Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Jo Boaler Talk:Conagra Brands Talk:Daiichi Sankyo Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:Don Ienner Talk:IG Group Talk:New Right (Denmark)

• Draft:Matt Weinhold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Midwesterngal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

@Midwesterngal, what is your connection to the subject of the article? Why do you feel so strongly about creating it? – bradv 04:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You trying over and over and over and over again to create the page of a non-notable person is a sign that you are. Additionally most likely you have a conflict of interest in creating the page that you haven't disclosed. It's best to be open and transparent and you should have been at the start. Appears as though that ship has well and truly sailed. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My connection is that I'm a fan of the Monster Party podcast.

I couldn't find enough articles to make the Monster Party page, which I wanted to do. Of the 4 hosts, Matt has the most notable entertainment career. And I looked at other winners of the Seattle Comedy competition that had pages + the fact that if you search wikipedia, you already find him listed for his stuff. I kept editing because I'd never done a page before and I'd get advice to continue to edit and fix things.

So - I guess if you create an article, miss some things, take the advice and keep trying to fix it - and check it against other things, you're paid?

Literally zero dollars. If it helps, I can prove privately I have an actual job not at all related to entertainment, horror or writing that pays more than enough that doing a side-gig as a wikipedia article writer (and a super terrible one at that) would not be a thing.

But that's the proof? That I wanted to really get this done as a fan? For a podcast that I'd listened to for a decade? Midwesterngal (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I'd like to make it clear - when I looked at the other winners, his career seemed like a slam dunk. This has been frustrating. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what disclosure I would make? I am not getting paid. I don't even live near the person. Literally in the Midwest and he's out in California.

Again, I'm unclear - the responses ask you to continue to try to edit, other winners of the Seattle Comedy Competition have much thinner resumes and I would get conflicting advice (it wasn't neutral, get better sources) and I would. That's literally it. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you care that he has a page, stop editing it. If he's as notable as you say he is, someone else will create the page for him. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to add one more thing - I searched this page and was unable to find any discussion of the liklihood that I was paid. Which seems to be the norm from what I've read here.

Person gets a hunch, comes here and asks for opinions. Which seems to make sense - because otherwise this method could just be used to bully individuals if a person can just throw that accusation up on any article they want. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

someone else will create the page for him But then you would accuse that someone else of having a COI, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said, If he's as notable as you say he is...

The notability isn't currently there. That's been the issue all long. If and when he becomes notable and satisfies WP:GNG why would there be an issue in someone else creating the page? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, when you wrote If he's as notable as you say he is, someone else will create the page for him you did not mean {tq|If he's as notable as you say he is, someone else will create the page for him}} but actually He is not as notable as you say he is, and if someone else creates the page for him, they will obviously have a COI too.

Why don't you just drop those evidence-less COI accusations and talk about GNG instead? You know, "Address the issue, not the user"? (I get wrongly accused of being paid by Big Pharma or Big Whatever often when I just disagree with people, that is why I am sensitive about this.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't have the energy to do this again. Shabbat Shalom. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes a passionate fan will appear to be a paid editor due to their passion. If you aren't paid, then you're not paid, but perhaps you should step back from this topic for a time and edit about topics for which you are less passionate. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, but some feedback to your people - the way I have been treated and the overall tone from many of your editors has been a very negative experience. And then there are the very dense "guidelines" that are really paragraphs of very little concrete things "write from a neutral point of view" and "have these sources but not those and have enough" followed with enough padding in the form of ways to reject just about anything outside of the highest-level common sense things if someone really wants to. I received so many different bits of feedback and addressed them as they came up - and the goalposts kept shifting.

In other words, your editors created the very case you're describing - they started saying "please fix this thing," and I did. Then I would need to "fix that thing," so I did. Then I would "need to go do this other thing," so I did. And now I have hit some magical internal threshold of "editing the article too much" so I can be accused of "must be getting paid" - that's insane.

Need I also remind you that Wikipedia has huge holes in many, many, many areas? To the point where Reddit gleefully runs the article of the woman that contributed thousands of female scientists to Wikipedia every few months? Imagine if she had been told "you seem too into these dames who science, if they're truly important, other people will do it!" Honestly, only so many people who go to Wikipedia contribute - and you're all acutely aware of the number of those that will continue to contribute after trying to get the first few articles done. That's truly an insincere offer.

Plus, I'm still forever accused in that article of being "paid" for an article - it's on there, it's in my history. I would be tainted on anything I did going forward. No one has once offered to take this label off. Nothing I would contribute would be worthwhile, for I am marked as guilty. Because a person wrongly accused me and I'm guilty without ever being acknowledged when I was accused by those editors. Midwesterngal (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything you just wrote makes me think you're a paid editor. While you're here, read up on Streisand effect. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @MaskedSinger:, your behaviour is verging on harassment. Please read WP:AGF. The editor has stated that they are not paid, and the article they attempted to contribute has been declined. They have given some feedback about the hostility they have faced as a new editor, which is not unique. There is very little separating a paid editor and a fan, so unless you have evidence, please stop. Greenman (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they were a paid editor, how would you expect them to act?

Keep submitting the draft over and over and over and over and over again to be accepted? Check

Protest on a noticeboard that they aren't a paid editor? Check

The fact that you would paint me as some sort of villain here is laughable. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MaskedSinger I would agree with Greenman. Very large lack of WP:AGF from you. The user has stated in response to the red flags pointed out that they are not paid. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. It is as Greenman notes, often hard to tell a passionate fan from a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I struggle to grasp what this has to do with me. People accused her on her talk page of being a paid editor. I had nothing to do with that or reviewing the draft. I only came across her when she posted here and I was like - "yip, that's exactly what a paid editor would do" and the statements since only reinforced it. I'm not allowed to have an opinion? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having an opinion and expressing an opinion are two different things. Piling on with more accusations after the user has said they are not paid is unhelpful, will probably drive this editor away if they haven't left already, and violates AGF. If you have no evidence contrary to what this user has said, then that needs to be the end of it. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good to me. Shabbat Shalom. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, this is a perfect system.

Write an article - have to fix issues - fix those issues. Get more issues to fix - fix those - have it reviewed and fix those. Because notability is subjective, then accuse person of being paid.

If person denies being paid, they must be paid.

It's incredibly difficult to disprove a negative. I've even checked in my city. There was apparently a position with the public library created in 2021 in my city to be the "wikipedian in residence." You can check that IP vs my IP and see that I am not there - although, full disclosure, I DO have a library card. So - there's your super slim link? Except they were working from the special collections on things like civil war and pioneer oral history. Again, if I were part of that, I'm super bad at my job.

This is utterly ridiculous. Midwesterngal (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Midwesterngal I have removed the paid notice from your draft and put in the edit summary that you say you are not paid. Keep in mind that as a volunteer project sometimes the left hand does not know what the right hand has done or not done.

I'm sorry that you haven't had a good experience. I see that you dived right in to the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- article creation. New users greatly increase their chances of success and reduce their frustration if article creation isn't the first task attempted. (it probably sounds like I'm blaming you but that's not my intention at all) Many thousands of users are very successful Wikipedia contributors without ever creating a single article. We usually recommend first gaining experience by editing existing articles, it's a good way to learn what exactly is being looked for in article content before going higher and attempting the more difficult task of article creation. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for removing it. It felt really terrible to be accused of that and not really have any recourse.

I also appreciate that you're assuming best intent. For what it's worth - in my real job, that's my approach. I deal with developers and mistakes are made. When they are, we fix things and then asses what everyone could do to fix things so the whole system is better going forward. Midwesterngal (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes, the consistency in following the recommendations from the Wiki Talks with regards to drafts can make one seem like a paid contributor. However, you can declare on your profile if that is the case, or if you are a passionate fan, as you said, you can also contribute to other related topics within the subject matter. In no distant time, you will easily understand the platform and want to participate more in the improvement of the Wikipedia publications at large for a more transparent, unbaised readers' experience. So don't let the discouraging comments and constant tags sway you into feeling desperate or making harsh comments toward other editors. Editing on WikiPedia is a unique process one has to learn over time. Nsbfrank (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Michael Abramoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Retinarecorder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I have no interest with Michael Abramoff. The reference to Google Scholar was inaccurate so I updated the post. Retinarecorder (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to have a particular focus on ensuring it stays up to date and you have a blasé attitude to following consensus on standards of referencing. You also seem to have coi. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jan Rotmans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 31.121.61.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gingtomp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kaldrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

• 31.121.61.162 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Gingtomp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: original case name
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

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

In case the job listing at https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01bfb4d3cfe85e7304 is removed, it lists in her portfolio: SIGA Technologies and Dawn Ostroff. Kimen8 (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell, the known socks are blocked and the articles deleted. The upwork account is fairly new yet has been pulling a lot of jobs lately, but I know a few people who are aware of them, myself included. - Bilby (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Emmanuel Lemelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Intelitek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Swiss Mister in NY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In a recent BLPN discussion Swiss Mister in NY seems to be denying they have a COI with Emmanuel Lemelson albeit without explicitly saying it. They have weirdly accused those established editors opposing their changes of having a COI [1] Emmanuel Lemelson seems to have a long history of COI editing take a look at the template at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson. What I found interesting is this account is actually fairly old although with very limited edit history especially before 2023. When I explored that edit history it got even more interesting.

Swiss Mister's first major (undeleted?) contribution seems to have been creating Intelitek [2] back in 2011. They returned to that article this year for some updates [3]. This was about a year after Special:Contributions/Grahamceline had made a hash of trying to update it. Per the discussion at User talk:Grahamceline, it seems Grahamceline had a COI regarding Intelitek.

Then in 2013 they added mentions of Distil Networks to 2 different articles [4] [5]. Distil Networks was deleted quite a few years later in 2018 and per the AFD, had been created by WMF banned (Meta:Special:CentralAuth/Gogo Rulez) Special:Contributions/Gogo Rulez. Putting the WMF ban aside, about 2 years later an editor open with their COI User talk:Tonybdistil was involved so we know there was some COI relating to Distil Networks. Gogo Rulez themselves added Distil Networks to the Content protection network article [6] and about a month later at the time they were adding the mentions to the article article, Swiss Mister in NY removed the orphan tag from CPN [7] [8]. CPN itself was created by Special:Contributions/Prelude after noon back in 2012 [9]. But given the long time between creation and the interesting addition of Distil Networks, I'm not sure what to make of that even considering this interesting comment from Prelude [10]. (Distil Networks has been bought by Imperva so I suspect any COI risk has changed.)

A few months later still in 2013, Swiss Mister reappeared and one of the things they did was write in support of keeping some images labelled unfree [11] for Michael Dweck. As remarked in the discussion Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 15 the changing of the Flickr account to say it clearly belonged to Michael Dweck made it seem possible it was being done in response to the discussion. And interesting enough Special:Contributions/Avian appreciator who uploaded the images, seems a long term SPA regarding Michael Dweck. Note also this wasn't Swiss Mister's first interest in Dweck. nearly 3 years previously back in 2011, they had tried to add a NFCC image [12] [13] [14].

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

Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quick scan through the 85 deleted edits on Distil Networks didn't show up anything particularly interesting. —Smalljim  11:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have notified everyone I mentioned in my comment except for Gogo Rulez as I don't see a purpose in notifying a globally locked editor banned by the WMF. Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Seems like an awful lot of investigative work for someone to undertake because an accusation that two editors have been circling a biography and reverting other editors and even an admin for well on half a dozen years or more was found to be "weird." And only to conclude that I'm probably not a sockpuppet at work! Hey, thanks! Regardless, I hope that someone will let me know specifically which of my hundreds of edits has weakened Wikipedia in some material way? Until then, I'll continue editing in the ways that I have been, but probably avoiding articles where vested editors have assumed an ownership role. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems like awfully long way go saying that the accusation of COI is spot on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that the new standard for COI investigations? I mean, who actually loses their password to Wikipedia? That seems very suspicious to me. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The standard for COI investigations is "Is there a COI?" what isn't part of the COI standards is "weakened Wikipedia in some material way" because COI editing weakens wikipedia no matter the quality of the edits. You appear to be acknowledging that you do in fact have a COI, you just don't to say as much explicitly but you also don't want to deny it because you appear honest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I don't feel required to even say this, I assure you I'm not being paid by any company to edit any page anywhere on Wikipedia. I am not Mr. Lemelson, nor am I a member of his family, nor do I live near him. I don't know what more you need me to say, but I have a feeling it will never be enough. Like I said, this all seems like an unusually vigorous defense of two editors who have taken personal control of a biography for the better part of a decade. I'm happy to edit elsewhere, and if I should ever get up the courage to concern myself with that biography again, I'll seek permission from the ruling editorial pair on the Talk page. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I think this editor is a WP:UPE. scope_creep^Talk 18:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few days ago I set out the history of COI editing on Emmanuel Lemelson at WP:BLP/N#Emmanuel_Lemelson (diff), under a section started by the editor in question. Having followed the Lemelson article and engaged with the COI editor(s) for many years, it's clear to me that the current editor is a continuation of the same. The duck test is very persuasive. I'm far too involved to take any admin actions though.  —Smalljim  11:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Crewe Railroaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CreweRailroadersAmericanFootballClub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mystery Railroader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crewerailroaders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mateocrewe89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe the article linked has a number of users with COI, the edits do appear to be in good faith (removing vandalism, updating minor bits of info) but wasn't sure what to do about it so thought putting it here couldn't be bad. I've put the twinkle COI message on their user pages, but they appear to be single-use accounts since more than one of them exist so not sure how much that would help. I've never actually discovered COI before so was not sure if it needed taking further/reporting/etc. and was hoping someone more experienced could advise/handle the situation better than I can. I've added the article to my watch list and will keep an eye on edits. Thanks! Lewcm Talk to me! 20:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• All the unsourced content and mention of non notable players can be cut. Some of the COI accounts have unacceptable usernames, and ought to be blocked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'll get on that, thank you :) Lewcm Talk to me! 08:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Beyond Vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:The (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nsbfrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

We are all here in a public encyclopedia to make contributions. As a beginner, just like novel content creators with little knowledge of a platform, one tends to struggle to get hold of the platform, but over time, as we forge ahead, we understand the platform more and tend to greatly participate in the platform by making more positive contributions, adhering strictly to the guidelines for transparent and non-promotional encyclopedic publications. So norminating me to be blocked on this prestigious independent platform is a bit harsh without acknowledging other articles I may have improved by studying and learning from other great writers on Wikipedia. Unless, of course, Wikipedia is no longer an open, independent public encyclopedia, then I will understand. In the meantime, I'm focused on improving my encyclopedic writing skills, learning different topics by thoroughly reviewing them, correcting grammar and promotional tone errors, and searching for notable citations to validate their various claims. Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge; we all learn from mistakes for a better future. Nsbfrank (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quick look at more recent edits indicates further concerns: promotional tone, addition of unreliable sources, mass spelling and syntax issues, and a whiff of AI-inspired content. We can add diffs to those edits I just corrected or reverted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing out those mistakes. I believe the purpose of editing existing live publications is to learn how to enhance one's writing skills on Wikipedia. There are about 77,533 incorrect active articles now on Wikipedia, with huge credibility flaws such as publications with less than 10 words, punctuation errors, spelling errors, and blatant promotional language with absolutely no citation. The pages I've attempted to improve were considerably worse before I updated them; hence, by correcting my errors, we collaboratively improve Wikipedia publications. So while I appreciate your contributions and your focus on policing me with various allegations, which appears to indicate that you desperately want me removed from this platform, please keep in mind that this is an independent platform in need of passionate editors much more than sheriffs. Nsbfrank (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, article space is not the place to "learn how to enhance one's writing skills," any more than it's a site for repeated entry of promotional content. I've reverted numerous "credibility flaws' by you, and will add the links to these tonight or tomorrow. In the meantime, it's easy enough for administrators and other editors to view them. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jishnu Raghavan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeevan shree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are currently several SPIs at the moment regarding film related pages being edited and/or created by a sock farm. Some are registered accounts and some are from an IP range. Two SPI that are relevant here are Nauman335 and Helloo 68. The page in question here is Jishnu Raghavan which was created by a sock of Helloo 68 and deleted per G5 on December 10, 2023 (note that it was also deleted in June 2022 as G5 as well). Within a few hours, I received messages on my talk page from User:CVSDW which is an obvious SOCK who is mad about the deletion. In classic SOCK form, user:Jeevan shree creates an account and recreates Jishnu Raghavan under disambiguation title Jishnu (Malayalam actor) a short time later (an obvious attempt to avoid it being seen as previously deleted). Hoping to get extra eyes on the pages edited by this farm as they are persistent and likely WP:UPE. Note that Jeevan is not currently blocked as the SPI is still open waiting for review.--CNMall41 (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also pinging @Thilsebatti: who made an edit stating they made purposeful edits to make it ineligible for G5, @Panian513: who requested G5 shortly after, and @Timothytyy: who objected to and removed the speedy tag. I believe WP:BANREVERT would still apply here, especially with an UPE bludgeoning the process. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My only comment is that it was hasty for me to request a G5 without noticing the edits made to make the article ineligible for G5. Since the subject of the article passes notability requirements and there are multiple editors who are willing to improve the article, I wish said editors the best of luck in their endeavors. Panian513 16:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, CNMall41 I had created this page with good faith. and I had not directly created this page CNMall41 with proper draft and finally i had submitted to AFC. See I'm not a sock CNMall41 please try to understand. Jeevan shree (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your creation of templates that were also deleted under G5 is telling, especially when you create them by not putting spaces between the names in order to make it seem like they weren't previously deleted.--CNMall41 (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this Deleted previously, hey I doesn't know yah. Why I had created without space means see I will tell you in a detailed manner. Before I'm creating this template I Referred so many templates. I saw some templates like without giving space.For example:

1)KeralaStateFilmAwardforBestFilm

2)FilmfareAwardforbestMalayalamActor

Based on this idea,I had created that new template CNMall41 Jeevan shree (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CNMall41, I have given several warnings to them to disclose the COI ([15]). I believe the article shouldn't be deleted just because it was created by a sock. That is why I purposefully made an edit to make it ineligible for G5. The topic concerns a well-known actor in Malayalam cinema who passed away in 2016. Thus, I don't believe that any UPE is involved. My belief is that there is a personal or professional relationship between the sock farm and Jishnu Raghavan. I would like to ping UtherSRG who deleted the article last time. I think it should be undeleted, moved to draftspace and let go through the AFC process. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding references is not sufficient to make it G5 ineligible. The article is still the same content. I have G5'd it, and the subsequent copies Jeevan has made, and blocked them as a probable sock. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UtherSRG: What about the content addition from IP's. If I remember correctly, the version deleted by Liz had some content added by IP's. Is it the same editor behind those IP's? Thilsebatti (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to work the article, I can provide the references used and you can start fresh. Identical restorations and recreations will be G5'd. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thilsebatti:, The IP's are likely socks as well. The link I provided in the filing above shows that. For the previous deletion, I cannot see the deletion history. Are you able to show me what you are looking at so I can compare with the IP list of likely socks I have compiled? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helloo 68‎‎ - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thilsebatti: (edit conflict) I think your barking up the wrong tree here. As far as I can see the process has been followed exactly with the originating editor blocked and the article deleted. It won't be back in this incarnation. scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scope creep: I am aware of the precise reasoning behind G5. Even with this much socking, I would still have created Jishnu Raghavan myself. However it seems that the person behind the account Helloo 68 is obsessed with Jishnu Raghavan. They act as if they are the owners of the article. I'm also not much interested in maintaining film related articles and we have an upcoming NPP backlog drive in January. I will be fully focused on the drive if I'm not busy in real life. So I'm pinging Aadirulez8, Arjunsoumithran and Jayashankar8022, some editors who are focused on Malayalam cinema related articles. If any of them see this, I request them to assess the circumstances and if they're interested, take the responsibility, create the article and maintain it. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are aware that the person is "obsessed" with the page, and read the filings above with the links I provided, then know that this is something that has been going on with multiple pages for a while and is a DUCK for UPE (see this). Given that information, I find it strange that you would make an edit to advocate keeping the page, then ping others for them to create the page if they see fit. It is disheartening when myself and other editors take time away from editing what we like to edit in order to keep Wikipedia free of this kind of crap. In the end, the reward goes to the sock farm. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Lincoln Fenner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Time Rewind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fame Us (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Creation Box Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Newyorked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

• Tom Zubrycki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tzub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juno2580 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tzub wrote a very promotional article on Tom Zubrycki. Tzub self identifies as the subject, eg [16] "Added 2 additional films that I've recently directed and produced". After COI was point out to him a second time he properly stopped editing the article directly but stated "I am currently getting assistance from a professional Wikipedia editor." [17]. Soon after a new SPA who clearly has experience came along and edited the article [18], adding a lot of link spam, and removed the tags. This looks to me to clearly be a case of undisclosed paid editing. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further discussion at User_talk:Tzub#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion. Tom denies it was a paid editor. Whatever the case, they need to work with changes on the talk page and not employ WP:MEATPUPPETS. -- GreenC 21:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Brooke Medicine Eagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blisseffect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

• Genesys International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shikhar.jaiswalgen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Recently, I noticed changes being made to this article by this editor that I (and a few other editors) thought looked like advertising. I asked User:Shikhar.jaiswalgen whether they had a COI on their talkpage. They clarified that yes, they had, and after I linked them to the WP:COI guide for a third time, they have attempted to make the appropriate disclosures on their user page and the article page. However, the editor in question is still posting content directly to the page that appears to be worded in a promotional and non-neutral manner. I'm very inexperienced at dealing with COI issues, and I'm having trouble explaining Wikipedia's policies to this editor in a way that they can understand. I'm posting this here because I'm really out of my depth and I don't entirely know what to do next.

(Note- I did ask about possible steps over at the help desk and was recommended to bring the issue to the more experienced editors take over. That's most likely irrelevant, but for the sake of transparency, I thought I'd mention it. ) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I'm a product manager at Genesys International Corporation Limited, while reading wikipedia I found my company has a page created here but with just a line of information. Hence, wished to add more details and introduction to the company as I'm well aware of it and take care of what it does for other readers to know. We tried taking reference from other map companies like TomTom and Google maps. Taking inspiration from these I tried adding more information and after being educated by @GreenLipstickLesbian tried making it further neutral and an attempting the introduction to the company not look promotional. I would still like to add what we do and what we've done as we're a listed company on the stock exchange hence only public verified information can be uploaded there, I'll be using all citations possible to assist others to find the source of information.

Also, this is just an attempt to learn Wikipedia editing as my personal thing and I do work for the organisation, but this is a personal task that I took interest in (meaning not being paid to do this).

Have tried following what @GreenLipstickLesbian told and looking forward to any further suggestions that I should be aware of. Thanks! Shikhar.jaiswalgen (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have firmly advised Shikhar.jaiswalgen on their talk page to refrain from editing Genesys International, and to make formal edit requests on the article talk page instead. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Shikhar.jaiswalgen (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Pau Pérez-Sales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Elenenaggwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Jim Mellon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jim McIngvale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• U78u87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:U78u87 has been making a number of edits on Jim Mellon and elsewhere that seem clearly promotional in nature in ways that make WP:DUCK hard to avoid. See my comments on their talk page and their response. Many of their edits there and elsewhere (eg. [19][20][21]) seem weirdly focused on "philanthropy" by CEOs and / or removing criticism of them. This doesn't mean that all the removals are inappropriate, of course (these are articles that have had little attention previously) but the sum total of their edits seems hard to credit as normal editing; the particular edit that pushed me over the edge is their most recent one on that page - I can buy that some editors are deeply concerned with being as cautious as possible about BLP-sensitive statements about CEOs, certainly; I can even buy that that same editor also wants to make sure everyone knows about their philanthropy, though as my comment implies it made me a bit suspicious. I can't accept that they are also deeply concerned with wording the details of IPOs and and acquisitions by related companies in clearly promotional terms. And the bulk of their other edits focus on CEOs, popular musicians, and related articles in a similar way - all people who could reasonably employ a person or agency to burnish their Wikipedia articles and which therefore raise concerns about paid editing. They're also, as an aside, a new account who seems intimately familiar with invoking WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Update: Editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Revanth Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• N. Uttam Kumar Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ponguleti Srinivas Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jaipal Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kotla Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vara Naveen Reddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

• Better Than Cash Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Martin Volkmar Alliance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Huangqiantong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

The first editor seems to have a direct link to Better Than Cash Alliance in what is a highly promotional UPE article that subverts Wikipedia controls. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Euler polynomial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bernoulli polynomials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miguel Ángel Hurtado Benavides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2800:484:CF86:2C00:FDF8:60AF:1BA8:2CD1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

More eyes, please. Interest of the WP:SPAs has been adding content sourced to articles by Hurtado Benavides and Miguel Ángel. In Euler polynomial, this especially appears WP:UNDUE. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Gilles Epié (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Epie2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

• Harry A. Hyman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jun Li (chemist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neville J Bilimoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sparc Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sarvnaz Alambeigi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alon Shtruzman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mitslal Kifleyesus-Matschie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Just wanted to note that both are eligible for draftification per WP:ATD-I. Both articles are not older than 90 days (Harry A. Hyman was created on 29 September 2023 and Jun Li was created on 18 October 2023). 2001:8F8:1E3D:2F41:1FCF:914:2C35:471A (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found another GhazaleAryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Sarvnaz Alambeigi was created based on this job (listed on page3). So Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrathofyazdan is the correct SPI. 2001:8F8:1E3D:2F41:1FCF:914:2C35:471A (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Elliott Sharp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tamberrrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -
• Fenderjoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Draft:Torres Castle (Al Hoceima) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ali Maalouf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Trabeltomed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparent UPE: Ali Maalouf makes 8 pointless wikify edits, writes the draft and submits it for review within ten minutes. Ali Maalouf then contacts several experienced editors for review. Four and a half hours later new editor Trabeltomed moves the draft into mainspace. Trabeltomed's prior edits were all made today: 11 wikify edits to game the system. While there is surely puppetting of some type, I'm concerned about promoting a tourist destination probably for pay. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no advertisement or anything like that. It is a cultural architecture that you can search for through Google. As for (Trabeltomed), I do not know the reason he moved the draft and I did not contact him. I contacted some officials to review the article. I will only leave you some sources. You decide to decide.

https://ar.hibapress.com/details-415938.html

https://achamal24.ma/archives/24247

https://dalil-rif.com/permalink/30177.html Ali Maalouf (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]