Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 206

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obvious COI, possible UPE, and some WP:CANVAS/MEATPUPPET thrown in for good measure, at Yinka Ash

Yinka Ash was created by a possible UPE that went dormant after using an open proxy (and was blocked from editing from there). 5 days later, Anoghena Okoyomoh, a new account, took up the expansion of the very-promotional Yinka Ash article. After I tagged it with the UPE template, they edit warred to remove it, and eventually sought the help of another disruptive editor, Wiki-Helper, who is the same person (admitted) as Elijahtree. That canvassing has resulted in a meatpuppet (maybe sockpuppet situation?) campaign to continue to remove the tag. I have asked for them to discuss on talk multiple times, to no avail, so far. Need more eyes on this, thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

At Afd. scope_creepTalk 05:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the accusations of COI/UPE on the part of Anoghena Okoyomoh, but agree that the article has very dubious notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You are attempting to get me banned, for no reason. Go to User:Elijahtree instead of blindly throwing "sockpuppet" around, and try your best to assume good fath which you haven't done since the beginning of our back and forth. Your tag for UPE was "possible", thus I editted the page and removed it, stop being so stubborn to have it your way, frankly its extremely childish. I also agree the sources are weak, and think the article should be deleted. Next time feel free to tag me instead of trying to claim sockpuppetry slyly without my response.
~ mohamed (wiki-helper) (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I just woke up and I'm just so perplexed at everything that has occurred in the span of 7 hours. While I still maintain and disagree that I am a UPE, I accept and appreciate that you chose to use this method of resolving the matter rather than what has been done in the past, because at least now there is an open dialogue. It should be noted that as I am African, the very over head digital banner on Wikipedia for the longest time was aimed at getting those who visited the website - probably with an African IP address - to contribute to Wikipedia and enhance African voices. When I joined I began with simple edit and then Wikipedia themselves gave me options on articles to contribute, one of which was the subject-matter article, I will be honest I chose his, because, it was easy. I gathered all press coverings I could find, arranged them the best I could and began adding to the 'stub' account. When the first UPE was added I reached to Treehouse and asked what I had done wrong, one editor removed the tag and asked that I reached out to @Fred Zepelin to sort the issue out, which I did, the topic of same can be found in his talk page; no reply. I continued adding and learning how to write with same article and the UPE tag added yet again; this time I was the one who removed it and went extra to ask other editors to give me any materials that would guide me in further writing any page going forward, they did same and I was grateful, yet @Fred Zepelin added the UPE yet again, he would ask one sentence questions, I would reply in paragraphs, even his tone was weird; it was annoying that I was having to explain that I was not a UPE. It was back and forth, I offered to supply him any details he might need, even went as far to offer my bank records to check, which was a bit extra, but I was okay with because I had nothing to hide and I'm not a UPE. One thing though was that he never gave me a reason, he just called me a UPE or a sockpuppet or that I was duplicitous, which aren't good things to say, if there's a problem with the article, correct it or discuss it with me, don't pick the extreme without even giving me a chance to be heard as fairly as possible. So I checked his contribution logs and I noticed a pattern of reverting edits and stoking flames of the idea that persons were bots, sockpuppets or whatever label, and that's when I came across @Wiki-heIper regarding an article where they had dissenting thoughts, I reached out to ask how he dealt with it, because, Fred's actions (permit me to say) feels biased, why me a newcomer however overzealous? why always the labels and no discernable reason for same? @Wiki-heIper edited the work and I was able to see the difference, @AirshipJungleman29 edited and gave reasons for whatever they did, so I could learn and I could note down the issue with my previous work; I used words that were less objective and neutral (to which they pointed out same). and that's fine.
I just find it ironic that Wikipedia asked that African voices be added and African contributions be highlighted and when same is done this is what happens; just so you know and this is me not placating to your heartstrings I was even more invested in this article is because the fashion sphere is the only space where expression is celebrated in this country, and during the End SARS movement of 2020 that led to deaths of many, very few people who weren't political, but artists etc, where those who fought and supported the movement. We the young ones.
The article I was so enthusiastic and so happy and eager to make, has been turned upside down and made into something completely different, stripped, tagged, labelled and become the focal point of debate. this is just disheartening. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Anoghena Okoyomoh: In reference to this reply, I would like to pose the same inquiry as I did to the previous user: If there is no affiliation between you and the subject matter, could you kindly provide an explanation regarding your ownership of File:OLAYINKA ASHOGBON.jpg? Missing sig: User:GSS 08:28, 1 March 2024 Sig added by scope_creepTalk 09:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Anoghena Okoyomoh: I think there is relation. It is either a fidicuary relationship, or your a colleague or your the subjects mate? From this point forward, I would advise you not to edit the article further. The standard mechanism for coi editor is to use the WP:ER edit requests. ER requests are the standard way for Wikipedia to disassociate coi editors from the articles they wish to update, so there is a level of control maintained. That is assuming the article is kept after the Afd discussion. scope_creepTalk 09:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, Okay, I had answered this in my response to Fred's inquisition, the only time ever that I reached out or had correlation with Yinka Ash, was when I contacted his assistance for a photo that was not copyrighted that I may use for the page, the initial photo I had used I had gotten from his website and then I was informed was in breach of copyright and was in breach of Non POV. other than that, I'm just a fan because he's an artist who also support queer artist so when I saw his page was him I enthusiastically jumped on it. While I agree that I should stop editing and leave it for others as I've been a major contributor, all these guidelines were unbeknownst to me and being called the equivalent of a liar and a fraud is not the best feeling when I have tried to prove time and time again that I have the best of intentions. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I am writing to address some concerns I've encountered during my time as an editor and contributor on Wikipedia. I apologize in advance for the length of this message, but I believe it's important to provide context for clarity.
I joined Wikipedia with the sincere intention of volunteering my efforts to contribute to knowledge, starting on October 25, 2023. One of my initial projects was improving the page of Olayinka Ashogbon, also known as Yinka Ash, which was classified as a "stub" in need of expansion. Despite being the primary contributor to this endeavor, I encountered challenges, particularly in my interactions with @Fred Zepelin
Fred labeled me as an Undisclosed Paid Editor early on, which caused confusion and led to back-and-forth exchanges. Despite my attempts to seek guidance and clarification through proper channels like the Tea House, Fred's approach remained adversarial. I reached out to Fred directly on his talk page for assistance, but unfortunately received no response.
Upon reflection and further research of his contribution and user page, I've observed a pattern of behavior from Fred that is concerning. Instead of fostering constructive dialogue and collaboration, he consistently resorts to accusations and derogatory labels such as "sockpuppet" "meat puppet" and "UPE." His communication lacks civility and respect, and he has shown a reluctance to engage in meaningful discussion or provide constructive feedback. He assumes multiple roles, acting as both police, arbitrator, CIA operative, Judge, Jury, and Executioner. While I understand his intentions may be to uphold standards, I genuinely believe this approach is problematic. Ironically, he may not realize that his behavior contributes to the very issue he seeks to address. As history has shown, innocent individuals often suffer the consequences in situations reminiscent of witch trials.
I'd like to highlight a few key points to support my concerns:
1.      Lack of Communication: Fred has failed to provide substantive reasoning or engage in productive dialogue regarding his objections to my contributions. Instead of discussing potential revisions on talk pages, he repeatedly resorts to derogatory labeling without explanation or attempt at resolution.
2.     Hostile Behavior: Fred's actions extend beyond mere disagreement to what appears to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate and discourage me. He consistently adds the UPE tag to my edits on the Yinka Ash page, even after I expressed willingness to compromise. His presence in unrelated discussions and his condescending tone further exacerbate the situation.
3.     Failure to Follow Wikipedia Guidelines: Fred's insistence on using the UPE tag rather than engaging in constructive dialogue violates Wikipedia's principles of civility and collaboration. His behavior creates a hostile environment that undermines the community's commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive platform for all contributors.
Throughout this experience, I've encountered statements from Fred that lead me to believe he lacks respect for me and is not genuinely interested in constructive contributions. It feels as though I'm simply seen as the next "sockpuppet" trophy to be added to his collection. Despite my requests for guidance on Wikipedia guidelines, and having no knowledge of pre-existing guidelines such as WIKI:CANVASS and WIKI:OWN, Fred consistently follows me through talk pages and articles I'm involved which I believe is to undermine my efforts and belittle me (like letting me know they're watching), causing frustration and anxiety. His actions have made it difficult for me to participate on Wikipedia without constantly anticipating confrontation. This ongoing behavior has taken a toll on my mental and emotional well-being, to the point where I've considered deleting my account, I only stay because the people in my personal life tell me to keep going and not let him win.
On one very confusing occasion he explained that the UPE was for the initial author being CeCe GFI, and implied that the onus (burden) was on me to have figured that out, and I ask myself how I would have even known that, when all UPEs have been directed at me, when all his questioning, claims and insults have been directed at ME. I kindly ask how am I to have known or figured it out, and if that truly is his reasoning why am I being punished for for someone else's action; I engage Fred when he has a problem and try to reply to all his inquiries. It got even worse, I started to succumb to it, I started to think that if I just be uber polite and not adversarial, if I show that I'm good then he'll stop, I started to not stand my ground anymore and if I'm being honest, I genuinely thought he could get my account banned and deleted or just find more unique ways to mess with me, and so for the longest time I stopped contributing.
When I began my editing efforts to other Wikipedia pages, I noticed similar issues present in articles, such as promotional language and a non-encyclopedic tone. However, I observed that the tags applied to these articles were specific to the identified problems, unlike the recurring Undisclosed Paid Editor (UPE). This led me to suspect that Fred's actions were deliberate and possibly targeted towards me personally, rather than aimed at improving the articles. It seems he is convinced of my alleged misconduct without considering the possibility of error. This situation feels increasingly like a targeted pursuit, with me as the intended target, though I acknowledge this may sound dramatic but it's not unfounded.
I was previously unaware, but after conducting research, I've learned that intentionally harassing and discouraging editors who do not conform to certain viewpoints is a well-established tactic employed by editors on Wikipedia. This behavior is concerning and goes against the principle of fostering a welcoming environment for all contributors. I now understand that Wikipedia has established the policy of "Do not bite the Newcomers" to address this issue and there was an incident in time past where an Admin even when in the face of it was to the contrary, but all could surmise they were biased had to be banned. As a newcomer, this has been my initial experience, and it's disheartening to encounter such negativity. Additionally, I've noticed similar discussions on Quora and other online articles and discussion, where experienced editors targeting novices is mentioned as a common problem. This behavior not only undermines the collaborative nature of Wikipedia but also raises questions about its commitment to community contribution and objective, factual knowledge.
Fred's conduct has made my experience on Wikipedia incredibly harsh and emotionally taxing. His disregard of respect for fellow editors raise serious concerns about the integrity of the platform. While I understand that disagreements may arise among editors, but I firmly believe that communication should always be respectful and constructive. Fred's actions not only violate Wikipedia's policies but also detract from the platform's goal of fostering a collaborative environment for knowledge-sharing.
Forgive me for not being smooth, but please find attached links of interactions that I hope will show what I mean; as the Nigerian adage goes “It is the one who wears the shoes that knows where it hurts” and it’s becoming unbearable.
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&diff=prev&oldid=1187451467
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yinka_Ash&diff=prev&oldid=1201627053
  3. User talk:Anoghena Okoyomoh#c-Fred Zepelin-20240209032000-Anoghena Okoyomoh-20240208192100
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cece_GFI&diff=prev&oldid=1210915098
  5. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wikipedia-really-free-encyclopedia-deb-/
I could not capture everything, but I ask that people please ask him to stop, I don't know if this connotes as canvassing, but I'm at my wit's end here. I would appreciate an amicable resolution. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, as its been quite hard. Conflict of interest violations are a particularly nefarious problem on Wikipedia and folk get rightfully defensive about it as its a threat to the very existance of Wikipedia itself. As per above, I wouldn't edit the article again (assuming its kept). Administration will likely keep an eye on you for a while. scope_creepTalk 11:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
If you write anything again approaching what your wrote for the Yinka Ash article, that promotional mess your left, I will taking you straight to WP:ANI to get you indef blocked. scope_creepTalk 11:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I literally just complained that this wordings and statements are not cool. stop this, it's not fair, I try to be polite is it too much to ask that I get that in return. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I get that, honestly, I would have preferred they told me there was a conflict of interest rather than UPE, I'm editing other articles that have the same correlating problem and the problem is "promotional and non-encyclopedic tone" and I'm just like confused, it's just like a weird stereotype, of course the Nigerian who writes about another Nigerian is dubious and has bad intention. same ole african crook story, it's why it just feels biased, however, you put it, it is. And if Wikipedia insisted on us to be here and we are being run off then what's the point? I just really hate this feeling having to justify myself everytime in every space to foreigners. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Jodie Fisher

User keeps changing birth year from 1960 (which is listed in the sources) to 1969 on Jodie Fisher's article. The user's last edit on the article's talk page suggests that it's her doing the edits. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User has ignored this discussion and has made at least one edit continuing their vandalism. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jaydoggmarco: Please see WP:NOTVANDAL. Also, where did you try to resolve this issue previously? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Repeatedly changing the birth date from one supported by multiple sources to a date supported by no sources is not vandalism? -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Pemilligan: No. You, too, should see WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I read it before I posted. Perhaps you could explain instead of condescending to everyone. -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it fits: Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism. Schazjmd (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jaydoggmarco, the editor has never been informed of the COI guideline; I've added that notice to their talk page (although there's no indication that they ever read it). The editor has been attempting to change the year of birth from the sourced version since 2018.[1][2][3][4][5] They were blocked in 2018 for violating WP:BLP with their edits to that article. They only seem to pop in to edit when someone (often an IP) corrects the year of birth per the source. If they revert it again, I'd suggest taking this to WP:ANI. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I think this counts as a conflict of interest given that the editor seemed to admit being her in this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJodie_Fisher&diff=1208780797&oldid=1204263023 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Why has nothing been done? User:Loveinfo123 has identified herself as Jodie Fisher and changed the birth date in the article five times this week disregarding multiple sources and citing none. What are we waiting for?
  1. 21:41, 18 February 2024 diff
  2. 17:25, 20 February 2024 diff
  3. 18:30, 21 February 2024 diff
  4. 22:47, 22 February 2024 diff
  5. 01:04, 24 February 2024 diff
-- Pemilligan (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
And she did it for a sixth time while I was typing. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the admins here are lazy. They just don't care. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want admin attention, or action, use an admin notice board. Please do not disparage other editors like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Another edit was made by this IP which is a possible sock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:153F:B764:6CA1:EB79:5210:4593 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want admin attention, or action, use an admin notice board. Which admin notice board would you suggest? I've had no previous issue getting admin response here when needed for COI issues. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pemilligan: What you should have done when reverting this vandalism is issued escalating warnings on their user talk page. I have since applied a level 3 warning regards this issue. From here, do not revert any other edits as you run the risk of edit warring. If there continues to be a problem report to WP:AIV. If the other editor makes another revision in less than 24hrs, report to WP:ANEW. I am sorry you didn't get the help you asked for here. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Gresha Schuilling

Per this edit summary they are the subject of the article. Warned back on February 23 about COI and initially used the article talk page but has returned to directly editing Gresha Schuilling in spite of COI. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm so sorry @ThaddeusSholto! I saw that the page was unlocked for me so I submitted small edits. I will resubmit in a COI. Thanks for your help! Gresha Schuilling (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
There is zero evidence of the subject passing WP:GNG or WP:MUSICIAN so I have sent it to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors employed by Springer Nature adding their employer to articles

Yesterday, I noticed that two editors - Bob Edenbach and Rf-sn276 - were editing many articles (e.g., University of Tokyo, UCLA Health, College and university rankings) solely to add information about and links to a new set of ranking tables published by Springer Nature. I reverted those edits and posted a message to both editors' Talk pages. Rf-sn276 responded promptly and courteously to let me know that they are indeed employed by that organization and they quickly complied with our paid editing disclosure policy. Bob Edenbach, on the other hand, has not complied and to the contrary has edit warred to maintain their material in University of Tokyo. Indeed, Rf-sn276 also appears to be puzzled by Bob Edenbach's behavior (they both say that Rf-sn276 works directly for Bob Edenbach on their respective User Talk pages). So right now we have an organization's employee editing Wikipedia solely to promote their employer who is not only unwilling to abide by our COI policies and practices but who is also willing to edit war to keep adding material about their employer. ElKevbo (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am the product manager for the Nature Index and have been working on it since its launch in 2014. My affiliation with the Nature Index and my employment at Springer Nature are both stated in my user profile. I recently created an account on Wikipedia because the entry for Nature Index was old and incorrect. I use my real name as my user name and updated the Nature Index page where I saw errors. As I live and work in Japan, it is customary for me to check the University of Tokyo as an example institution. Given my familiarity with the Nature Index, I know the University of Tokyo has been ranked first in research output in Japan since the inception of the Index. I checked the University's profile and noticed the rank was not correct and fixed that. I also observed that the previous user who added the entry for the Nature Index was using the overall rank, whereas a better performance indicator would be to use its rank amongst other academic institutions globally and domestically. I edited the existing link to the ranking with University of Tokyo position as its in the public domain and be easily confirmed. The University of Tokyo, itself publishes many press releases and articles on its own website about its position in the Nature Index, as you can see here: https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ja/search/index.html?q=Nature+Index&Submit=
If a view the edit history of the University of Tokyo page, you will see the Nature Index was mentioned and links added by another editor, that I have no connection with.
The Nature Index has greater awareness in the Asia-Pacific than it does in the United States, especially in Japan, where the release of the Annual Tables are covered by most major media outlets as you can see here:
The Index is also mentioned by name in a slide deck from the Japanese Cabinet office as a key performance indicator. The Nature Index is mentioned on slide 16.
Since the Index added 64 medical journals adding roughly 10,000 articles/year I thought the position of healthcare institutions would have greatly changed as they previously would have only been represented by journals in biological sciences. I asked a member of my team to check the top 100 healthcare institutions and edit if needed. I spot checked their first couple of edits but have not had the time to check further. ElKevbo messaged that staff and deleted their edits. The staff notified me yesterday morning and I asked him to stop editing.
I am not aware of any expertise or knowledge that ElKevbo has of Japanese academic institutions nor of the Nature Index to delete my edits, but I have provided links to everything that can be easily confirmed.
My intention was to update pages relevant to Nature Index and mentions of Nature Index with the most accurate content and data. Bob Edenbach (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Bob Edenbach. As a Wikipedia community, we're certainly glad to have new editors who bring in familiarity with industries, fields, sources, etc. I hope you can recognize that what's at stake isn't who has certain expertise or knowledge. Wikipedia has policies about contributing information about one's employer that we expect all editors to follow, whatever their knowledge level.
My sense is that you're interested in Wikipedia articles presenting accurate information. That totally makes sense, and Wikipedia does value presenting verifiable information. What ElKevbo is bringing up here, however, is a behavioral concern. Because Wikipedia involves many people, in addition to content guidelines, there are also behavioral policies, designed to promote both quality content and collegial environment. As a community, we value editors being able to get along and collaborate, and we value transparency about potential conflicts of interest. Because you work for Springer Nature, I hope it's understandable that while on the one hand we value your familiarity with the Nature Index, on the other we also want to be cautious about whether or not adding information about this index to pages is a covert form of promotion on behalf of an employer, elevating the visibility of the Nature Index. To be clear, I don't think the point of this thread is to accuse you of doing that in this particular instance, and neither I or ElKevbo know what personally motivates you; I bring that up just to explain the reason the WP:COI policy exists.
So what's something we can do going forward? It looks like right now you do have a conflict of interest disclosure on your user page. That resolves that part of Elkevbo's OP ("original post" in this thread). That's great; thanks for complying with the conflict of interest policy by visibly posting that disclosure. As for the University of Tokyo article, the previous lack of disclosure has, I think, left ElKevbo concerned about the purpose and quality of the edit and has resulted in playing it safe by removing it from the article. Since you still want to contribute this content, a way to go about that less confrontationally, given the concerns expressed by ElKevbo about your initially confusing behavior, might be to make an edit request on the talk page for the University of Tokyo article.
In an edit request, you lay out a proposed edit, including the sources and reasons. Another editor who sees the request can choose to decline it or choose to add it to the article. When someone wants to contribute content about their own employer on Wikipedia, an edit request is a way to go about that without directly doing so themselves. Other editors who contribute to the University of Tokyo article will be able to see your requested edit and decide if they think the content is relevant to the article, and appropriate to add; and they may do so. This requires patience and might be disappointing if another editor declines the request. But requesting edits is suggested because it increases the number of editors participating in the edit, reducing the likelihood that a contribution could be undue and promotional in character.
I hope this helps explain things. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response that is very helpful. Since I just created an account I was not aware of user profile pages. Once I figured it out the next day I added my affiliation. To be honest I was reluctant to add much to my user profile as I have no intention to elevate my own reputation nor to do any form of self-promotion on Wikipedia. My intention was to make sure Nature Index data was reflected correctly and to cite my sources as verification.
I may try to suggest edits via the edit request in the future, thank you for the suggestion. Bob Edenbach (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, P-Makoto (she/her), I do have a follow up question that I am curious about as I am new to this. The user ElKevbo is employed by the University of Delaware and has edited the University of Delaware's page but he does not mention he is an employee of the university in his user profile. What edits can be made without disclosing your employer? Are some edits on your employer's page not considered paid editing? Bob Edenbach (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
It is possible to have a COI for either paid editing or unpaid editing. It's possible (possibly likely) that ElKevbo was not paid by the University of Delaware specifically to contribute to Wikipedia. However, to the extent that ElKevbo is an employee of the University of Delaware, there is still a conflict of interest (because of the financial relationship that exists between an employee and employer). ElKevbo would not put a paid editing disclosure on his user page but still should disclose conflict of interest if he edits or contributes content pertaining to the University of Delaware.
It looks like the edits are of a relatively minor nature, ElKevbo, so I'm not terribly exercised about this, but to the extent you have a conflict of interest for the University of Delaware as an employee (as you make this publicly known by linking to it from your userpage (permanent link) (original voluntary linking), it falls under the person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia [bolding added] clause of WP:PRIVACY), you still are obligated by policy to disclose this conflict of interest if you choose to edit or contribute content pertainint to it, such as the University of Delaware article example 1 example 2. ElKevbo, remember that If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it. Per WP:DCOI, you can do so on your user page, in a talk page edit summary, or on the talk page of the affected article—although you linked to information that mentions your employer, you did not actually make make a conflict of interest declaration on your userpage. As I said, I'm not terribly alarmed about these edits. Just in the future please be mindful and declare your COI using one of the three outlined methods. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to more explicitly note my own employer on my User page. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with Bob Edenbach's persistent and willful edits to promote their employer across many different articles. ElKevbo (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Only Bob Edenbach's behavior has to do with Bob Edenbach, that is true. WP:BOOMERANGs simply are what they are. I hope both you and Bob Edenbach are mindful of your own conflicts of interest in the future when you edit or contribute material pertaining to your employer. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Jackson State University

Apologies if this is the wrong board. User:Jacksonstateu was created today and began editing Jackson State University. I posted the COI and name warning, to no response. glman (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

They've been blocked. Secretlondon (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Zenica87 (UPE)

This UPE has spammed all IDN Media products on English Wikipedia and they should go through AfD. Despite warnings they continue to edit without proper paid disclosure. 217.165.157.155 (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that this UPE has recreated Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. which was previously deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al and later the spammer, User:AmirahBreen, was blocked as UPE. 217.165.157.155 (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
It is quite interesting that this IP user just came to Wikipedia to report me, especially since he/she is from UAE, while I created and participated in several UAE politics-related article, which were mainly translations from Arabic Wikipedia. I find this to be a clear case of WP:HARASS since this user came straight out of the blue sky and the first thing he/she does is make COI Noticeboard report without ever interacting with me before. All my articles are reviewed by reviewing editors and I was always cooperative when it comes to suggestions made by other users. Also, in several mentioned articles I did not make a single edit, which is ridiculous. --Zenica87 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

R. Indira

Usernames and content of edits suggest that this person is editing the article about her. Article has been put under extended confirmed protection but editor is continuing to edit as Indirasociology. Editor is not engaging on the Talk pages for either account. Recommended to bring it to CoIN by Daniel Case here.

Selection of diffs by Indirasociology:

And by Indira Ramarao:

Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's clear a sockpuppetry case. I reported it early in WP:AN. CSM269 (talk | contrib) 11:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
There is not much more to do here. The user was warned. Obviously they did not try to conceal their identity and the fact they are the same user. This usually does not lead to a block. Edits were disruptive regardless of COI, but the problem is likely gone now that R. Indira is protected. MarioGom (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Paul Street (director)

I’m pretty sure that Filmstreetster is Paul Street, and oh boy have they made a mess of the article about them. It now reads like a press release, glorifying their work and talking about them using first names. I’m not willing to edit war over it, but if anyone else would like to revert (although it has been rubbish since Paulstreet1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created it in 2009 so perhaps stubbification might be better) then please do. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of a mess. I've cleaned up some of it, but there's a real lack of sourcing here, making me wonder if this person is notable. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the things they've worked on are notable (mainly commercials, so not enough to have Wikipedia articles about them) but notability isn't inheritable. The two films they claim to have directed don't have articles, which is a clue to how notable they are, but non-notability isn't inheritable either!
Basically, I reckon this would be turned down for CSD#A7, but I'd give positive odds on it being deleted at AfD. With an active CoI editor, a PROD would last seconds, I'd reckon, but let's see. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like editor has been nursing that article for years in a way that is completely out of process. Clear WP:COI from the looks of it. scope_creepTalk 18:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Nominated at AfD, though did not know about this discussion until now. Natg 19 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Natg 19: I would perhaps advise opening an SPI since there seems to be several new editors who've came in the last couple days, to try and save it with atrocious non-rs refs, stonkingly bad. Also the main article, a WP:BLP described the fact he won a bafta which has not been able to be proven. That is problematic and points to a failure of validation for the originating author. Essentially it is a bald lie on a easily verifiable fact. Simple email to the outfit would have done it. scope_creepTalk 08:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you help me file one? I have no experience with the SPI world. Natg 19 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Twinkle has a very easy user interface for those reports. Otherwise, follow the directions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I already did, without seeing this part of the thread – Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filmstreetster – but the backlog at SPI is huge so I'm not expecting it to be got to for another week or so. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Per the above, SPbeth (talk · contribs) is Filmstreetster (talk · contribs), so I have added them to this report for bookkeeping purposes. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Paloma Aguirre

The author has, in some edit summaries, referred to Paloma Aguirre as her client. The author created an article about her, which was moved to draft space due to the conflict of interest. It has been submitted for review three times and declined twice. The author has now created an article in article space, and did not declare her conflict of interest in the edit summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes had a look at the contribution history. Clear as day, conflict of interest. scope_creepTalk 13:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I have PROD'd the article in article space, and declined the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Project Nimbus

Editor Orenelma claims to be removing political bias from Project Nimbus but introduces their own bias toward the project, with virtually no references, while doing so. Behavior suggests an external relationship with the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In response to your message, it is important to underscore that my edit is entirely devoid of political content. My contribution focuses exclusively on supplying technical details concerning the project, with all information derived from official sources. I invite you to identify any segment within my edit that could be construed as politically biased. The intention behind my revision is to ensure that the article presents a factual, neutral perspective, centered on the project's technological aspects. This approach aligns with the objective standards of encyclopedic content, aiming to inform readers without swaying them towards any political viewpoint. Orenelma (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Orenelma, you appear to have a fundamental misapprehension regarding what Wikipedia is for, and how it works. We do not base articles (any articles) solely on 'official sources', but instead endeavour to describe a subject according to what secondary published reliable sources have to say about it. If such sources include significant amounts of political criticism (or any other negative commentary), our article must include this, to conform with our policies on neutrality. I would strongly advise you to familiarise yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies (WP:RS and WP:NPOV being a good starting point), and then raise any policy-based objections you have to the article on its talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
In light of the concerns expressed, I would like to clarify that my contributions, including references from official sources, were intended to add substantive knowledge about the project, addressing a gap where the technological aspects and project data were notably absent. My effort was aimed at presenting a more comprehensive view of the project, beyond the scope of criticism, to enhance the article's informational value. Orenelma (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Your edits were clearly and unambiguously made in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. I suggest you self-revert immediately, before you find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Given that the article in question clearly falls within the scope of the restrictions per Wikipedia:Contentious topics that cover the Israel Palestine conflict, Orenelma should not currently be editing the article at all. I have placed the appropriate notification on their talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
There appears to be a lack of professionalism if you prioritize political aspects over technical evaluations. Orenelma (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Orenelma additionally seems to be using some form of generative chat/large language model to reply, which is not a good sign. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Generative chat? Orenelma (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
You sound like ChatGPT - both in your wording choice and the way that ChatGPT responses typically do not engage with the substance of what other people are saying. MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe they are a human passing the reverse Turing test. The Turing test is for a computer program to successfully imitate a human. The reverse Turing that is for a human to imitate a computer imitating a human. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Mytona

This company's page is edited mostly by employees it seems. Some of the page's editors have already been rightly banned, but there are some stragglers. Lana Seeker Parker is really Lana Parker, a (current/former) community rep for the company (Seeker is a reference to one of their games, Seekers Notes.) Nadezhda Grigoreva is/was also employed by the company. Ravenhill is one of Mytona's games. Also somewhat unrelated, Rany Roy is a crypto scammer that posted his site on the page. poketape (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Mamun Al Mahtab


This editor created this article in 2019, and clearly, they were either paid for it or are closely associated with the subject. They even uploaded various certificates' photos as references (unsure of the proper copyright management of those), indicating they have first-person access to the subject's personal belongings, they also added multiple pictures of the subject on commons, some of which were deleted. The article also has an overly promotional tone. Their account is one purpose, and they hibernated from 2019. Recently the subject of the article came under criticism, and the editor soon came back, and promptly removed those criticisms, including an Unpaid contribution template imposed by me early on. There are existing COI notices on their talk page. They should not be allowed to edit the page (or any pages, as it's a one-purpose promo account with some serious COI violations) any further as their intention is clear here.

Update: Since I posted this here, the editor has reverted edits on that page multiple times. They need to be blocked ASAP. X (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

For some reason the editor Sunan 213 created the article in a sandbox which was fine,copied into mainspace and then later added a whole bunch of non-rs landing page references after creating a relatively well written article on a notable subject, for some reason. scope_creepTalk 18:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep, Yes, I noticed the same weird thing about the refs. Also, they added a bunch of images of certificates, and portraits of the subject over multiple years. One or two have been deleted but I'm unsure about such images' copyright procedures. I'd hope someone with Commons experience would scrutinize their uploads. It's a DUCK case of a paid editor or someone very close to the subject. It surprises me how no one sniffed except one who left a COI warning on the talk page way back in 2019 stating not to edit further without answering, but they kept on editing, and no action was taken, despite vehement violations and whitewashing of the page. There's just multitudes of weirdness surrounding this page and the editor. X (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Xkalponik: I did a copyedit to remove everything potentially coi including the non-standard reference images. scope_creepTalk 09:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Its been moved to WP:An. scope_creepTalk 18:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep, They reverted and removed the criticisms again. It doesn't make sense why aren't they blocked yet. I posted on two noticeboards about them. Admins are overlooking this mess. X (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The article subject is notable and the editors behaviour has not likely been egregious enough to be blocked, although I think you've taken the complaint to the wrong noticeboard. I've not really had the time the last 3-4 weeks to do anything of depth on this noticeboard or anywhere on-here really, but I'll look at it now and see if there is problem. If there is breaking WP:NPOV, it needs to be discussed on the talk page to come to a consensus.. If there is WP:TE, or distruptive editig or edit warring then I'll take the editor to the noticeboard directly. scope_creepTalk 14:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Xkalponik: Right I understand why that content is removed from the lede. It is definitely WP:UNDUE in the lede. It seems to be series of allegations that have been added by yourself, which break WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME, and don't add up to nil. As I'm unable to find sources in Bangladeshi the language, ie the results of the Ministers investigations into the event of the man dying who sufferering from sleep apnea, then nothing can be done right now. Allegations don't mean anything , only facts matter on here. Everybody makes allegations. They are meaningless. I would suggest waiting until the ministers report is out. If it is out already and says there was no negligance, then that controversy section will need to go. I plan to move it to the talk page of the article, in the mean because it is undue. I'm moving this discussion to the talk page. It is unsuitable for the coi noticeboard. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep, How's it unsuitable for COI noticeboard? Also, there was an edit warring, please check the history of the page. They reverted edits regularly and I stopped as I did not wish to edit war with them any further. Also, they were warned multiple times by multiple users on different occasions, but they kept on editing the page. They were explicitly asked multiple times not to edit further without complying with the PAID editing policies, which they did not, rather kept on whitewashing the page. And I did mention the COI concerns on the talk page but did not initiate any conversation. It's an obvious case of COI, as they uploaded multiple pictures of the subject, along with personal certificates. It's a one-purpose account. And their editing pattern is also a clear indication of that. I'd urge you to check their talk page. Thanks. X (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Because its a different problem still to be addressed. I've not looked at it. I've not had time. I'll look at it today. scope_creepTalk 14:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep. Okay. That was my main concern anyway (policy violations by the user). Not the allegations against the subject. X (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@X: I'm going to take a look at this today. I've got time now. Things have freed up at home. scope_creepTalk 08:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @X: Sorry for the late reply. He seemed to left on the 26th Febuary, so the question is moot. I had a look about 3 days ago and today again. I think the editor does have a coi. He mentions the subjects primary school name. That information would be quite hard to find out. There is also other indications there. I don't think he should he should edit the article directly, but it is functionally complete, so may not be back. I think the editor is probably a WP:UPE. That combined with the zero communication is a blockable offence. Ping me if the editor returns. scope_creepTalk 21:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Finally someone else had a a look at this. Thank you.
Btw I'm certain they'll return if there are any controversies or critiques on the subject. That's been their pattern from 2019. They return when there's negative information on the subject, they whitewash the page, also they at times added new images and awards, whatnot. X (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Intensive interaction

Warned back in November 2023 about COI, they continue to edit Intensive interaction and only that article adding blatanly promotional edits like this and this. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ThaddeusSholto, thanks for getting in touch. Over the previous few months I have been occasionally trying to 'blatantly' (your words) update the Intensive Interaction Wikipedia page to add both increased detail and accuracy to the current poor quality content - and also add supporting or verifying links/references to the current content (as you will see if you look at what I have done). I am a now retired special education teacher and clinician health specialist (in the UK) for people with intellectual disabilities - hence my interest in and knowledge about the Intensive Interaction approach; an approach I used successfully for over 25 years. As I am now retired, I do not think that I have a conflict of interest in this subject area. More than that, I believe that I am uniquely placed to improve on the current poor quality and outdated information that current makes up the Wikipedia entry on Intensive Interaction - and I now have the time to do so, hence my recent attempts at improving it.
As I said to your colleague previously (but got no reply), I am at a loss to know what I am doing wrong with this. I get messages thanking me for helping whilst at the same time getting messages telling to me desist from doing exactly the same thing. The current description of Intensive Interaction desperately needs updating to a more up-to-date description of the approach - which is what I keep trying to do e.g. Intensive Interaction is not a means of 'teaching', but more accurately a means of 'facilitating learning' - its the learner/participant who does the work! Things have moved on in the terminology used in this field - thank goodness - and I am trying to bring the Wikipedia entry up to date and include more accurate, detailed and useful information; surely you must want that?
I don't really know what to do next? Perhaps you can help me? Intensive Interaction Leeds (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
After reading the original notice above I looked at the article under discussion and also the website (linked from the article) of the Intensive Interaction Institute. I wonder if you could confirm a few points simply in terms of establishing some facts.
Under the name that you have given on your talk page you appear on the website of the institute as a trainer.
Much of the article here in its current form appears to be a light rewrite of material which can be found on the institute's website (primarily in the 'Find Out More' section).
The 'further reading'/'additional published literature' sections of the article appear to derive from (or, at the very least, they duplicate) the Bibliography section of the institute's website. A good number of the (30) specialist works cited in these sections of the article were co-written by yourself (and you have listed 12 of them on your talk page).
Are the above points a fair characterisation of the links between yourself, the institute and the article here? (I ask this question without prejudice, simply trying to establish some facts and your thoughts.)
Re: your questions above, personally I think...
(a) the article needs to be re-written so that it doesn't appear to have been cribbed from the institute website,
(b) it should probably be much shorter than at present,
(c) an encyclopaedia article isn't the place for a list of 30 specialist works, it should be replaced (maybe keep 2 or 3 key works) with a link to the institute bibliography,
and (d) the three references cited in the article are insufficient for an article of this length.
However, these sort of issues should properly be discussed at the article talk page.
Contributions from specialists are welcomed in Wikipedia, but there are pitfalls that need to be avoided (including WP:SELFCITE, which could be easily negotiated here by actioning point (c) above). Axad12 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Tania Peitzker

This draft had a {{coi}} template, but GreenJeans808 removed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ATania_Peitzker&diff=1210076092&oldid=1210022268 It is my opinion that there is a conflict of interest. The draft has an infobox image and two images in the article. The infobox image is labeled as Own Work by GreenJeans808, which implies that he photographed Tania Peitzker. It is a close-up photograph that involved cooperation. The two article images are both labeled in their Commons description as selfies. That implies that they were taken by Peitzker and provided to GreenJeans808. This may be paid editing, and is almost certainly some association that is a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

GreenJeans808 likely is Peitzker, given that her edits are in the same style as the old account User talk:Tania Peitzker. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
GreenJeans808 has uploaded multiple images of Tania Peitzker that are identified simultaneously as "own work" and "selfie". DMacks (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Curb Safe Charmer, User:DMacks - Thank you for calling my attention to the 2015 account. What I am saying is that GreenJeans808 either is Peitzker, in which case the draft is an autobiography, or that GreenJeans808 may be an associate or assistant of Peitzker, who has been given Peitzker's selfies. In either case, there is a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed.
What outcome were you hoping for by bringing this to the COI noticeboard? In my mind, COI users must use draftspace which they are already doing, and the draft there has since been rejected. Either GreenJeans will give up, argue their case or move it to mainspace themselves. If they move it, one of us will take it to AfD. If they drop it, no action is needed. Their most likely action is to argue. We could have them come here to make their case - the other forum I can think of being the AfC helpdesk. Previously, Peitzker threatened to 'take it up with Wikipedia management', whoever they are. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Just for the record/centralized discussion, they have also made edits to Dymphna Cusack that have an effect of promoting this person, and ES also NPOV touting them. But those edits have been undone. But unless they make any further edits, I agree that there is nothing further to do. If they do make further edits, easy enough to handle as appropriate at that time. DMacks (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Curb Safe Charmer asked what outcome I hoped for by coming to this COI noticeboard. It was primarily to report the failure to declare an obvious conflict of interest. It is true that they are using draft space, which is what they should be doing, but the AFC reviewers want to see a conflict of interest declared, so that they know to look for non-neutral language, puffery, etc. Seeing that the draft has been rejected and the edits to Dymphna Cusack have been reverted, I agree that there is nothing further to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
If they move it to main it will be G4'd. I think it is important to report coi editors wherever they are are editing. scope_creepTalk 07:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Just for the record, I heard about what happened with the Dymphna Cusack edit. That contribution was a) fully sourced b) had credible references from established, academic, secondary sources c) had in-depth treatment of the subject by academics ie experts objectively qualified to write encylopedic entries about this famous author from Australia. I will be appealing the "deletion" and "reverting" of that contribution which corrected some of the false / insufficient / inadequate information currently published under the article titled "Dymphna Cusack". FeministGlobal (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTHERE and promotion only account. A long campaign of purely promotional edits for Tania Peitzker aka Tania Lingham and her busines ventures.
    Tania Peitzker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and her accounts before that as mentioned in afd creating promotion for Tania Peitzker and her company at Draft:Velmai.
    2019 saw TaniaLingham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who created a Draft:Tania Peitzker and a Draft:AI Bots as a Service UG. Also added content to Dymphna Cusack that had an effect of promoting this person as did GreenJeans808 and multiple IPs before her.
    Then there is Myownreporter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was creating a draft for www.myownreporter.com (MOR) which was co-founded by Peitzker.
    This sustained PR push with a major dose of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and dishonest misrepresentation is I think worthy of a promotion only block. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    Dear Duffbeer,
    There is no "dishonest misrepresentation" as I clearly stated in 2015 that I was writing about myself as the subject. That autobiographical contribution was accepted by other Wikipedia editors at the time. FYI I appealed to "Wiki management" as you call it and they found in my favour.
    Wikipedia wanted to publish a "stub" about me and I declined their offer as I did not want to be included in this encylopedia back then. Now GreenJeans is writing and publishing about me in an extensive, neutral and fair way, I am happy to be made a subject of Wikipedia.
    As to your wrongful assertions that I was "promoting" my tech ventures and doing a "sustained PR push", this is simply false. As many other Wikipedia articles can testify, there are 100s of tech ventures and entrepreneurs published in this tertiary source of information - content all very similar to me and my work in AI, except for the fact that I am a woman and they have been mostly men in tech.
    I suggest you and your fellow eds here on this CoI page read up on what the wider world is thinking, scrutinising and analysing about Wikipedia, its methods and content: from 2015 when we first had our exchange as you rightly point out (when I was briefly a Wiki ed before discouraged by the gendered hostility towards me) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/
    To the statistics today - not much has improved sadly
    "As of the end of February, almost 20 per cent of biography articles on English-language Wikipedia were about women. That compares to around 15.5 per cent in 2014." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/most-men-wikipedia-editors-push-for-women-b1065337.html
    Happy reading and digesting the statistically based information/knowledge above,
    best wishes,
    Tania Peitzker FeministGlobal (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    And out comes the victim card. Oh no everyone is being mean to me because I am a woman. Oh woe is me. Always trying to see the bad in everything. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Robert
I received an email notification from Wikipedia re a wrong assertions your colleague Duffbeer has made about me. I will respond to that separately. As to my distant associate GreenJeans, he told me he made a clear statement to Wikipedia when he first started writing this article about me (unpaid FYI) ie. he is not a "close connection" and he detailed how he knew (of) me and my work at the very beginning.
Thus you have a clear declaration about any possible Conflict of Interest. Other Wiki eds decided that there was none because they encouraged him to keep rewriting this article after he declared he knew me. That is how he got the selfie photos I gave him because he needed images that were my "own work" re the copyright and Creative Commons. It is my work/photos that I agreed to donate to Wiki Commons via GreenJeans. I hope that puts your concerns to rest.
FYI GreenJeans is new to Wikipedia editing which means there are several rewrites of this article about me. As all the drafts and your criticisms/rejections have been made public on WikiWand, I have been following this "process" and also shown it to many peers in my industry and academic fields (as I am a recognised expert - see the numerous neutral, secondary sources cited by GreenJeans). We are all wanting to see some actual, concrete evidence as to why a number of Wikipedia volunteers keep rejecting the draft for reasons of notability, sourced material, neutral style and encylopedic tone. Perhaps you care to give some specific examples to leaders in the fields of technology and academia, as well as myself and GreenJeans?
You should also be made aware that since this draft was submitted, I have been constantly contacted by scammers and fraudsters who are asking me to hire them to write a Wikipedia article about me. I am very curious to know a) how does this business know what is going on with this draft? b) why do I receive emails from them every time an editor rejects the draft?
Best wishes,
Tania Peitzker. FeministGlobal (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
User:FeministGlobal writes:

I have been constantly contacted by scammers and fraudsters who are asking me to hire them to write a Wikipedia article about me. I am very curious to know a) how does this business know what is going on with this draft? b) why do I receive emails from them every time an editor rejects the draft?

a. Because they have Wikipedia accounts, and the category system in Wikipedia supports a lot of types of queries, including on the status of drafts. b. Because they are scammers and fraudsters. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
"I received an email notification from Wikipedia re a wrong assertions your colleague Duffbeer has made about me." Really? An encyclopedia sent you an email. Wow you must be special. So tell me, what "wrong assertions" did this encyclopedia say I had made? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User Pcomon

User has been warned about COI by at least two editors on his talk page. He appears to be persistently self-promoting his work, particularly in the lede. Limit-theorem (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Other pages involved: Signal separation. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
There is BIG misunderstanding. I am just adding an objective fact, justified by a book reference. Everybody in our community knows about this fact. There are many other references in the open literature mentioning this fact. I see that because of my pseudo, and probably because you do not know the subject in details, you persistently believe that I am making self-promotion, which is absurd and not needed at all. Hence, I suppose I must ask colleagues to correct this obvious bias? The conclusion is that when one is a specialist of a field, one cannot make all relevant corrections, because one has publications in the field. The way Wikipedia is moderated is very questionable and quite disappointing... Pcomon (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pcomon: Your condescension does not befit your claimed expertise. Wikipedia has been online for twenty years and has maintained its Alexa rating while other websites of that era have faded. You are legally obliged to admit your CoI. It does not matter if what you post is true or supported by sources. If you exist in a niche field and no one cognizant of your work edits here, then articles about it will languish which is fine by us. Wikipedia only works when edited by disinterested third parties relying only upon reliable sources. Obviously, the public does not care about the subject because they haven't volunteered to write the content. Since you've come here, we're forced to ask what's in it for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pcomon: The correct way to have gone about trying to resolve the dispute you mention on your talk page would have been to raise the issue on the talk pages of the articles concerned to try to build a consensus in your favour.
Simply editing the articles to present your own point of view, by quoting your own work, and doing so without building a consensus beforehand, was inevitably going to end up here.
(Incidentally I would advise you against 'ask[ing] colleagues to correct this obvious bias', as that is contrary to Wikipedia rules, see WP:meatpuppet.) Axad12 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Firewall

This editor has admitted on Wikipedia that they are Robert C. Michelson, a leading American engineer. They have an extensive history of creating and editing articles with which they have a personal/financial COI with. They have subsequently ignored requests to tag either their userpage or the article talk pages per WP:DISCLOSE. The articles are as follows:

What are the next steps? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment The lack of user-page disclosure here is disturbing to me, after creating (and nursing to GA) an article about himself, then more recently creating a blatantly resume-like article about his son, just for starters. Pinging @Materialscientist: who passed the GA on his autobiography back in 2009 and has more expertise in this subject area to see if they have any comment. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
IcemanCalvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be connected to William Stuart Michelson, which is now at AfD; they have admitted a connection with the article and yet are still attempting to add promotional content to the page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw that. I was think of opening an SPI. The other editor turned up minutes after I left the message at Editor Firewall talk page, to !vote in the Afd. They are definitely connected. They seems to be upstanding academics who want want to support their mate. scope_creepTalk 18:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

StandardAero

Likely the same user as both have had identical copyright violations revdel'd. While both have been COI warned by multiple editors, 174.67.126.98 continues to edit StandardAero even after implicitly admitting COI. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gavin Fields

New editor User:Gradock has explained here at Talk:Gavin Fields their rationale for creating this biography of Gavin Fields, along with a film article connected with Fields. Gradock has created both in apparent good faith, and is attempting to abide by WP:COI guidelines, but there are at least two outstanding problems: the first is that both articles should have been created in draft and submitted through WP:AFC; the second is that copyright permission for the photos mentioned in that talk page discussion above must be sorted out as outlined in WP:IOWN. I'd like to fix these problems in a non-WP:BITE-y way, as the new editor is clearly keen to do things correctly. Could I get some help with this please? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Kevin Sullivan (journalist)

Both Kevin Sullivan (journalist) and Mary Jordan (journalist) were created by a SPA, Lindsey M Anderson, back in 2011. That account never edited again. Since that time, a series of SPAs only edit these two articles and only to add blatantly promotional material.

Today was the most recent instance when Kennelis made edits to each article. When I reverted them and gave a COI warning, Lisakennedyy was created and duplicated the same edits (compare this and this.)

I created a sockpuppet investigation but I could really use some extra eyes to see what needs to be removed from these two articles. Much of it is completely unsourced. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

After reporting this, Lisakennedyy returned to blank the COI tags on both articles. [6] [7] with an edit summary of "Resolved issues" even though they have done nothing of the kind. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership

Paid editor is adding back promotional content [8] has been asked to suggest edits on talk page but there are WP:CIR issues. Article reads like marketing for the organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not correct - the content was there since 2016 and included facts about the organisation. This editor completely deleted the section which I wanted to suggest edits to on the talk page, so I restored it in order to be able to suggest the edits. Erinstewart-REEEP (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I have added citations all over the page, deleted old text that was no longer correct and have suggested edits to the text to make it more neutral. This editor is now questioning my competence and is ignoring the comments I am leaving him and escalating it elsewhere. This is a case of bullying. Erinstewart-REEEP (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate and Uncivil Response in Discussion by User:@AndyTheGrump

I am writing to report an incident involving uncivil and inappropriate behavior by User @AndyTheGrump during a discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. On 12 March 2024, in response to a detailed and constructive message I posted addressing concerns about my edits and my use of AI to enhance contributions to Wikipedia, AndyTheGrump replied with the following message:

"Stop using the fucking chatbot. Or fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)"

This response was not only uncivil but also violated Wikipedia's policies on respectful communication and harassment. My original message aimed to clarify my intentions, respond to feedback, and express a willingness to align my contributions more closely with Wikipedia's standards. It was disheartening to receive such a response, which does not contribute to a constructive or welcoming community environment.

I believe that all community members should strive to maintain a respectful and collaborative atmosphere, even in disagreements. Therefore, I kindly request that this incident be reviewed by administrators, and appropriate actions be taken according to Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and harassment. My hope is to ensure that Wikipedia remains a space where all contributors feel respected and valued, fostering positive dialogue and cooperation.

Thank you for your time and consideration in addressing this matter. PedroOReal (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Fuck off. Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

Madame Tussauds COI

@PedroOReal, WP:COI declared at [9], has been editing several articles in this manner:[10]. Problems include WP:PROPORTION, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PROMO and in some cases [11] WP:ABOUTSELF. Latest edit was about a week ago after they talked with @Diannaa, but their edits [12] are several and should be looked at.

Mentioning a Madame Tussauds figure is not necessarily unreasonable, especially with decent secondary sources, but IMO PedroOReal is overdoing it. And you know, COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In response to the concerns raised by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I want to clearly state that my edits across Wikipedia have always been guided by a commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. My intention has never been to engage in puffery, promotion, or any behavior that goes against Wikipedia's principles, such as WP:PROPORTION, WP:PUFFERY, and WP:PROMO.
Regarding the specific instance involving @Diannaa, I have taken the feedback seriously and made corrections to ensure that my contributions are in line with Wikipedia's standards. The initial response on my part was driven by a sense of being unfairly targeted, which may have led to a defensive stance. However, I recognize the importance of constructive dialogue and have made efforts to rectify any issues in my contributions accordingly and the information I provided.
The mention of a Madame Tussauds figure in my edits was based on the belief that it was relevant and supported by reliable secondary sources, aiming to enhance the articles' quality and informational value. I understand that the perception of overemphasis might arise, but please rest assured that my goal has been to contribute positively and informatively to Wikipedia.
It is disheartening to experience what feels like an unwarranted critique of my efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. I believe that the community's energy would be better spent fostering a supportive environment where contributors feel encouraged to add value and knowledge to this shared resource. Constructive feedback is always welcome, and I am open to discussions that can help improve the quality of my contributions. However, I also believe in the importance of focusing on collaboration and mutual respect among Wikipedia contributors to maintain the platform's integrity and usefulness. PedroOReal (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Your entire editing history has been devoted to adding essentially the same content to multiple articles, all of which is clearly and unambiguously promoting Madame Tussauds, rather than adding to understanding of the article subject. Biographies are about people, not waxworks models. That isn't "in line with Wikipedia's standards". It is entirely contrary to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@PedroOReal: You seem to be promoting Madame Tussauds at the expense of Wikipedia Terms of Use, which explicity disallows any promotional advertising on this site. You have admited you have WP:coi and your promoting your company. Administration will be along to have chat with you no doubt. Your a net negative to Wikipedia and costing us time and energy to fix it. It doesn't sit well with us. scope_creepTalk 10:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
It is disheartening to experience those glib AI-created clichés from PedroOReal above, and I see the same on Diannaa's page. Failure to speak in your own words is disrespectful in itself. I note that the promotion is currently on pause; if it resumes, I will block. Bishonen | tålk 10:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC).
Hello @AndyTheGrump, @Scope creep, and @Bishonen,
I’ve taken the time to review your comments and the concerns raised regarding my edits on Wikipedia. First, let me be clear: my intent has never been to undermine Wikipedia’s values or to engage in promotional activities. The interpretation that my contributions were solely for the benefit of Madame Tussauds or any other entity is a misunderstanding of my intentions. However, I recognize that perception is as impactful as intention, and for that, I am prepared to reassess my approach to editing.
To the point of my editing history focusing on content related to Madame Tussauds: My interest in these topics was driven by a genuine fascination with cultural landmarks and their influence on public perceptions of notable figures, not by any affiliation or compensation from Madame Tussauds or any other entity. That said, I understand the critical importance of maintaining Wikipedia's neutrality and the high standards expected of contributions to the platform.
Regarding accusations of employing "glib AI-created clichés" or failing to communicate in my own words, I want to clarify that my use of AI tools is solely to enhance my text, leveraging it as the valuable resource it is. My intention has always been to contribute high-quality content to Wikipedia, and incorporating technology is part of modernizing and enriching our shared knowledge base. If this approach has led to misunderstandings about the authenticity of my contributions, I offer my sincere apologies.
It's disheartening to witness the dynamics where individuals seem to rally together to harass or provoke others under the guise of safeguarding the integrity of Wikipedia. While having an IRC channel or any platform for communication can indeed foster camaraderie and facilitate important discussions among contributors, it's crucial that these spaces do not devolve into echo chambers for organizing targeted actions against individuals based on misunderstandings or disagreements. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration, diverse perspectives, and the mutual respect of its contributors. It's essential that we maintain a community spirit that is welcoming, constructive, and focused on the collective goal of enriching this invaluable resource, rather than allowing it to be marred by divisiveness.
Moving forward, I commit to a thorough review and adjustment of my contributions to ensure they align more closely with Wikipedia's standards and expectations. I will also engage more constructively in discussions on talk pages before making edits that could be perceived as contentious.
I appreciate your dedication to preserving the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia.
I hope we can move past this with a mutual understanding and a shared goal of contributing positively to this invaluable resource. Let’s direct our energies towards enhancing Wikipedia together, rather than dwelling on past misunderstandings.
Thank you for your time and consideration. PedroOReal (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Stop using the fucking chatbot. Or fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
[13] shows this is definitely AI. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I 've shown them the door. The problems outlined above, plus if someone's responses are always AI generated we have cannot be sure they understand them. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Well I just put the users edit on Bad Bunny through the AI checker after removing the wiki formatting - 94% likely to have been created by AI Lyndaship (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Makes me nostalgic for this guy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Michael Rubin (businessman) ‎

RebeccaSchoenbrun has only edited Michael Rubin (businessman). Clear COI but warnings ignored and they have not disclosed yet continue to edit the article adding overkill amounts of references like this and puffery about the value of his company. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

ThaddeusSholto, it seems quite likely that RebeccaSchoenbrun isn't aware of her own talkpage. I've blocked her from article space with an informative note and a link in the block log, which will hopefully enable her to find her page and reply on it. Bishonen | tålk 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC).

Paktourismportal.com link spam by User:Ainty Painty

There are multiple issues with Ainty Painty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), including the AI-generated crap articles they regularly publish, but this one is related to the link-building of the website they operate and likely own. As of 14 March 2024, they have linked their website to at least 72 articles. Someone has to clean-up this spam and check with the spambot if there are more.

Also, "about us" of the website reveals: "Pakistan Tourism Portal founded by Wisal Ahmad." This leads us to a sockpuppet farm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisal Ahmad. It is obvious that they have previously operated sockpuppets and are currently technically blocked from editing this wiki. More eyes on them please. Thanks, 101.100.146.151 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

They have submitted drafts such as Draft:QQPlayer and Draft:K2 Airways in the past. 101.100.146.151 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Paul Devlin (filmmaker)

After acknowledging being paid by the article's subject, continuing to edit here [14], [15]. Topic block may be in order. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Faltu Katha (possible upe)

It appears that the user Faltu Katha may be an undisclosed paid editor. Initially, they created Sarsagun Patrika and subsequently attempted to remove the AfD tag multiple times. Moreover, they moved Draft:PetPair to the main namespace. Considering that Draft:PetPair was originally created by a user with a conflict of interest, it raises suspicion that user Faltu Katha might have been hired after the submission was declined. A paid warning was left on their user talk page; however, instead of responding, they removed all content from their talk page. Given their lack of response to warnings, it is necessary to address this issue here. Pinging @Wikishovel:, if they want to add anything. GSS 💬 16:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I had the same concerns when I saw the move to main space of the draft, as well as the editor's abrupt blanking of GSS' polite requests for clarification at user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Doug Weller blocked Faltu Katha (talk · contribs) on 12 March for undisclosed paid editing. Since then, three sockpuppet investigations have been submitted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faltu Katha for Wikilovery (talk · contribs), who I have just blocked for being an improperly recruited account of Faltu Katha that has engaged in undisclosed paid editing and permission gaming. — Newslinger talk 05:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Kashi Laining International Airport

User has declared in talk page posts that they are an employee of the Civil Aviation Administration of China, the controlling entity for China's airports, and has been notified at least twice of potential COI when editing pages associated with the CAAC. This user has not denied a COI, but rather continues to state that they feel as though they do not need to declare a COI since they source their edits. Most of the user's activity is good-faith, non-controversial edits, save for a few key incidents, such as the movement of the page listed here. nf utvol (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Garry John Martin

Pchis created this article in 2016 and continued to edit it until 2019. The user's edit summary in 2016 suggests they have a conflict of interest: Why have my images of Garry Martin been removed? They are all the author's work, taken by his wife, Sue Lewis-Blake ... . The text they added was sometimes overtly promotional, such as this 2019 addition: G.J.Martin’s magnum opus, his ‘Orcadian Trilogy’ was launched in the Orkney Library and Archive in Kirkwall in June 2019. The result of ten years research and six years writing ...

This month, Pchis1 started to edit the article. This looks as if it is a sock of Pchis. I have not reported as a sock as I didn't want to cause potential confusion by reporting in two places. Their first edit added forthcoming books, without sourcing. Their second edit added a paragraph which read promotional, ... Martin offered readings of ‘The Truants’ in English to a packed audience in an independent bookshop in Lüneburg, recognising the growing interest in Germany of literary novels written in English. I reverted this as unsourced, and their third edit added it again. I reverted this and asked them about conflict of interest, and they replied, not logged in: No, I do not have a conflict of interest. This text is provided by Garry John Martin for me to update his entry. I responded that this is a conflict of interest. Following this, an IP editor has added the same text again. Tacyarg (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks more like a forgotten password issue than socking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ciner Group

You say you do not have a conflict of interest but you have mainly edited articles about companies, and sometimes people such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turgay_Ciner&diff=1168434614&oldid=1142808892 about the owner of the company. Also you removed without explaining why info I had added about the company greenhouse gas emissions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 You will see I make many edits to articles relating to dozens of companies, all over the world - in various industry sectors. If you're saying: "mainly edited articles about companies", is the proof for your baseless allegation, then before you proceed with this, I would politely ask you provide this discussion with clear and incontrovertible evidence of a CoI on my part. Thank you. Natural justice EastThermopolis (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know anything about you outside of Wikipedia and I have not looked into your edits on other company articles, but the comment for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ciner_Group&diff=1165795779&oldid=1165014025 merely mentioned adding info but removed a fact (being on the Global Coal Exit List) which might reflect badly on the company Chidgk1 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

For background info - there was a discussion about another article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Farkhad_Akhmedov Chidgk1 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@EastThermopolis: Your edits to this article added press release material. I can see from your user talk page that multiple editors have questioned your apparent conflicts of interest. We do not have to present proof of your conflict, rather you are legally obligated to tell is of your conflicts of interest. The matter has been brought to this noticeboard to crowdsource investigation as you've been opaque on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Chris troutman I look forward to putting a robust defence against your baseless CoI allegations / hunches. Thanks for pointing out my legal "obligations". I'm sure therefore, you will want to adhere to the principles of Natural justice, when investigating this matter. Thank you. EastThermopolis (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
A quick question for you…
On how many different articles have your major edits resulted in other editors raising issues such as, say, adding apparently promotional material, adding material sourced to the subject, removing properly sourced material, etc.? Axad12 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
(Okay, I'll answer my own question.)
I make it 6.
The 3 articles mentioned above...
Plus a further 2 articles (both created by the user) discussed on the user’s talk page: ACF Investment Bank (since deleted, described as “unambiguous advertising”) and Digitalbox (draft rejected for, amongst other reasons, “reads […] like an advertisement”).
Plus Zenus Bank where half of the article the user created was later removed to ‘tone down promotional material’.
The user’s main activity on Wikipedia has been 100s of formulaic small edits about company acquisitions and 100s of individuals added (one by one) to lists of ‘Notable People from […]. If you look beyond that, however, the problematic edits on the 6 articles above represent a significant proportion of the editor’s more sizable edits. They cover a period from Sept 2021 onwards, but despite feedback from other editors the issues seem to persist. Axad12 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be a recurring pattern to the user’s contribution history which other editors/admins may wish to have a look at.
The background noise of small edits on company acquisitions etc tends to turn on and off and to ramp up at certain points. There are lengthy periods with very few edits, followed by a large edit (or a series of large edits) which other editors later find problematic for promo reasons. The large edit is then closely followed by a large number of small uncontroversial edits on a wide range of articles (usually restricted to a single broad subject area). For example:
  • Jan-mid Sept 2021 - 7 edits in 8.5 months,
  • later Sept-Dec 2021 – a series of large edits (later described by user Snooganssnoogans (currently Thenightaway) in March 22 as ‘I'm struggling to understand why a non-WP:COI account would make these edits’.[17])
  • first half of Dec 2021 - suddenly 100+ edits (Mostly formulaically presented world news items, consisting of ‘On [date X], [one sentence], [link]’.)
Or…
  • Jun-Sept 2022 - 5 edits in 4 months,
  • Oct 2022 - new page created for Zenus Bank (half of which was later removed in Jan 24 by user Mean as custard to ‘tone down promotional material’.[18])
  • first half of Nov 2022 - suddenly 200+ edits (Mostly individuals being added one by one to lists of ‘Notable people from [place X]’.)
Or…
  • Mar-mid July 2023 - 3 edits in 4.5 months,
  • mid July-very early August 2023 – the large edits on Ciner Group and Turgay Ciner recently flagged above by Chidgk1 (some of the edit to the former of those articles was deleted within an hour of being made for ‘puffery’ and tagged as reading like an advertisement[19] .
  • August 23 - suddenly 100+ edits. (Mostly formulaic items on company acquisitions consisting of ‘In [month/year], it was announced that [company X] had acquired the [city Y]-based [company Z] for [$amount], [link]’.)
A similar cycle may have commenced recently after a quiet period from Nov 23 to Feb 24. A new article was created in early March 24, followed by the recommencement of formulaic acquisition-related edits.
As I say, the situation would probably benefit from others having a look at the contribution history to see what they think. Axad12 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of conflict of interest. There are occasional problematic edits but these should be dealt with on their own merits rather than trying to suggest a pattern of conspiracy. . .Mean as custard (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
All that the user has offered in their defence (here or previously) is denials that they have a COI, plus requests for proof of COI, and a general refusal to accept that material that appears to be promotional is in any way problematic.
However, edits that appear promotional are a problem even in the absence of a demonstrable COI.
There needs to be some acknowledgement from the user that a number of their larger edits have been significantly outside of policy. E.g. they could undertake not to make any further breaches of WP:NOTPROMO (or similar) and not to make any further removals of properly sourced material.
If the user has no COI then what possible objection could they have to such a request? Axad12 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

James Chico Hernandez

Although their user page says "I have made many contributions to many articles over the last few years", this is not true. This is a WP:SPA focused on the article James Chico Hernandez, which they created as their first edit. I can see that COI/closeness to the subject has been brought up several times on their talk page and on the article talk page, as far back as 2006 and 2008. I posted a COI template on their page last month - none of those comments have been acknowledged by the user. The template I posted on the article was deleted by the user with the reasoning "Issue resolved" - it's not. The article itself is clearly WP:PROMOTION and not in-line with WP:BLP standards.

This is the first time I've done this so hopefully I've added the necessary details. Spagooder (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Spagooder: We can't know that "I have made many contributions to many articles over the last few years" is not true, because the user may have been editing without logging in, or using a previous account. That said, from what you say, everything you have done seems to be by the book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright, fair point. Now, how about everything else – how does this get addressed? Spagooder (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Barton1234

This user is a SPA who created and has exclusively edited the Wikipedia article about Professor Ebright for over a decade. They pretty obviously have a COI and a close relation to the subject, but have refused to respond to any questions about having a conflict of interest (see the various notifications at User talk:Barton1234 and the previous COIN thread from 2022 Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_193#Richard_H._Ebright) and has continued to edit the article directly as recently as today. I would support permanently partially blocking them from the article and only allowing them to make talkpage requests. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears a shorter block had no effect, I'll place an indef partial block. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Latymer School

Username is the same as that given in the article for the school's chair of governors. Diffs:

Editor has not responded to CoI template or follow-up on their Talk page, and has continued to edit the article. Tacyarg (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As Chair of Governors I have an interst in making sure the page is accurate. I have given citations where available. Stephen Way (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You've stated on your talk page that you don't believe you have a conflict of interest, apparently on the basis that you're not an employee. Note, however, that WP:COI makes it clear that non-paid editors can still have a COI. As chair of governors you do have a COI (or at least a potential COI), which is why the matter has been reported here. Therefore please start abiding by the rules for COI editors, starting by formally declaring the COI on your user page. Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You certainly have a conflict of interest as the chair of the governors. It's not appropriate for you to edit the school's page. Secretlondon (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Stephen Way: If you continue editing that article you will be taken up to WP:ANI and I will recommend you get blocked for disruptive editing. You have a conflict of interest, plain as day. From now on, please use the Edit Request mechanism to request updates to the article. It involves making a request in the talk page and uninvolved editor will come-by, examine them for balance/structure/reliable sourcing and if found to be good, then will go into the article. scope_creepTalk 14:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
OK - I wasn't aware of this mechanism. I will do this in the future. I do not have a user page to add a COI declaration. Stephen Way (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Stephen Way: Then add one. scope_creepTalk 07:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Stephen Way: See Wikipedia:User pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This is resolved - user is now active on the article's Talk page rather than editing the article directly, and has recorded his involvement with the school on his user page. Thanks for people's help. Tacyarg (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Kaspa (cryptocurrency)

User submitted draft for review. Draft was declined, with a message inquiring about conflict of interest, asking to have question answered before draft was resubmitted. Draft was resubmitted without answering question about conflict of interest. User is a single-purpose account whose only edits are this draft. The draft is about a cryptocurrency, which is a topic area that is subject to community sanctions because it is commonly subject to promotion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone asking me about a conflict of interest. I'm a community volunteer and noticed that there was not information regarding Kaspa on Wikipedia. It's fairly old news at this point.
If you deem it a conflict of interest, so be it. I was just trying to help get post-relevant cryptography information out. BubblegumLightning (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't see anyone asking me about a conflict of interest.
See your talk page, specifically, User talk:BubblegumLightning#Your submission at Articles for creation: Kaspa (cryptocurrency) (March 20)
-- Pemilligan (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Introducing User:Johnbod at ILAE

User:Johnbod at ILAE is an alternative account for User:Johnbod. I will be using this account for edits connected with epilepsy, as I will be working over roughly the next year with the Wikipedia:ILAE Wikipedia Project, which has been running since 2020, aiming to improve the coverage of epilepsy-related articles on Wikipedia and is overseen by the International League Against Epilepsy. It is a paid position, budgeted for c. 400 hours over the next year.

I will be working together with ILAE medical specialists to improve the articles. Please let me know any questions. Johnbod at ILAE (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it time to make WP:COI a policy?

Just a straw poll at this stage, but it's apparent that the community is becoming increasingly irked by abuse of editing privileges in ways which run counter to the guidance in WP:COI. A recurrent "defense" is that WP:COI is "only" a guideline and this in turn wastes further time in lawyering. Is it time to upgrade to policy? To be clear: this means that abiding by WP:COI will become something the community expects from editors, not just something they "should attempt to follow". Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

My worry with it being policy is that I feel it is still worded as optional. Wouldn't the same issues arise with an optional policy as arises with an optional guideline? I can still see editors simply saying that it doesn't say that they must disclose, and it says that they are only strongly discouraged from editing affected articles. Perhaps this needs to be in two steps: lock down the requirements and the consequences, and then make it a policy to enforce them? But I suspect that getting consensus on either or both will be a challenge. - Bilby (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
People are regularly blocked/desysopped/etc for editing with conflicts of interest that go beyond the bounds of propriety, and it seems kind of dumb for WP:COI to be a guideline in light of that. On the other hand, stuff like WP:GNG (which you also are not able to ignore) is also a guideline. But I think the message sent by making COI a policy is a good and important one. I would support it if it came up. jp×g🗯️ 05:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I would support that. Hopefully it would improve enforceability/compliance, with it as a "mere" guideline it doesn't get much respect... See this recent response from a paid editor to concerns raised about disregarding major parts of COI "Also, if something is "strongly discouraged," it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule."[20] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. I've see similar comments before. The guideline is completely ignored by the vast majority of coi editors. It is toothless. You do get the occasional coi editor turning up at The Teahouse, for example, I saw one recently, the editor was in earnest, but its mostly ignored. It seems more and more reports are being made to the board every year. That isn't even taking into consideration the ones that not discovered, e.g. recently there an editor who had working on the same article for 13 years. Its a problem thats getting bigger and leaving a legacy of damaged articles whose long term value is doubtful. Certainly there is now not enough editors working to address the problem, it needs to be tightened in a way that reduces the problem. scope_creepTalk 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
That speaks more to the unwillingness of admins to block CoI editors than it is of how the guideline is written. Would admins be more active in enforcement if it was a policy? WP:N is likewise a guideline. IAR is a policy. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I suspect so as they have a duty of care to uphold policy. In previous years, recently, there has been periods were there no admin presence on the board, sometimes quite long, running into months and months. I think it would make a difference. More work for the admin corps certainly, which would be unfortunate. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I love blocking spammers and undisclosed paid editors, but it is sometimes quite difficult to get rid of the feces they smear around beforehand; oftentimes people will demand a spam article be taken to AfD and evaluated purely on the merits. It's also unclear whether, say, noting that someone's username is the same as a 'Wikipedia consultant' on some other website is a blockable/desysopable/etc WP:OUTING offense, so it's often hard to even mention the reason you know something to be spam.
When our actions, in practice, are that you're just allowed to make an endless series of burner accounts to spam your dogshit company, and then one of the few hundred active administrators has to spend hours and burn social capital to maybe-kinda get the article deleted, it's no wonder people keep paying for spammers rather than disclosed paid editors. As an example of what I'm talking about, there's been an edit request unanswered at Talk:Character.ai for a week, doing it the right way, versus Perplexity.ai, which was almost certainly written by a UPE (a new user whose first edits were all to write promotional spam articles about startups and entrepreneurs, and padded it out with some gnoming edits... to articles about content marketing companies and content farms) -- they got what they paid for the same day and it's been allowed to stay ever since, and even survived an AfD. One has to wonder why, if we hate spam, we reward people for doing it and punish them for following the rules. jp×g🗯️ 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The current definition of WP:COI is so broad that it would be unworkable and it massively dilutes the credibility of the current guideline. We'd need a more targeted definition of COI to make the current guideline more credible much less promote it to a policy. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Our current definition of COI is much less broad than my employer's (and I assume most of our employer's), what we have is actually very targeted and fitted to our purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. The COI definition is so broad that under it nearly everybody could be interpreted as having a COI. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand, do you mean that everyone has a COI with every subject or everyone has at least one COI with one subject? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree the guideline needs to be tightened up before trying to promote it to a policy. As we are witnessing, "strongly discouraged" is problematic but at the same time, I think we can do a better job making it clear editors do not need to reveal their identity or the exact nature of their COI (excluding PAID). If an editor is not sure whether they have COI, we need to provide a private outlet where they ask. I don't think there is a need to declare potential COIs. If they are not editing the article or participating in discussions about it, we should not care. S0091 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"Guideline" doesn't mean that a rule less important, just that it should be applied with discretion. There have long been difficulties in creating and consistently enforcing conflicts of interest rules in journalism, law, academica etc. I don't think we'll be able to figure a strict policy out. Mach61 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Consuelo H. Wilkins

A recent content dispute has led me down a rabbit hole. Disclosing that for transparency btw. A series of IPV6 addresses resolving to Nashville, TN have been reverting my edits. Then an IPV4 account from Nashville started a conversation on the talk page. That IPV4 user has made significant contributions to the article for Consuelo H. Wilkins, a professor at Vanderbilt, in Nashville. The IP belongs to AS7212 Vanderbilt. The Consuelo H. Wilkins page also has significant edits from users directly affiliated with Vanderbilt University and it's associated organizations. (see above users)

It appears as though multiple individuals are creating and editing Wikipedia articles directly related to Vanderbilt whilst using Vanderbilt networks.

Update 3/21 - User PickleFish123 has admitted they were the above IP user here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_issues_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates&oldid=1214788096

skarz (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

please get a life outside of wikipedia man this is honestly kinda sad. how have you been putting this much energy into wikipedia for 10+ years. Im honestly done with this whole stupid climate change argument because Im not going to waste any more of my life arguing with you PickleFish123 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of the two posts above, does the comment re: the possible identity of user Bakerja not constitute WP:OUTING, a prohibited practice? Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Concur with Axad12. While PickleFish123 is being extremely childish and appears to be a borderline disruptive editor, that does not excuse the apparent WP:OUTING that has happened here by skarz. I'm sympathetic to Skarz's point, and they are likely correct on the COI here, but the outing is fairly clear here. Should have been taken up via email instead of posted publicly, per the rules above. nf utvol (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
How is this considered outing? The person's username is literally their real name. Searching their username with Vanderbilt shows exactly who they are and the conflict of interest. Further the link I posted does not contain any identifiable information other than what's already included in their username. skarz (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The outing comments in the two posts above relate to Bakerja, not Mattschorr.
Bakerja is not 'literally their real name'.
How can you possibly claim that the link that you posted re: Bakerja 'does not contain any identifiable information other than what's included in their username'? As well as their name, it also included a photo of the individual and their place of work.
Just read the start of WP:OUTING (a form of WP:HARRASSMENT): 'Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, profiles on external sites, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not.'
In what sense has what you have done not breached that? Axad12 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
What I meant was, searching 'bakerja vanderbilt university' has multiple publicly available results linked to the name and profession of the person. It did not occur to me that a person could be doxxed and certainly not "harassed" by talking about publicly available information linked directly to their username and edit history. There was nothing malicious about what I did and if it was not in line with Wikipedia policy then I apologize. But I dispute the notion that what I did was in any way similar to saying "Hey guys, I figured out that catlover123 is actually Jimbo from Ontario! Here's his email and phone number!!" I have been in good standing on Wikipedia for 17 years and I doubt you will find anything in my edit history that comes even remotely close to that level of conduct. skarz (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so ten years ago a user called Bakerja made some edits to a page, and you felt you would just casually look for any current employee with surname 'Baker' and first name starting 'Ja[...]'? Did it not occur to you that there was bound to be at least someone fitting that description in any large organisation, and that making allegations against that person re: something that happened 10 years ago and linking to their personal details was, at best, disingenuous? Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, your continued claim that all you did was link to 'publicly available information linked directly to' the username Bakerja is clearly BS of the first order. Axad12 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing disingenuous about highlighting an ongoing situation where employees of an organization are actively creating and editing articles related to themselves / their employer. I'm sorry you feel that way but at this point it seems like you are being unnecessarily hostile towards me and falls under WP:AOHA leading to WP:PA. This conversation has moved beyond "you broke the rules" to "how could you have possibly not known you were breaking the rules". If you are not an administrator I am asking you to please stop responding to me in this thread because I don't appreciate your tone, hostility, or accusations towards me. I already apologized for breaking the rules and removed the offending information. As an experienced editor I'm sure you already reported me to ArbCom and contacted the oversight committee to have the information scrubbed from Wikipedia. skarz (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
What I meant was that in any large organisation it is disingenuous to believe that an employee from 10 years ago with such a common name as 'Ja[...] Baker' might be the same person as a current employee who had a similar name, especially if they had not edited in the interim.
I did not say 'how could you possibly not have known you were breaking the rules' or anything vaguely resembling that. What I said was that you were wrong above when you denied (after I had linked to the relevant policy) that what you had done was outing.
Re: the fact that you were 'highlighting an ongoing [COI] situation', that could easily have been done without naming names (for evidence of which see the other threads on this noticeboard).
If I've caused you any difficulties then I, of course, apologise. I'm happy to have no further communication with you, no problem. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Eric Goldman

I stumbled onto an IP, 73.223.89.27, adding Eric Goldman to Santa Barbara High School with an unnecessary amount of sources. About a half an hour later, Ericgoldman edited the same article. As this IP has never edited before and Ericgoldman has never edited that article before, it is likely the same person logged out.

I then saw that Ericgoldman wikilinked himself in the Epinions article [21] and when checking his talk page I saw that somehow nobody had ever warned him about COI. So I gave him the standard template [22]. Five minutes later, he added a wikilink to himself on Yelp [23]. He has wikilinked himself in other articles for some time, too. [24] [25] [26] [27] As well as clear COI self promotion in the past [28] and created Michael J. Kaufman for the Dean and a Professor of Law of Santa Clara University School of Law where Goldman himself is employed.

He has also added sources to Luke Combs that involve himself (he added this article in this edit) ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: I've copyedited the article somewhat. It is a WP:BLP and very poor quality. I've put it on my watchlist. See what happens. Ericgoldman is probably Eric Goldman but its very long since he edited the article, more than decade surely. scope_creepTalk 18:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. scope_creepTalk 18:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep: His userpage claims that he is Eric Goldman. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Geez, I never checked that. I'm bushed. I'll need to do that in future. Geez that is so obvious. I left a message. I'll leave another message to ask him to use the WP:ER mechanism, which is the nornal way to dissociate a coi editor from an article and see what happens. scope_creepTalk 18:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep: It's an easy mistake to make. I assume nobody else bothered to look at his userpage which is how he never got a COI warning until today even though he has been editing for years. Thank you for the asssistance. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_206&oldid=1218085981"