generalrelative had noted I was the only person commenting and editing the article with a favorable view of its subject, even though it was also only Generalrelative, cheered on by the activist Zenomonoz, who is him/herself the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, editing out Cohen’s own voice and achievements from this supposed biography, insisting that the subject be defined by others’ judgments of him. In the past Generalrelative’s distorting role was fulfilled by only 1 other account- Sexologist, whose voice is eerily reminiscent of Zenomonoz, and is in fact one of the accounts accused of being Zenomonoz' sockpuppets. Besides these 3 accounts (2 people?) A grand total of 3 other comments rightly critiqued the overly promotional tone of my early edits three years ago. Generalrelative suggested, according to Wiki rules for COI and Contentious Topics, that I bring any recommended edits to the Talk Page for consensus, but did not respond to my initial attempts to do so, nor did anyone else. It was just the three of us- Generalrelative, Zenomonoz and myself. Now he rejects the edits of others claiming a ”consensus” that has never been established.
In September, 2023, I made a number of professional colleagues and clients aware of the Richard A. Cohen page. I asked them to read the content, and if they were dissatisfied with the factuality and fairness of its presentation, I encouraged them to create an account, express themselves on the Talk Page, and if they were inclined and capable, to participate in the editing process, hopefully improving its balance and fairness. I did nothing more- no recommendations on what to say or characterizations of what they’d find. Then I stepped away for the last 3 months, as I have been travelling internationally. I am quite sure that the Lukehhuneycutt account is real and the comment is genuine… neither have anything to do with me.
Truedad21 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The COI Noticeboard isn't the place to discuss whether or not Generalrelative has continued to foster a biased, anti-encyclopedic Biography -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Whistleblower Aid

User:Mundanepitch, an editor with 29 edits, has recently replaced the stable version of the article with a complete rewrite. This editor had until recently a COI tag on their user page stating that they had a COI regarding Libby Liu, the CEO of Whistleblower Aid. They have not answered my repeated questions about this. The new version excludes mention that the organization received a $150,000 grant from the Omidyar Network, the philanthropic investment firm founded by Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar. I am skeptical of the neutrality of the new version of this article and ask for others to give it a look over. I am fairly certain this is a paid COI editor who so far has refused to follow the recommended process. Thriley (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No payment no COI here! I can re-edit to keep the mention of Omidyar tbh it mostly looked dated and I wasn't sure about the source but can definitely keep that in a new version! Mundanepitch (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
You previously disclosed a relevant conflict-of-interest (
WP:PAID. Note that you can edit, although editors with conflict of interest are strongly encouraged to request edits in the talk page rather than edit directly. Also, if your conflict of interest is a financial COI, you must disclose it, as well as any affiliation related to that financial COI. MarioGom (talk
) 13:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrathofyazdan socks

AngelOnTheRocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in undisclosed paid editing. Harry A. Hyman was created after they were hired on this freelancer job. ‎Jun Li (chemist) was create after a gap of 3 weeks, so this is a spam-only account and as such should be blocked. Any one who can help discover the original WP:SPI? In any case, this is not a new account. 2001:8F8:1E3D:2F41:1FCF:914:2C35:471A (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that both are eligible for draftification per
WP:ATD-I. Both articles are not older than 90 days (Harry A. Hyman was created on 29 September 2023 and Jun Li was created on 18 October 2023). 2001:8F8:1E3D:2F41:1FCF:914:2C35:471A (talk
) 11:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I found another GhazaleAryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Sarvnaz Alambeigi was created based on this job (listed on page3). So Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrathofyazdan is the correct SPI. 2001:8F8:1E3D:2F41:1FCF:914:2C35:471A (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Please, submit this, including the freelancer link, the SPI link, and any relevant info to [email protected]. A functionary can handle it from there. MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Better Than Cash Alliance

This article has had a significant portion of it written by what appear to be COI editors. Thriley (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The first editor seems to have a direct link to Better Than Cash Alliance in what is a highly promotional UPE article that subverts Wikipedia controls. scope_creepTalk 10:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The conflict of interest (possibly paid) is obvious, but it does not seem to be done in bad faith, since there was no attempt to conceal the connection. I warned the user [33]. This can be solved with a disclosure. MarioGom (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Muqeem Khan

Classic case of

WP:AUTOBIO. Can someone please clear the unsourced promo stuff so it doesn't help the author financially? Thanks 2A00:F29:2D0:8D89:49AE:5F8:203A:8FDA (talk
) 16:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Jon Carin

Long term interest in the biography, changing or adding unsourced content to this and related music articles. User was advised of conflict of interest over a year ago [34]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi I am simply correcting false info on this Wikipedia page.
Thank you. Nojnirac (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The insistence on describing Mr. Carin as a current member--not a collaborator--of Pink Floyd and The Who is a red flag. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ethirneechal (TV series)

The user linked above is constantly editing the article with promotional content, seeking to advertise the series. I and many others have reverted her edits many times, however she constantly readds them. I have also warned her once, but the many reverts should signal that something she is doing is wrong to her. — Karnataka 16:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have warned the user also, and specifically cautioned against the poor grammar of this repeated addition. Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC).
Update. The warnings have been ignored, so I've page-blocked IamPriyaBhavani indefinitely from Ethirneechal (TV series), with a warning that they'll be blocked from all of Wikipedia if they disrupt any other article in the same way. Bishonen | tålk 10:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC).

Rachel Elnaugh

User is unhappy with her article and feels justified in editing it. Says that "I've put out a call for assistance via my social media platforms and the response is pretty much that Wikipedia is a corrupt and unreliable source of information. No doubt the propaganda will be removed by others in time. Meanwhile, if there is a way to take legal action, I will. LOVE Rachel x RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk) 8:11 am, Today (UTC+0)". I have no idea if the subject is correct and that comment was a response to my suggestion she use

WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk
09:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

While not related to the matter, she made a false positive report at EFFPR about she was trying to remove inaccurate statements and propaganda on her article, but I marked it as not done (the filter is working as intended based on the public log entries and not the rapid disruption one) because she might have a COI regarding her article. –
talk
) 10:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I went ahead and BLUELOCKed the article for one month while we get to the bottom of this. Doug Weller and Materialscientist, please feel free to remove the protection if you think there's a better way to handle this. A COI topic ban might not be enough, seeing as Ms. Elnaugh is actively canvassing additional editors. Owen× ☎ 10:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I see that User:JBW has blocked both of her accounts for legal threats. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We Are Era

The editor in question created this draft and submitted it via AFC. It was declined at AFC, and a question was asked about

the Teahouse. The decline was explained, and the question about COI was repeated. There has since been no reply to the COI question. The editor has edited sporadically since 2010, and has focused on We Are Era and its parent company, RTL Group. Robert McClenon (talk
) 06:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the user has also edited the corresponding articles at least on de.wiki (as creator) and sv.wiki. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Sent in to update the article in preparation for some event. Yip, there is a news article at the site which looks on the surface as being it. Looks like a UPE. It is transparent. scope_creepTalk 09:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

JamieBrown2011 has a confirmed COI here, but continues to add promotional content to the article based on primary sources, against consensus and despite being warned not to do so, including at User talk:JamieBrown2011#October 2023. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I added a description of HOPEww using Charity Navigator as a source, which is an independent reliable 3rd party and simply a statement about the existence of the organization from the official page of the ICOC WP:ABOUTSELF. It is not promotional or controversial. I am happy to discuss the sources and wording on the Talk page. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@JamieBrown2011: That would indeed appear to be promotional, what makes you think it isn't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
So this is the text in dispute:
“The ICOC directly administers or partners with over a dozen organizations. Some function as appendages of the church; others are entirely unrelated in their mission and activities. HOPE worldwide, a charitable foundation started as the benevolent arm of the ICOC, which serves as the primary beneficiary of the church's charitable donations for the poor. According to Charity Navigator, America's largest independent charity evaluator, they have assigned HOPE Worldwide:
An "Accountability & Transparency" rating of 100 out of 100.
A "Financial" rating of 89.4 out of 100.
An "Overall" rating of 4 out of 4 stars, with the Overall score of 89.4 out of 100.”
And the references are:
[1]
[2]
- Is there anything unreliable about the sources?
- Is there anything in the wording that should be changed so it is more factual and less promotional?
- I am editing on my phone so please excuse any incorrect formatting JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah thats promotional... It is clearly intended to promote the subject through pushing undue use of primary sources. Note that this is not a content discussion, this is a behavior discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, my bad. Thanks for clarifying. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and you first tried to add material similar to this back in October, but have persisted despite being told about the problems with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
In terms of COI, I suppose since this discussion is already open on the COIN notice board, it certainly appears that Cordless Larry (talk) would qualify. Here are just 3 of his additions to the ICOC page:

1 - In the LEAD section:

Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult[15] and have accused it, along with the International Christian Church, of covering up sexual abuse of children.[16][17] Janja Lalich, an academic expert on cults and coercion, has stated that in her view, the ICOC has at minimum some of the "hallmarks of a cult".

- 3 times in one paragraph is the use of the word “cult”

- From NPOV and WP:UNDUE “Additionally, the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism.”

2 - In History section:

According to journalist Madeleine Bower,

"the group became renowned for its extreme views and rigid teaching of the Bible, but mainstream churches quickly disavowed the group".[23]David G. Bromley and J. Gordon Melton, sociologist and historian of religion respectively, note how International Churches of Christ grew quickly in the 1980s, but that "Even as ICOC developed, however, its relationships with several established institutional sectors deteriorated". The church's "doctrine signaled the movement's self-perceived superiority to other Christian churches in teaching that it alone had rediscovered biblical doctrines critical to individual salvation and insisting on rebaptizing new members to ensure their salvation".

They note that further tensions developed as a result of the church's "aggressiveevangelizing tactics" and use of 'discipling' or 'shepherding' practices, whereby

new members were provided spiritual guidance and had their personal lives closely supervised by more established members. "Members were taught that commitment to the church superseded all other relationships", write Bromley and Melton. As a result, "the main branch of the Churches of Christ disavowed its relationship with ICOC; a number of universities banned ICOC recruiters; and ICOC became a prominent target of media and anticult group opposition".[24]


3 - In History

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported in 1996 that "The group is considered so aggressiveand authoritarian in its practices that other evangelical Protestant groups have labeled it 'aberrational' and 'abusive'. It has been repudiated by the mainstream Churches of Christ, a 1.6 million-member body from which it grew".[36]

- In the six months he has been editing, to my knowledge, he has not made one post that has neutral or positive. Every single post is finding the most negative sources he can and then attempting to suppress any contrary sources or editors that disagree.

- There appears to be WP:CHERYYPICKING “In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source.”

I am new to the COIN notice board so I am not sure what is the correct way to proceed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A conflict of interest occurs when a Wikipedia editor writes about a subject that they have an external relationship with. I have no relationship with the International Churches of Christ (unlike you). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
So can you show which edits you have made that have not referenced sources critical of the church? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, see this, for example. However, this isn't relevant to the COI editing that's been going on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
That is exactly my point, after 6 months of editing the ICOC page you do not have one example of you adding anything to the article that comes from a source that isn't critical of the church. While you may not have a COI, your editing makes it appear like you do. @Cordless Larry, lets have some constructive discussion on the Talk page, use WP:RS that come from both ends of the spectrum, reach consensus and move forward. Does that sound reasonable to you? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I've been advocating discussion on the talk page all along! You're the one who's repeatedly been adding promotional material to the article based on primary sources, despite having a COI. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I have acknowledged that it was a mistake to insert the paragraph on HOPEww (shown above). You have acknowledged tacitly that over months of editing, you have ONLY inserted material that is drawn from sources critical of the church. (And not mildly critical either, you have an edit where the word “cult” is used ‘’’3x in one paragraph’’’). With that in mind, let’s move forward. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Adding 1pameroo which appears to have similar issues. Also add the page Kip McKean. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Editaddict also appears to have a COI in relation to the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest that JamieBrown2011 shouldn't be editing the article directly and should be required to make requests for changes on the article's talk page instead? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Editaddict has again added material to the lede to try to "balance" the cult accusations. I think we need action to prevent these COI editors from directly editing the article and make them use edit requests instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Charity Navigator Rating - HOPE worldwide". Charity Navigator.
  2. ^ www.hopeww.org
  • Proposal: I suggest that JamieBrown2011 should be blocked from editing the article, as Editaddict already has been. Both can suggest edits on the talk page, should they wish to help improve the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wycombe Abbey International School of Changzhou

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. VanessaJPCockburn (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC) The name of the school is actually Wycombe Abbey School Changzhou and the Headmaster (there is no principal) is called Paul Silverwood. You can see proof of this on their own website available to view here: https://www.waiscz.com/web/secondary/our-school/headmasters-welcome

I worked at Wycombe Abbey School for 5 years, it was an international school when I started there 6 years ago but that status was changed about 4-5 years ago. Olly Wells was the Headmaster in the years 2012-2015 but since then there have been two more Paul Wallace-Woodroffe and David Griffiths.

VanessaJPCockburn, the purpose of this noticeboard is determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest. I think you might be looking for Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request, if you're seeking changes to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ragab Muftah Abudabus

User:Noshka87 claims on his talk page to be the son of the article subject. In addition to the COI, I noticed when I was going through his additions that a large portion of the information had been directly copied from one of the sources. I tried to explain the issues on his userpage, but I'm still very new at this and I don't think I'm explaining it well. I'm hoping someone more experienced can take a look and help resolve Noshka's complaints about the article. EasyAsPai (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Kobi Sitt

As much as I'd like to assume good faith, something doesn't look quite right with an account registered in 2008 having zero edits until coming in nearly six years later and make 21 edits with skills suggesting its not their first time editing. This account is possibly part of a farm. While I know SPI is the right place if I have the slightest idea of associated accounts, I am not sure. Graywalls (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Graywalls that this edit history is very suspicious. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

German Institute for Japanese Studies

These two IPs have been consistently conducting edits on articles related to Japan recently, with cited sources universally associated with German Institute for Japanese Studies. 150.249.219.26 in particularly has been identified to be used by the said institute. While editors on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard deemed the institute to be a reliable source, that doesn't relieve the concern that these edits are attempts to boost traffic for the institute. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Shmuel Rosenman

Lots of promotional editing, even on subjects where COI is not so obvious, as at Irena's Vow (film). A working connection to Mr. Rubenstein was shared, then rescinded after COI concerns were raised [35], and there's been no response otherwise. At the moment, more eyes at the Rosenman article would be helpful. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Holy moly that Rubinstein article is bad. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Santiago Medina

Jordanjemison's only contributions have been creating and editing the article Santiago Medina 2 years ago and has since stopped editing. Article is heavily promotional. See "About the sculptures" section before it was removed, as well as everything below the "Sculptor" section. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Rikki Beadle-Blair

Recently two IPs have spent the past few days adding huge amounts of completely unreferenced information to the

COI editors (Rikkifan, RIkkiBB) have been doing the same over the years. When I put a COI template on 31.24.4.223, it was ignored. I replied that it was mandatory to disclose a COI and they deleted it and continued editing the article. I have removed the bulk of the unsourced material and added a few references myself but I can't watch the article indefinitely to ensure that the article subject or people with a relationship to him don't continue to try to use the article as an advertisement. ThaddeusSholto (talk
) 14:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reciprocating saw & Michael Best ‎

Editor(s) using this IP appear to be employed by Michael Best, a firm specializing in patent & trademark law.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP from reciprocating saw for one year. It's plainly edit warring in slow motion, and it's been ongoing for two years now. I'm not going to p-block the IP from Michael Best; the edits haven't been productive there, but it hasn't been the same sort of slow-motion edit warring that's occurred on the other page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Chris Williams (computer scientist)

Submitting for independent review as am aware of Wikipedia's COI policy and my own COI in drafting this - please let me know if the article needs work to be more neutral/verifiable etc. I have also submitted to AFC for review there, but please let me know if I should add a disclaimer there also. Ramajoepanda (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Cordless Larry (talk
) 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Cordless Larry There are now COI disclaimers on the draft talk page and my own userpage. I'm submitting for independent COI review in good faith but do let me know if this draft is not deemed suitable for publishing at this time or there is anything else I should be aware of. Ramajoepanda (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@
WP:ER mechanism to request updates to the article from this point forward and have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests. scope_creepTalk
 13:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
As full disclosure, I am Professor Chris Williams and have drafted this article to see if it meets Wikipedia's notability, NPOV, verifiability and COI policies as I'm aware of all these requirements. I was being circumspect on my user page in just stating I worked at the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh but wouldn't want to give the impression I was being paid to write this article nor that I was a colleague being asked to write the article by... myself.
This is a simple case of COI of the article subject taking a stab at drafting an article about themselves so should be treated as such. That said, am looking to abide by spirit and letter of Wikipedia policies and am aware enough that any such draft needs good scrutiny and independent COI review before it goes anywhere near the Wikipedia mainspace. And I am also aware that if the article is approved that I cannot then edit it thereafter without requesting an Edit Request.
I am posting this draft with COI disclaimers in the Articles for Creation and the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to make sure that the draft is transparently and independently reviewed. Please let me know if anything else is required Ramajoepanda (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Marc Catlin

Nearly every edit promotes Marc Catlin, a state representative from Colorado.

On January 6, I left this COI warning.

That editor responded that they were not a COI.

I responded that "it's just that over nine days, and 49 edits, every one of your edits has been to write something about Marc Catlin (in one edit you just called him "Marc"). You appear to be a

WP:SPA
. May I suggest you broaden your editing?"

Since then, this user has made 8 additional edits, including:

Shorter University

Bsmith323 is a

single-purpose account who exclusively edits Shorter University. In August of last year, I politely but directly asked if they were connected to the university but they ignored the question and continued editing the article. My concerns are particularly driven by their edits that have attempted to blatantly remove well-sourced negative information about the university. ElKevbo (talk
) 03:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Cinematic Poetry

Crosswiki self-promotion of Gianmarco Donaggio's through at least two accounts: Cinematic Poetry and Jean Epstein (CU-confirmed by me), Storiella and Movement-Image are obvious addition to the list (see edits, including deleted ones, both on it.wiki and Commons). Apart from notability issues, there are copyright problems and texts are quite promotional and sourced with press release sources. Vituzzu (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if it appeared that my writing violated encyclopedic standards. There was no intent of self-promotion in any of my wiki edits. I will do my best to edit and improve the articles you mentioned. I have already started to address copyright issues and eliminate promotional tone. Cinematic Poetry (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Using four accounts for the purpose of pushing a biography and subject's works is a blatant promotion, declared COI or paid editing is allowed by
WP:COI, while undisclosed COI or PE is unacceptable. Vituzzu (talk
) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I hereby confirm that I have successfully addressed all the highlighted issues regarding the possible conflict of interest (COI). I have rectified the problems identified in each article and clarified my position, emphasizing my distance from the subject and any promotional intent.
I will now provide a summary and further explanation on the subject matter to comprehensively address all the issues mentioned in the message above.
  1. Regarding recent allegations suggesting a potential conflict of interest involving my account and the articles mentioned above, I have clarified that I have no close connection to the subjects of the articles, and I am not employed by any third parties closely associated with the subject. I , once more, sincerely apologize if my previous edits conveyed a tone that may seem inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly the neutral point of view. It is essential to acknowledge that certain topics may evoke passion, and these articles holds personal significance as among my initial contributions. Consequently, there may have been unintentional deviations from the neutral tone recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. I want to assure the community that I have addressed these concerns by promptly making necessary changes, aiming to uphold its accuracy and alignment with Wikipedia's guidelines.
  2. Regarding the issue related to Crosswiki self-promotion, the mentioned account was created to attempt translating my articles into Italian. Unfortunately, due to my limited proficiency in Italian, I failed to publish these translations. The translated article in question has been promptly moved to the draft space after my account was blocked.
  3. The other account under question was a test account used several months ago and has since been closed. While there are similarities in edits, as the topics and subjects align with those of my primary account, the test account is no longer active, and my sole remaining profile is the one in question.
  4. The articles mentioned have undergone scrutiny and approval by Wikipedia admins, confirming the subjects' right to be featured on Wikipedia. However, some references were flagged as press release sources, not compliant with Wikipedia's content policies. These references have been corrected, and cross-verification has been conducted to ensure adherence to guidelines.
I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding on the subject matter, and I am available for further clarification if needed. Thank you for your understanding. Cinematic Poetry (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Point 2 is false (absolutely not a matter of proficiency), same for point 3 (there are actually 3 accounts, two being active at the same time). While point 4 is not how Wikipedia works. Claiming two falsehoods ring me more than a bell. Vituzzu (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear Vituzzu,
Once again, I appreciate your vigilance, as it is users like you who contribute to making Wikipedia trustworthy. I acknowledge my previous mistake of operating simultaneous accounts on different wikis, and I want to assure you that this issue has been resolved.
I trust that other users and those overseeing matters related to conflicts of interest (COI) will recognize that, upon being notified of such an accusation, I promptly took steps to correct any potential irregularities in accordance with Wikipedia Guidelines.
However, at this juncture, I have to report to administrators your behaviour. While I acknowledge the valid points you raised, to which I responded politely, it seems there may be a perception of personal disruption directed towards my profile and the associated articles. This is not conducive to a democratic and open debate, which is essential for the Wikipedia community.
If there are specific concerns or issues, I encourage engaging with the appropriate channels within the Wikipedia community for resolution. Open and respectful communication is key to fostering a constructive editing environment.
Your comments on the talk page are violating the rule of conduct on Wikipedia, additionally, it appears that you are intentionally avoiding engaging in a constructive discussion on the subject matter. While I am actively working to improve the pages, I have yet to receive advice or guidance from you regarding necessary corrections. Instead, I observe that warning templates are consistently being moved onto the pages. Once again, I kindly request your assistance in addressing the lingering issues and fostering a collaborative effort to improve the content.
thanks Cinematic Poetry (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@
notability for the mentioned articles, because I can't find that the articles underwent "scrutiny and approval by Wikipedia admins"; please be so kind and point them out. As a sidenote: as a long time contributor here: you will fare better if you keep away from topics which you are passionate about. The passion involved makes it rather difficult to keep a neutral point of view. Lectonar (talk
) 12:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lectonar thank you for your understanding and willingness to help with the articles. I have received in my inbox the notification (per each one) that the articles have been approved with the blue tick on the side. Can you please guide me in how to share it here? Cinematic Poetry (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
To give you more specific information, the notification cites this: "the page In Visible Light has been reviewed".
In this specific case the notification date is 19 of October 2023, and the user: Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars
For Gianmarco Donaggio the date is the 24 March 2023, and the user: Onel5969
For Azul no Azul the date is the 16 October 2022, and the user: Kj cheetham
However, these reviews aren't appearing in the pages' edit history, therefore I can't link them here. Cinematic Poetry (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The blue tick in this case just means that the articles have been reviewed by a new pages patroler (they aren't necessarily admins, though); these users check (among other things) whether new articles conform to our core content policies. This doesn't mean that the subject of the article is automatically meeting our notability criteria. Lectonar (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, here's what happened then. Since these are my first articles, I wasn't aware of this distinction. I believed that approval was the response from an account confirming that an article met the requirements. What should we do next to assist these pages? The references are in place, and someone should verify and confirm.
Furthermore, I've been comparing the articles with similar ones, and I honestly don't think the "advertisement" template is still valid. What is your opinion on this matter? There have been several edits that have improved the neutrality of the voice Cinematic Poetry (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Kelly Townsend

Many edits are being made to the article, most of them promotional in nature. Many edits add content with sources, but the content includes things that are not found in those sources. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Xavier Veilhan

Xveilhan is clearly the subject of the article, Xavier Veilhan. Since February 2011, he has only edited the Veilhan article and so far has added copyright violations that needed to be revdeled, blatantly promotional lists. and removed COI templates. He refuses to engage on his talk page where he has received multiple warnings that he must disclose his COI. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If I see a COI editor remove a COI template I usually jump straight to a level 3 notice. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 16:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

HMS President (1918)

Both registered editors, who have remarkably similar usernames, and the IP evidently belong to the Q-ship Society which is mentioned in the "Preservation" section. The most active registered editor – TJQships – has repeatedly been trying to add promotional content.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest starting an SPI, and, if still persistent, going to RPP. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 02:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
We are trying to raise awareness about a ship that needs saving, it is abandoned in Chatham Docks
the current owner has no legal footing as the ship has been arrested due to unpaid debts TJQships (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Given the above, you are obliged to follow the
published reliable sources to back the proposals up. And take note that Wikipedia is not a platform for 'raising awareness', nor for engaging in legal disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk
) 16:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_203&oldid=1204202195"