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:

• 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]

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]

The conflict of interest (possibly paid) is obvious, but it does not seem to be done in bad faith, since there was no attempt to conceal the connection. I warned the user [1]. This can be solved with a disclosure. MarioGom (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

Please, submit this, including the freelancer link, the SPI link, and any relevant info to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. A functionary can handle it from there. MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[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]

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]

Both of these accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but what is the evidence? Miracusaurs (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miracusaurs: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simodabir0. I provided my rationale above, which is "evidence" enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a page on the website of a paid editing agency, which lists the following articles as created by them:

• Vishen Lakhiani
• Andreas Umland
• Radmila Lolly
• Lege Kale
• Adjarabet
• Udokan Copper
• Depositphotos
• Candy Crush Saga
• Luxair
• Qonto (neobank)
• Derrick Rossi

The pages should be checked for policy violations. It should also be checked whether authors have declared being paid. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vishen Lakhiani: Created by Taniasafuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account, unsuccessfully nominated for AfD, suspected sock: Princesstowarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Janhrach (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are already a known and globally banned entity, see Wikipedia:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Wikibusiness. It's not unusual for such agencies to list articles they did not actually have a hand in creating, none-the-less it is a good idea to check them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will check them one-by-one. Even if they aren't created by Wikibusines, the circumstances of the creation of this one are very suspicious. I have nominated it for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Umland: created by Stonepillar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), large edits by Миша историк (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Inkitrinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), COI edits by Andreumland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This article is ambiguous, I am leaving this to other editors. Janhrach (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Sent Qonto (neobank) and Adjarabet to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qonto (neobank) was created by Pcheetpcheet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single-purpose account, clearly gamed the system to get the article out of userspace. Janhrach (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user has edits to other Wikimedia wikis, I will review this later. Janhrach (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified other wikis of this user. Janhrach (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adjarabet was created by Hubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – a single-purpose account, gaming the system. Notable edits by Lemonisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is unlikely to be paid. The former has edits to Wikidata and kawiki (over 2000!). kawiki should be notified of this. Janhrach (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kawiki notified of Hubble. Wikidata edits look good-faith, though most are related to interwiki links to kawiki or labels in Georgian, so I am not sure. Janhrach (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Coi Editor user:Andreumland who is clearly Andreas Umland is editing at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Umland Afd. scope_creep^Talk 13:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have reported the IP who commented on several of the AfDs to ANI – they had no other contribs, though they demonstrated too much knowledge for a newcomer. It looks like we indeed found several articles that were paid for. Janhrach (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radmila Lolly was created by Darthvader2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), notable contributions by Octopuspresents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is possible that the former one is paid. They have nearly 40,000 contributions to eswiki, but were banned on Commons for sockpuppetry. Needs more investigation. We should, however, AGF of the editor until it is proven otherwise. Janhrach (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I don't see any other evidence of Darthvader2 being paid, which means they probably aren't. The article itself is okay and shouldn't be deleted. Janhrach (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous, deleted version of Radmila Lolly, which was substantially different from the current one. This means that the current one was probably not created by Wikibusines. Janhrach (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lege Kale – probable COI edits by Malikkeith96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Legekale1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Edits by User858985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be noted. Janhrach (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maineywhiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also appears to have a COI. Janhrach (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udokan Copper: created by several IPs. Nominating for PROD based on logs. Janhrach (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking their supposed client list is pointless, since these are generally fake. This agency is well known (SPI, WP:PAIDLIST#Wikibusiness, meta). MarioGom (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MarioGom: I am not that convinced that this is fake, but I of course know that some claims of the agency might be false. What leads me to continue this is investigation is this:

  • Discovery of several single-purpose accounts and instances of gaming the system
  • Sudden appearance of Andreumland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Udokan Copper being listed on the meta link you mentioned.

  Janhrach (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles might have COI edits, like many articles about companies and people, but it seems the accounts you are linking (like Andreumland) are completely unrelated to this sockfarm. MarioGom (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am aware that Andreumland is probably not somebody from Wikibusines, but the fact that a non-wikipedian learned so quickly about an AfD nomination of the article about them might indicate that he paid somebody to "watch" the article, most probably a paid editing company. Janhrach (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depositphotos: notable edits by Миша историк (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created by Mallboro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From the edits of the latter, it is evident that they wanted to promote the company. The article itself is okay. Janhrach (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Crush Saga: history full of vandalism, investigating paid edits is not worth it. Janhrach (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Миша историк (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a Bodiadub sock. Confirmed Wikibusines articles: Depositphotos and Oleksandra Masiuk (deleted G5). MER-C 18:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: This is very surprising, considering the age of the account and its edit count. Is there further evidence? How did you come to know about the latter article being created by Wikibusines? Why isn't the account globally locked? Janhrach (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a specific historical behavioral indication on both of those articles I linked. MER-C 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and wikibusiness are known for the attempts to buy accounts. so Миша историк account could be not theirs from the start but we prob never know for sure Anntinomy (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of clients differs for the site version in Ukrainian. Adding English versions of those articles for closer look

• Alina Pash
• Chernobyl (miniseries)
• Glovo
• Silpo
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
• Bolt (company)
• Nova Poshta
• Gulliver (building)
• Zhan Beleniuk
• Nick Bilogorskiy (connects to Nova Ukraine, Ostap Korkuna)

--Anntinomy (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anntinomy: Thanks! I will check them later, I didn't have much time recently and I won't have in the close future. Have you notified ukwiki? Janhrach (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If to speak about this list, topics are notable, with contributions from many editors, promotional edits in ukwiki were mostly reverted. Generally, Ukrainian community is aware about WB. It seems they've been oriented to work more in non-Ukrainian wikis in recent years. Anntinomy (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed

Logs indicate that Radmila Lolly was deleted previously. Please check if the current article isn't a re-creation of the deleted one. Thank you. Janhrach (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the deleted revisions. The old version and the new version look pretty different to me. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Janhrach (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kobi Sitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Kobi Sitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (someone else draftified it after I made this post)
• DimitrieCantemir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

• Zheng Chongbin (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Artbranch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zheng Chongbin (Artist)

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

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

• International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Kip McKean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1pameroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editaddict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I added a description of HOPEww using Charity Navigator as a source, which is an independent reliable 3rd party and simply a statement about the existence of the organization from the official page of the ICOC WP:ABOUTSELF. It is not promotional or controversial. I am happy to discuss the sources and wording on the Talk page. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JamieBrown2011: That would indeed appear to be promotional, what makes you think it isn't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is the text in dispute:

“The ICOC directly administers or partners with over a dozen organizations. Some function as appendages of the church; others are entirely unrelated in their mission and activities. HOPE worldwide, a charitable foundation started as the benevolent arm of the ICOC, which serves as the primary beneficiary of the church's charitable donations for the poor. According to Charity Navigator, America's largest independent charity evaluator, they have assigned HOPE Worldwide:

An "Accountability & Transparency" rating of 100 out of 100.

A "Financial" rating of 89.4 out of 100.

An "Overall" rating of 4 out of 4 stars, with the Overall score of 89.4 out of 100.”

And the references are:

^[1]

^[2]

- Is there anything unreliable about the sources?

- Is there anything in the wording that should be changed so it is more factual and less promotional?

- I am editing on my phone so please excuse any incorrect formatting JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats promotional... It is clearly intended to promote the subject through pushing undue use of primary sources. Note that this is not a content discussion, this is a behavior discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my bad. Thanks for clarifying. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you first tried to add material similar to this back in October, but have persisted despite being told about the problems with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of COI, I suppose since this discussion is already open on the COIN notice board, it certainly appears that Cordless Larry (talk) would qualify. Here are just 3 of his additions to the ICOC page:

1 - In the LEAD section:

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

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

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

2 - In History section:

According to journalist Madeleine Bower,

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

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

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

3 - In History

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

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

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

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

A conflict of interest occurs when a Wikipedia editor writes about a subject that they have an external relationship with. I have no relationship with the International Churches of Christ (unlike you). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So can you show which edits you have made that have not referenced sources critical of the church? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see this, for example. However, this isn't relevant to the COI editing that's been going on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point, after 6 months of editing the ICOC page you do not have one example of you adding anything to the article that comes from a source that isn't critical of the church. While you may not have a COI, your editing makes it appear like you do. @Cordless Larry, lets have some constructive discussion on the Talk page, use WP:RS that come from both ends of the spectrum, reach consensus and move forward. Does that sound reasonable to you? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been advocating discussion on the talk page all along! You're the one who's repeatedly been adding promotional material to the article based on primary sources, despite having a COI. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged that it was a mistake to insert the paragraph on HOPEww (shown above). You have acknowledged tacitly that over months of editing, you have ONLY inserted material that is drawn from sources critical of the church. (And not mildly critical either, you have an edit where the word “cult” is used ‘’’3x in one paragraph’’’). With that in mind, let’s move forward. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding 1pameroo which appears to have similar issues. Also add the page Kip McKean. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Editaddict also appears to have a COI in relation to the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Proposal: I suggest that JamieBrown2011 should be blocked from editing the article, as Editaddict already has been. Both can suggest edits on the talk page, should they wish to help improve the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ethirneechal (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• IamPriyaBhavani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I have warned the user also, and specifically cautioned against the poor grammar of this repeated addition. Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Update. The warnings have been ignored, so I've page-blocked IamPriyaBhavani indefinitely from Ethirneechal (TV series), with a warning that they'll be blocked from all of Wikipedia if they disrupt any other article in the same way. Bishonen | tålk 10:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Richard A. Cohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Generalrelative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Truedad21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

I have clearly responded to the COI questions [[2]], and stated my affiliation, as a psychotherapist, with the subject of this article. Nothing I am accused of- having a positive point of view of Cohen, or a single-purpose account, is in violation of wiki rules, nor does my past and present relationship with Cohen constitute a COI (“sockpuppetry” is addressed in a follow-up comment). I am only guilty of experiencing a learning curve as an editor on Wikipedia, hence the improperly uploaded photos and overly-promotional rhetoric when I first began. I have, however, always sought balance and fairness, and have never unduly removed controversial or negative content unless the information was false and defamatory or the presentation was misleading and I could prove it. The edits of Generalrelative described above, however, are in violation of the rules and intent of Wikipedia, and I call upon Generalrelative (again) to reconsider them, and voluntarily correct these errors.

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

In his now archived COI notice, Generalrelative questions whether a comment posted by Lukehhuneycutt, claiming that the Cohen article has a clear negative bias, might be sockpuppetry, apparently suggesting that this comment was either manipulated or made incognito by me (the comment was on the article itself, and made no reference to me or my opinions). The red flags he pointed to were the facts that the Lukehhuneycutt account was created 4 days before this, its only posting. In the interest of the same transparency and truth I have tried to demonstrate regarding my affiliation (or lack thereof) with Cohen, I will explain my relationship (or lack thereof) to this independent comment:

Once Generalrelative began consistently rejecting my attempts to restore balance and neutrality to the article by rolling back any and all of my edits based upon my purported COI, I decided to encourage others to read the Cohen BLP and respond to it as they saw fit. Generalrelative had noted I was the only person commenting and editing the article with a favorable view of its subject, even though it was also only Generalrelative, cheered on by the activist Zenomonoz, who is him/herself the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, editing out Cohen’s own voice and achievements from this supposed biography, insisting that the subject be defined by others’ judgments of him. In the past Generalrelative’s distorting role was fulfilled by only 1 other account- Sexologist, whose voice is eerily reminiscent of Zenomonoz, and is in fact one of the accounts accused of being Zenomonoz' sockpuppets. Besides these 3 accounts (2 people?) A grand total of 3 other comments rightly critiqued the overly promotional tone of my early edits three years ago. Generalrelative suggested, according to Wiki rules for COI and Contentious Topics, that I bring any recommended edits to the Talk Page for consensus, but did not respond to my initial attempts to do so, nor did anyone else. It was just the three of us- Generalrelative, Zenomonoz and myself. Now he rejects the edits of others claiming a ”consensus” that has never been established.

In September, 2023, I made a number of professional colleagues and clients aware of the Richard A. Cohen page. I asked them to read the content, and if they were dissatisfied with the factuality and fairness of its presentation, I encouraged them to create an account, express themselves on the Talk Page, and if they were inclined and capable, to participate in the editing process, hopefully improving its balance and fairness. I did nothing more- no recommendations on what to say or characterizations of what they’d find. Then I stepped away for the last 3 months, as I have been travelling internationally. I am quite sure that the Lukehhuneycutt account is real and the comment is genuine… neither have anything to do with me.

Truedad21 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The COI Noticeboard isn't the place to discuss whether or not Generalrelative has continued to foster a biased, anti-encyclopedic Biography -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Whistleblower Aid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mundanepitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

No payment no COI here! I can re-edit to keep the mention of Omidyar tbh it mostly looked dated and I wasn't sure about the source but can definitely keep that in a new version! Mundanepitch (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You previously disclosed a relevant conflict-of-interest (diff). Note that conflict of interest is not limited to financial conflict of interest. Please, carefully check WP:COI and WP:PAID. Note that you can edit, although editors with conflict of interest are strongly encouraged to request edits in the talk page rather than edit directly. Also, if your conflict of interest is a financial COI, you must disclose it, as well as any affiliation related to that financial COI. MarioGom (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Muqeem Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Muqeemkhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Article name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

• Jon Carin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nojnirac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Hi I am simply correcting false info on this Wikipedia page.

Thank you. Nojnirac (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The insistence on describing Mr. Carin as a current member--not a collaborator--of Pink Floyd and The Who is a red flag. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Innovative Technologies in Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Asiman Hasanov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aynur Safiyeva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rafael Bayramov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gulnaz Dadashova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ulvi Mirzoyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Atakhanli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Atakhanli's self-described name on their Az.Wikipedia userpage matches that of a "Marketing And Public Relations Specialist" employed by Innovative Technologies in Education. The user created the article for Innovative Technologies in Education, some kind of education company or consultancy in Azerbaijan. The user has egregiously spammed English Wikipedia with article creations for lots of clearly non-notable Azerbaijani academics, which may be related to their paid position. Thenightaway (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thenightaway! I came here with the intention of reporting this myself.

There is currently a group of Azerbaijani COI/SPA authors translating pages from az-wiki about mostly non-notable Azerbaijani people and organizations. There are currently 48 such articles in AfD, and many more that have recently been deleted. In addition to Atakhanli, the list of authors includes:

• Burlaçiçək (talk · contribs)
• Nuray95 (talk · contribs)
• Wertuose (talk · contribs)
• Johsgun Aliyev (talk · contribs)

Older accounts with a similar editing pattern include:

• Ordlock (talk · contribs)
• Turkishturan (talk · contribs)
• Lifekey23 (talk · contribs)
• Musifq.mehdiyev (talk · contribs)
• Fiusupport (talk · contribs) - currently blocked
• UHasanova (talk · contribs) - banned for undisclosed paid editing

I'm not convinced everyone on this list is necessarily a paid editor, but the pattern certainly suggests undisclosed COI for these SPAs. As a minimum, I would suggest a temporary topic ban, or at least enjoining these editors from creating new Azerbaijani related pages until the situation is clearer. Owen× ☎ 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those already mentioned, the following editors have a track record of importing very poorly sourced (solely sourced to state communications), often poorly written and often very pro-government articles from Azerbaijani Wikipedia into English Wikipedia:

* Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Active 2007–)

* Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008–2012)

* Cekli829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2009–2019)

* Daydreamer2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2016–2019)

* Coneyislandqueentobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2022)

* Selen578 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2020)

* LadymooN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017) (blocked)

* Investigation11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2021)

* Acdc88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2022)

* Jeyjey444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2019)

* Leila1717 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2019–)

* LeilaGva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2020)

It's hard to conclusively tell if they are COI or sockpuppet accounts, but their editing all follows the same pattern. Thenightaway (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are questioning your own account by tagging so many people, are you aware of this?

Tagging so many people and making serious accusations is vandalism in itself. The remaining paid articles etc. I am ready for any inspection regarding this. And I advise you to learn about Azerbaijan, because in the official article I added the institution mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Azerbaijan and the references are the website of the president of the country and the website of the ministry. itself, but you call it secondary or something, of course it's just your option to withdraw from the Negotiations.

I hope the admins will investigate the issue and make the most appropriate decision on the issue and take into consideration that you have tagged so many people and accused them of such a topic.

good luck. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johsgun Aliyev: if you believe listing your name here amounts to vandalism, you are welcome to report it on WP:AIV. And if you'd like to bring this to the attention of additional admins, you can report it on WP:ANI. Please let me know if you need any help. Owen× ☎ 22:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much because this person is making a very big accusation. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article of that educational institution is the first article I created on English Wikipedia. Yes, I worked in that educational center. For the reasons I mentioned in the discussion, I considered that educational institution notable. If this violates the rules, I apologize for that. I just created it because I thought it was noteworthy. I have no other interests. As I mentioned, the discussion should be deleted if it is not noteworthy. I respect the opinions of administrators. Any article can be deleted directly. I have no interest.

Other articles are completely unrelated. If you find any article not noteworthy, delete it directly. I am not interested in any case. I have also created articles for the minister, deputy minister and other persons. That doesn't mean I'm interested.

I have also created an article about medicine in Azerbaijan Wikipedia.

Sklerodermiya, Emil Qabrielyan, İrəvan Dövlət Tibb Universiteti, Emili Barringer, Tofiq Kənan, Qızılca peyvəndi, Asim Hüseyn, Şəmsəddin Əhməd

Medicine is my field of interest. There are many sources about those people in the Azerbaijani media. I can justify why those articles deserve notable. But I don't want to be misunderstood. Delete whichever you want.

Thanks. Atakhanli (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rachel Elnaugh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is unhappy with her article and feels justified in editing it. Says that "I've put out a call for assistance via my social media platforms and the response is pretty much that Wikipedia is a corrupt and unreliable source of information. No doubt the propaganda will be removed by others in time. Meanwhile, if there is a way to take legal action, I will. LOVE Rachel x RachelElnaughLoveDragon (talk) 8:11 am, Today (UTC+0)". I have no idea if the subject is correct and that comment was a response to my suggestion she use WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not related to the matter, she made a false positive report at EFFPR about she was trying to remove inaccurate statements and propaganda on her article, but I marked it as not done (the filter is working as intended based on the public log entries and not the rapid disruption one) because she might have a COI regarding her article. – 64andtim ^(talk) 10:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and BLUELOCKed the article for one month while we get to the bottom of this. Doug Weller and Materialscientist, please feel free to remove the protection if you think there's a better way to handle this. A COI topic ban might not be enough, seeing as Ms. Elnaugh is actively canvassing additional editors. Owen× ☎ 10:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:JBW has blocked both of her accounts for legal threats. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:We Are Era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Renredam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor in question created this draft and submitted it via AFC. It was declined at AFC, and a question was asked about conflict of interest. The author asked about it at the Teahouse. The decline was explained, and the question about COI was repeated. There has since been no reply to the COI question. The editor has edited sporadically since 2010, and has focused on We Are Era and its parent company, RTL Group. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the user has also edited the corresponding articles at least on de.wiki (as creator) and sv.wiki. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent in to update the article in preparation for some event. Yip, there is a news article at the site which looks on the surface as being it. Looks like a UPE. It is transparent. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

NoorStores declared a mild COI to British writer Kate Clanchy in November, saying that they were Clanchy's student on a writing course some years ago. NoorStores said that Clanchy struck them as "exceptionally kind and sensitive" but that "I doubt she would remember me".

Clanchy was the focus of a publishing controversy in 2021, where she drew criticism on social media and from some fellow writers. NoorStores initially blanked this from the Kate Clanchy article, rewriting it when it was restored. The user has also added lengthy and inadequately-sourced paragraphs about the story to the articles of several of Clanchy's critics ([4], [5], [6]), which I reduced to single sentences back in November. This week, NoorStores added a full section about Clanchy to the article of another of her critics, Joanne Harris.

I think NoorStores may be unhelpfully close to the subject here, and from the level of synthesis and primary sources in their edits appears to starting with their own perspective of events and finding sources to support each step, rather than writing neutrally based on what reliable sources have said. There's also a general sense that NoorStores sees Clanchy's critics as "controversial" figures (Talk:Joanne_Harris#Controversies!, [7], [8]) and that Wikipedia's readers need to be informed of this, which I'm not sure is the case. Belbury (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Mr Belbury is being fair to me. As you may see from my Wikipedia record, my area of study at university was diversity and identity in UK publishing. Here on Wikipedia, I have been open in saying so and also that I have met Kate Clanchy and she was a kind teacher. I also did a course with Diran Adebayo, and he was also kind, and also one day with Momtaza Mehri who is brilliant! (I don't think any of these people would remember me) All of these people had very outdated Wikipedia pages and I have updated all of them. I was a good person to do this because I knew the material. I believe I have been neutral for all of them though I have been learning as I go along. For Diran Adebayo I had to remove not-neutral 'peacock phrases' - quite a lot- even though it made me sad as personally I am a fan of his writing. For Momtaza Mehri there was lots and lots of tidying up, and I had to be careful again not to be a fan!. For Kate Clanchy I removed some things which I knew just as not-neutral in the other direction. For example someone had written she was 'known to be a racist' and people had rubbed out all her books then put them back with bits missing. This is not what Wikipedia wants. The controversy over her work is very big. In publishing it is huge.

I NoorStores (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe it should be in Wikipedia in a clear way. I am listening to Mr Belbury and I am a sincere editor. NoorStores (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Momtaza Mehri Diran Adebayo are here and I have met Roger Robinson one time as well! NoorStores (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at NoorStores's recent contributions, almost all she has done in the last few days is edit around Kate Clanchy and Joanne Harris and related articles.

I would strongly suggest that @NoorStores avoid editing any of the articles related to these people or the controversy around Clanchy's book, if only to avoid the appearance of COI. If you want to propose changes to any of those articles, it would be better to make them as suggestions on the Talk: pages rather than editing the articles directly. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of NoorStores edits from the start of her editing in Nov 2023 have been around the writers involved in one way or another with Kate Clanchy and the issue mentioned. She doesn't seem to intend leaving the topic and has now said on another users talk page that Joanne Harris is 'accusing' her. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments aside, I do have a problem with the way WP:ASSERT plays out in that excerpt. "Some people say [negative label]" in Wikivoice seems inappropriate. BrigadierG (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comments here are untrue. I have a higher degree in publishing. My dissertation was on issues around identity and on ways of increasing diversity in publishing. Here on Wikipedia, I have been very proud that my first article was on The Complete Works (poetry) . This article about increasing diversity in poetry has links to 15 other articles and I have been thanked for it. In addition, I have helped to get an article about Tomiwa Olowade published and was sent a diversity barnstar for that. Also, I have done big edits, as I say above, on Diran Adebayo, Saga Prize, Roger Robinson and Momtaza Mehri. These are all topics connected to my thesis, but, as I said above, I have also had classes with Diran Adebayo and I am Momataza Mehri's number one fan. This is not a conflict of interest, it's just my interest.

I have not made any edits to the pages cited by Owen Blacker in the last six weeks except Joanne Harris and Philip Pullman. Joanne Harris's page was not neutral and had big complaints about. I have improved it. If you want to say I have a conflict of interest, please give me instances of bad, not neutral prose on the Joanne Harris article, or say where I have not cited something properly.

Otherwise, you are just saying I am a bad person with no examples given. This is not neutral or fair. With the greatest respect I must remind you of the stereotype that Pakistani people are dishonest and 'on the make' and ask you to carefully examine your unconscious bias.

This is very upsetting for me. I feel bullied. NoorStores (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoorStores Please do not be so swift to find racism in other editors' thinking. In our first encounter you accused me of bias and suggested that I thought of Asians as being dirty, because I said "Other editors should not still need to clean up after your edits." PamD 13:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is untrue this was a section about Clanchy. There was one sentence about her in two paragraphs about the Society of Authors. NoorStores (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise Pam. You are a wonderful person and you have taught me so much here!

But this is a pile-on, like on twitter. It is not Wikipedia values. No one is reading the sources and checking. Everyone thinks I am in bad faith, and treats me as dishonest. Why? I did not think the way User:YellowFratello was treated was right either. Unconscious bias exists.

I think I will have to leave again. If I come back, I will have to pretend to be a white man. NoorStores (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do leave. You are a new, conflicted, and un-accomplished editor so how would you know what "Wikipedia values" are? The statements against you speak directly and dispassionately to your editing and at no point has anyone attacked your personhood. Playing the victim here will not work. In the past twenty years Wikipedia has dealt with many editors like you who only seek to deface articles for your own ends, so while for you this is a horrific confrontation, for us it's just Friday. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ragab Muftah Abudabus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Noshka87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Draft:Chris Williams (computer scientist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ramajoepanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Ramajoepanda, thanks for your honesty. You should disclose your COI on your user page and on the talk page of the draft by following the instructions at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cordless Larry There are now COI disclaimers on the draft talk page and my own userpage. I'm submitting for independent COI review in good faith but do let me know if this draft is not deemed suitable for publishing at this time or there is anything else I should be aware of. Ramajoepanda (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramajoepanda: So a colleague then? Are you being paid? Its a bit stroppy writing a coi article. No more direct updates to the article, from this point forward. Please ensure to use the WP:ER mechanism to request updates to the article from this point forward and have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests. scope_creep^Talk 13:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rikki Beadle-Blair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 31.24.4.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.12.60.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rikkifan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cranberries1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RikkiBB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently two IPs have spent the past few days adding huge amounts of completely unreferenced information to the Rikki Beadle-Blair article. Looking through the history, a series of clear COI editors (Rikkifan, RIkkiBB) have been doing the same over the years. When I put a COI template on 31.24.4.223, it was ignored. I replied that it was mandatory to disclose a COI and they deleted it and continued editing the article. I have removed the bulk of the unsourced material and added a few references myself but I can't watch the article indefinitely to ensure that the article subject or people with a relationship to him don't continue to try to use the article as an advertisement. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All those old accounts, I'm not worried about them; I'd block them but I've sensed a reluctance among other admins to block such old and obvious COI accounts. I've p-blocked the two IPs for a month; ThaddeusSholto's messages went unheeded, and their edits are clearly not neutral. If trouble persists we might semi-protect the article. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Shmuel Rosenman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eli Rubenstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• March of the Living (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Colinwhite613 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lots of promotional editing, even on subjects where COI is not so obvious, as at Irena's Vow (film). A working connection to Mr. Rubenstein was shared, then rescinded after COI concerns were raised [9], and there's been no response otherwise. At the moment, more eyes at the Rosenman article would be helpful. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Santiago Medina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jordanjemison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Reciprocating saw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Michael Best (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 147.202.209.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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