Trichome

thcscience_admin

Deerfield Academy

Unsure what the exact relationship is, they hinted at being an alumnus and donor of the school on their talk page but refused to disclose either. Jahaza has a long history of skewing the page away from NPOV which has been addressed by multiple editors. Jahaza does not think that they have a COI and they don't think that there are NPOV issues with their edits to the page... Despite multiple unrelated editors apparently being able to diagnose their undisclosed COI based on their editing alone. According to xtools they are the #1 editor on the main page [1] and it is their most edited page [2]. Also the #1 editor at List of Deerfield Academy alumni[3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The instructions for this noticeboard clearly indicate that an allegation of a conflict of interest is to be supported with diffs showing that there are NPOV problems with the editor's work. That those have not been provided here is telling. Absent such problems, not all attenuated relationships are COI. Horse Eye's Back seems to think that being an alumnus of a school is per se a conflict of interest, but this is not something actually found in the COI policy. Jahaza (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC) (Updated Jahaza (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC))
Also, "multiple" here means two. Jahaza (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
You repeatedly point to policy as if pointing to the policy shows that someone has violated it. I have not been uncivil and you should strike the insinuation. Jahaza (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Explaining what multiple means comes off as insulting/mocking, sorry if it wasn't meant that way but it doesn't appear very civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not mocking, it's correcting the misimpression that editors could have from your post. Jahaza (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
From my post? Its expanding on what's written in your post, not correcting anything in my post. Not sure what more is gained from going down this path, do you have a comment on the diffs? Note that even one editor being able to identify a COI based solely on the non-NPOV nature of your edits is one too many, if its not an issue its not identifiable by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, from your post. You wrote that "multiple unrelated editors" (two) had identified a COI.
Further, you omitted from your description regarding xtools, that I have the most edits, but I am not the person who has written most of the material. I have the most edits partly because I've been editing the page to remove vandalism and actual puffery for decades. Like here, where I took out a comment about the school being "among the most selective" [4], removing credential puffery[5], removing vandalism[6], removing athletic championships that were trivial puffery[7]. Jahaza (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
None of that counters the point that if your edits were in fact NPOV the fact that you had a COI wouldn't be identifiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It does, actually, if I'm removing puffery, then clearly I'm not in it just to add puffery. Jahaza (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
If that is the case how was your COI identified by editors with no knowledge of your educational history? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I think you need to grapple with the actual diffs I presented, not just continue to assert things. You could easily identify my real identity and educational history through Google. Jahaza (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Do I have your permission to do that? Note that if I knew that I wouldn't have had to ask if you had a COI... I would have just told you that your COI was out of hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to say more clearly that the fact that someone is an alumnus is not by itself a COI. You also have to show that their edits violate NPOV. You agree that the material should be in the article[[8]], you dispute about where in the article, which seems to have been satisfied by my adding back a header that I had removed because I didn't think it was very useful for navigation and was bad for flow. Instead of taking the W, you seem to have decided that the important thing is whether I have a conflict of interest. You ignore evidence that I've removed other puffery from the article. Jahaza (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that, hope these suffice [9][10][11][12][13]. That is through the beginning of the month. Earlier diffs [14][15][16]. Trying to bludgeon "elite" into the lead/body of your apparent alma mater about as clear as it gets in terms of NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The first removed a template that was added in contravention of the template's instructions, which require a talk page discussion to be opened when it is added.
  • The second removes original research that no one has added back, presumably because it's original research.
  • The third adds mention of a book that is a memoir that's not particularly complementary to the school! I'll add more (negative) details when I get a chance and have the book handy.
  • The fourth is a disagreement about the location of material that everyone seems to agree belongs in the article. Material that I sourced so as to make it more neutral, rather than insisting on it as a plain descriptor.
  • The fifth reverted a placement of the same material in a totally inappropriate location. News reporting is not "popular culture" nor is it "books".
  • The sixth adds cited material and does not insist on putting "elite" in the first sentence (which someone else had done originally, not me). It's actually agreeing to a deemphasis.
  • Seven and eight add sources to re-add a disputed word, that's pretty much just standard editing. (I also found the addition of "American" to the lede very odd, since we don't typically start articles that way.)
Jahaza (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jahaza @Horse Eye's Back Everyone is getting off track here. Basically, the only question here is whether Jahaza has an external relationship with Deerfield Academy. Do you have a connection Jahaza with Deerfield Academy that gives you an incentive to promote the school? Are you an alumnus? Are you a patron/benefactor? The alumnus thing means less than the benefactor part, because being a benefactor/patron is a financial relationship, which is detailed in WP:COI.
The way you've been dodging to provide a direct answer is what is concerning, like @Horse Eye's Back pointed out earlier. From what I can tell, your editing does suggest some some sort of relationship, but from what you've said you seem to be adamant that no such relationship exists and that your editing is thus neutral. We can just skip all of this senseless beating around the bush if you disclose whether or not you have a connection in reference to my original question. I don't know why you seem to be hesitating about this , just disclose if you have a connection with Deerfield; the more you don't give a direct answer just makes others think you're hiding something, which leads to more senseless and trivial arguing. So do that, then we'll have to deal with it from there. GuardianH (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
No, you continue to misunderstand the policy. I'm adamant that my editing is within the content policies and that therefore the question of what my attenuated relationship is is moot. Disclosing my exact relationship won't settle the matter, because it's not close enough to be in itself a COI and therefore the dispute will continue to be about whether or not my editing is sufficiently neutral.
It's a bad precedent to allow people to prevail in (minor!) content disputes by alleging a COI, especially when it's not based on the actual policy, but on the misperception that being an alumnus or a donor is in itself a COI neither of which is in the actual COI policy. Jahaza (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jahaza: Let's look at this another way: regardless of whether or not you have a relationship to the school (which you clearly do) your insistence on calling the school "elite" in just the way you prefer lacks neutrality. If your editing were up to par, you wouldn't have other editors arguing with your work. Now that you do not have consensus for your editing, you insist to us that everything you've done is above board (to your mind). A group of fellow editors disagree and no one else agrees with you. I'd suggest that you've overstepped and perhaps you should move on to another topic. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Except that they actually agree with the inclusion and calling the school elite in the article. Jahaza (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jahaza That's obviously not what he means. He speaking specifically about your insistence and edit warring on putting the label "elite" front and center in the lede, where it has the most prominent place, and all of which is an obvious abridgment of neutrality and hence suspect of a possible COI. GuardianH (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the dispute. I have not in fact insisted on keeping it in the most prominent place, which was in the first sentence, where someone else originally put it.
You initially removed the description from the article entirely, and you now agree that it should be included. I agreed to include it, but lower down.
I thought that the division of the article into small chunks to avoid it being on the lead by a technicality was pointless, but have agreed to that compromise.
You have suggested that someone being an alumnus is ipso facto a conflict of interest, when that is not actually the policy. Jahaza (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jahaza Being a donor, benefactor, or patron to a subject or institution is a financial relationship (Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships per WP:COI [emphasis added]).
WP:PE says: An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. [emphasis added]) If you are a donor/benefactor/patron, are you not investing in the institution? GuardianH (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
No, you are misreading the policy. A donor to a charity is not an "investor". Jahaza (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Are they an other stakeholder? [17] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
In that case, is it not a financial relationship? GuardianH (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It is a financial relationship, it's not a "close financial relationship," which is what's in the actual policy. If you want to edit the policy do that instead of hounding me. Jahaza (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
As I've said, your editing gives every impression of bias and dishonesty. Please put the stick down before this escalates needlessly. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Accusing me of dishonesty is really over the top. You should strike your comment. Jahaza (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Klermodalwonfeyz

User has now been blocked per a report at WP:ANI. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user Klermodalwonfeyz has refused to answer any questions about their potential COI with Vivek Ramaswamy when asked by multiple editors, and has instead continued to edit the article repeatedly, re-installing the same edits after they're reverted for inserting a non-neutral POV.

On 26 August, User:Neutrality reverted a series of edits made by this user on the grounds of them having a promotional tone and poor phrasing. Klermodalwonfeyz made more edits immediately after this, which Neutrality again reverted on the grounds of POV. Klermodalwonfeyz again made more edits to the article, which were reverted and a question was left on Klermodalwonfeyz's talk page about their potential conflict of interest, due to the promotional tones of their edits.

There was no response to this question, and on 9 September, after clearing their talk page of some notices, they again began editing the article - there were a series of edits that day. The next day, User:SPECIFICO left a note on the user's talk page asking them to respond to Neutrality's question.

There was, again, no response to this question, and the user continued to edit the next day without responding. Having the page on my watchlist, I noticed the edits and the strange phrasing and awkward language that Neutrality had noted in the very first diff in this report. For example, they introduced sentences such as:

  • In after thought during an interview, Ramaswamy reflected "cult like" to some affirming advocacy rights groups 'is what this LGBTQIA+ movement has become'
  • Ramaswamy believed supporting same-sex marriage in the United States when, for example, [...]
  • Ramaswamy did not taken a public position on the [..]

I reverted to the last good version, and went to their talk page to leave a notice about this awkward phrasing, where I saw the two previous requests to respond to claims about COI. In my notice, I mentioned the awkward phrasing, the usage of what appears to be phonetically-spelt English in edit summaries (this edit summary is... "ad sayt. muv bodom tu top.") and again reiterated that they needed to respond to this COI question.

There was, for the third time, no response to this question, as they continued to edit - even having been reverted by multiple users (User:David O. Johnson reverted their changes once and twice to the last good version). When the editor added these changes again, including the chopped-up sentences highlighted by David O. Johnson in his revert rationale, I reverted, noting that they still had not responded to any of the COI questions... only for them to continue editing the article within hours.

After FIVE attempts (three on their actual talk page, two in edit summaries) to ask them to answer this question, there has been absolutely nothing from this user, barring an edit summary in phonetically-spelt English which to the best of my reading ability says something about being asked for "payments of interest" or "ransom", further heightening my concerns. In my eyes this case borders on a WP:CIR one so feel free to direct me to ANI or another venue, but given the clear issue with COI, I'm left with no choice but to file a report here. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

And not even a half an hour after this noticeboard report was filed, the user has again edited the page to reinstall their previously reverted changes. A pageblock from the page above and Vivek Ramaswamy really needs to be considered at this point. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The user's edits are not improvements and the garbled unintelligible edit summaries make it impossible to parse the changes. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The disruptive conduct is continuing and even escalating. I think this is more of an WP:AE issue at this point. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I had been tempted to file at ANI before this report, but as the user has now (finally) addressed the COI situation on their talk page but continues to edit disruptively, I would not oppose further escalation - though I'm entirely unfamiliar with AE procedures so I may have to leave that to a more experienced editor. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allan R. Bomhard

The user in question blanking the entire article and replacing the content with unsourced information which pointedly lacks any of the criticism present in the original article. I reverted and left a COI note on his talk page, but that was shortly followed by reverting my revert and putting back the unsourced content (diff of the original and edits in question). The user isn't extremely active on Wikipedia by any stretch but they've been warned in the past for COI edits and their edit history is exclusively a laundry list of COI issues (Allan R. Bomhard is one of the most active authors in both theories, which are typically considered fringe theories within linguistics). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, but also there's a nine year gap between the edits in question and today.

Just to disclose my own COI of sorts here, I recently (unsuccessfully) AfD'd the article in question. Warrenmck (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Todd Newton

Editor has been forthcoming that they are Todd Newton. Now we need more eyes to counter WP:OWNERSHIP issues, like overloading images. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see this edit string for a clear statement "My name is Todd Newton ...." - Arjayay (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
This has been going on for years, involving many IPs and at least one other registered account, Carmcarp1 (talk · contribs), now dormant. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
That talk page section linked to and this one on their talk page indicate that it is a shared account and I will block on that basis, but of course the COI issues are also glaring. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a UPE article

I've found an ad for a job which a blocked user has taken. It contains some information about the subject of the article which has been created recently (last 2 months at most): an author who has written 14 non-fiction books, contributed to many others and had a long career as a journalist with the weekly LIFE Magazine and Cleveland Plain-Dealer. I haven't been able to find the article myself, but if anyone else can work out which article it is, please let me know so I can block the creator and G5 the article. SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse Searching for " 14 non-fiction books" reveals
Graham was too long ago, as was Snook, as was Friedlander
Sorry, I was so hopeful and fell at the first hurdle. I presume you have tried this? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Smartse More research suggests Ronald H. Bailey. Right time frame. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Smartse I used this as my search. If Bailey os not the one, modifying this search may bear fruit 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Yes that looks to be the one! Thanks very much! SmartSE (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Smartse there were enough clues. You should start an SPI if this is block evasion. There may be more that a CU can fined. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Yep I shall do, but based on past experience with the master, they are unlikely to turn up anything. It's this master in case you're curious. And annoyingly nobody participated in that discussion :/ SmartSE (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Smartse If nothing else it will document what has been discovered. We can only do our best. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Casey Donovan

User who has edited articles without disclosing conflict on interest, potential to have used other IP addresses and user names too. Happily888 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Emil Lee

Please see the editor's user talk page, particularly their not making direct and straightforward replies to questions about undeclared paid editing 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem interested in following rules on disclosing. If they come back, the editor should be blocked. I've put the draft on watch. scope_creepTalk 20:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Academic spamming: Bartholomew Hulley

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22French+Comics+in+English%22 A PhD thesis titled French Comics in English by Bartholomew Hulley has been getting cite spammed by various IPs and Phdacademicgenius such as in Special:Diff/1161075974 and Special:Diff/1161082869. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed all instances of Bartholomew Hulley's French Comics in English which were inserted by those two mentioned in this report. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Defold

I accepted this draft at Articles for Creation. Off-wiki coordination on the developer's web site was then pointed out to me by User:Ferret. See https://forum.defold.com/t/help-needed-to-create-defold-wikipedia-article/66645/17 . I have reverted my acceptance of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

To fully document: The founder of the project, Ragnarsvensson, created the article originally, which was deleted in 2014ish by PROD. Masem created a redirect around 2016. A member of the team, Britzl, tried to recreate it in 2020 and was reverted and warned of COI. Following this, Britzl posted as a representative of the team on their forums, offering free games to editors who would create the article for them. This resulted in a draft by WDeri77, which was declined and G13'd. 17 days ago, Britzl again bumped their forum post, encouraging multiple forum members to create another draft, with other official team members encouraging it. This draft was sorely lacked reliable secondary coverage, but was plastered with misleading primary sourcing. That version is now currently back in draft space. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I just went through and removed the ad content and sourced as much as I could. Would you give it a second take? HolmKønøman (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
User:HolmKønøman - Probably not. "Once burned, twice shy." Some of the reviewers are wary of being taken advantage of again. If there was ad content in that had to be removed, then that indicates that you were sneaking ad content into Wikipedia. We don't "owe" you a timely re-review, and if you have to wait three or four months, that is your own fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I fully respect that, and I have no expectation of a speedy review for a niche draft article with a foggy history (I was more looking for feedback to whether I was doing sourcing right because I haven't done it before), but I'd also appreciate if you would AGF with me as I in fact have never interacted with the Defold draft article before, never submitted it for review, and was not responsible for any of the content on the page. All I did was remove problematic content from a Draft page, not the first time I've done it and probably won't be the last. Accusing me of "sneaking ad content into wikipedia", or attributing the state of the article as "mine own fault" without even so much as checking my history seems very argumentative. I am proud of my contributions to WP and while I certainly haven't been around the block as long as you have this isn't my first day. Contributing WP and doing vandalism patrol have been hobbies of mine that I engage in from the back row of the classroom since I joined. At the end of the day I'm here for the same reason as you, to maintain an encyclopedia. Thank you. HolmKønøman (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@HolmKønøman:, I am curious how you came across the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It's been on my watchlist for years, you can check for yourself. I never tried to create or edit it before now, though.
HolmKønøman (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Eric Johnson (Texas politician)

The bots at AIV recently caught this heavy editing of the article on the mayor of Dallas. All have come from IPs ... some from a range in the Philadelphia area, the most recent from the static Dallas one linked above. In the last series have been some large removals of sourced content as "inaccurate". It also seems a lot more positive, fluffy content has been added. Per Ad Orientem's comment at AIV, this needs a look from someone familiar with, or willing to get familiar with, the situation to distinguish the good edits from the bad. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the above comment. The page history, in particular some of the recent editing, raises some yellow flags in my mind. (courtesy ping @Daniel Case) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The reason for these edits has now become clear: Today Johnson announced he is formally switching to the Republican Party. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Required disclosure for paid admin advising

There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new COI disclosure requirement. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Clif Payne

The standard autobiographical COI issues--addition of unsourced, anecdotal content, name dropping, etc. I reverted once and left a COI notice, to no avail. This is an interesting promise of intent [18]. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Scarlett Harlett

Huge additions of unreferenced text in their own article. Adding themselves to another article, George Green's School, with a reference that doesn't even mention George Green's School.[19] COI warning on talk page but apparently ignored. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Progress: user in question is communicating at User talk:ThaddeusSholto. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard A. Cohen

Truedad21 has existed as a single-purpose account for editing the BLP Richard A. Cohen, a proponent of conversion therapy, since March 2019. Of their 140 edits, 100% are either edits to the BLP itself, its talk page, or disputes with other editors regarding Mr. Cohen. Many of these edits have been reverted as promotional in nature or otherwise undue. In March 2019 Truedad21 also uploaded two images of Cohen, listing each one as his "Own Work".

After refusing to answer questions about a potential COI with Cohen first raised in 2020, he has recently stated definitively that he has no direct connection with the subject [20] and (after some additional prodding) that he had selected "Own Work" when uploading the images in error [21]. Curiously, these image are labeled as having been created on 19 February 2019, about a month before Truedad21's account was created, yet later he claimed that these images were obtained from the source (PATH) by request. The photo exists on a number of bookcovers and websites independently of me.[22] Were the photos made widely available between February and March 2019, just as Truedad21 decided to create his account?

There have been some accompanying intemperate remarks from Truedad21, though they are not egregious: suggesting that others are trying to "cancel" him [23] and accusing me specifically of acting in bad faith because of an ideological distaste for Cohen's work [24]. Of course I do agree with mainstream psychology that conversion therapy is fringe, but my main concern here is that this editor's behavior really does not seem like that of an uninvolved person. I'd be curious to hear what others on this noticeboard think.

The second account I've listed here, Lukehhuneycutt, is an odd duck. It's made only one edit, a post at Talk:Richard A. Cohen supporting Truedad21's point of view [25]. The account was created four days before its first (and only) edit, which is often considered a red flag for sockpuppetry.

You can read the relevant article talk page discussions here and here. Discussions of Truedad21 and COI can be found at user talk pages here (and following) and here.

Please note that I do not consider any of this dispositive that Truedad21 is lying about not having a COI with Cohen, but I do think that it warrants more eyes on the situation –– and that perhaps CU may be warranted to check against sockpuppetry with Lukehhuneycutt. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur that Truedad21 is likely lying about their connecton with Mr. Cohen, and probably does indeed have some kind of COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Singaporean politicians and people

This user has been editing various Singaporean politician and people's articles, usually adding promotional or resume-like prose, particularly on K. Shanmugam. It may suggest a COI or paid relationship with these subjects. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the political career in K. Shanmugam to before these edits. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 10:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I have reviewed all the pages they edited and removed the text I found promotional. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 00:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Mad River Brewing Company

Someone here might want to take a look at the recent history of Mad River Brewing Company and contributions of User:Madriverbrews. At the very least, the username fails WP:CORPNAME. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Reported on Usernames for administrator attention. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Peso Pluma

User is repeatedly removing the image on the page and/or adding copyrighted images claiming the artist's team does not want the image on the pages. They have continued making these edits after being notified of a potential COI and is claiming to speak for the artist. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked them 24 hours for violating 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bradypetersen

Only edits have been to add content to the Stacy Spikes biography, some of it promotional in tone (writing in Wikipedia's voice with no source that MoviePass is a vital hub whose events offer a unique opportunity for filmmakers and audiences, headed by a person whose work there prompted a reevaluation of the way audiences engage with movies in theaters), some of it publicity photos and scans of book covers, some of it copyvio text from promotional material. No response to multiple talk page messages asking about a possible COI, and they've failed to take on board a uw-advert2 warning asking them to write objectively. Belbury (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Pirateer

Deeply WP:UNDUE edits, poorly sourced and self-interested. User appears primarily to be using these articles to settle personal scores. The only question is how much to revert. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I've blocked them: they continued their non-neutral spree after being asked to disclose. If they ever decide to respond, they can explain what they were doing. The bigger question for me, right now, is whether all their edits on both articles should be revdeleted for BLP violations. I cannot decide on that right now: it's been a long day and there's still a football game to play. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Zacha's been dead since 1998, so even though there's a lot of bile directed at him, it's not WP:BLP related. However, the lengthy spiel at Pirateer goes off about ex-wives who may still be alive, so I'm inclined to think all of that may fall afoul of BLP guidelines and merit rev/deletion. Good luck on the gridiron tonight. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
    • And board members. And lawyers. Pretty much anyone who done him wrong. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Éric Mickeler

Promotional biography of a commercial auctioneer, written by a SPA. Could use some heavy trimming. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

IP has deprodded with the nonsensical reasoning that he "probably passes WP:PROF", despite having never published a scientific paper. As such I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Éric Mickeler. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Cortex Command

There has been significant edit warring in the aforementioned page (pretty much all of the recent history is that), which I personally believe to be related to self promotion.

For context, there was a recent community schism. One half of the schism is not and has not attempted to link to itself in the wikipedia page, however the other group controls a page that has been linked for some time. I believe that consistently re-adding the link to this page constitutes self-promotion, and that most likely when it was originally added in this edit it was also self promotion then. I cannot prove this as both the original addition of the link and all following edits to re-add it were made by IP addresses, but I believe the high degree of engagement in consistently re-adding the reference in an otherwise relatively inactive article circumstantially implies this to be the case.

There was an attempt to discuss this in the talk section however the edit war has continued without much engagement there from either side. It was suggested by User:Deepfriedokra that a COI be declared and that involved parties stop personally editing the page. I have personally stopped editing the page aside from recently reverting a change made by another person in my community.

I did attempt to find and notify the involved parties, however the only individual who has an actual account was the aforementioned fellow from my own community.

Thanks for any review.

--98.97.138.195 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I will note that several of Cortex Command's developers have been directly involved with the CCCP. For example
Weegee and Cavecricket42 have directly contributed (as seen here they are listed on both the CCCP and original Cortex Command credits https://github.com/cortex-command-community/Cortex-Command-Community-Project-Source/blob/development/Resources/Credits.h).
Furthermore the project is linked as a pinned post by a developer on the Steam forums (https://steamcommunity.com/app/209670/discussions/0/3160957541890851455/)
As such, in my perspective the CCCP project is directly related to Cortex Command and it's developers in a way that mods are not. The existence of a project that's directly linked to both the original developers and is involved with the development process of Cortex Command itself feels like a significant piece of information, and does not strike me as self-promotional. Causeless1 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll note however that I'm directly involved with the project. I didn't add the reference to the project initially though, and have no idea who did. I initially discovered the project via the wiki reference. Causeless1 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The aforementioned original developers have not been engaged with the project for some time and their contributions are present in both forks. 98.97.138.195 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
If there is no reliable, secondary source mentioning the follow up project(s), the Wikipedia article shouldn't have mention either. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2020/01/cortex-command-has-a-community-project-that-aims-to-keep-the-game-alive/
Is this a reasonable source? 2A00:23C6:BC86:D501:3117:A5CB:EA5D:5A9 (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Gamingonlinux.com appears on the video game wikiproject's list of unreliable sources, so I'd say no. MrOllie (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sean O'Connor (Producer)

I've been advised to set up an account in order to have some material removed on the page relating to my work. The headline paragraph of the biog draws attention to two actors who left EastEnders during my tenure there. This is hardly noteworthy in a public forum other than, perhaps, to big fans of the series. In the context of my thirty year career, it's pretty insignificant. The suggestion here is that it was SO important that I left the BBC because of it. This is simply not true.

At the same time, citations in the body of the article relating to this eg an interview with Dominic Treadwell-Collins, simply say that he was sad that characters he created left the series. The editor has implied that this is 'evidence' of Dom being critical of me. other 'evidence' is cited from Digital Spy, The Sun and Hello- hardly secure sources in anybody's book. As a soap producer Dom is well aware that this is just the natural churn of soap. These additions have been removed from this biog before but are continually added, despite various editors agreement for them to be removed. So I'm not sure how that can be resolved?

Birkenhead01 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This request would probably be better placed in the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced and apparently connected edits by Steven.Valentine

Steven.Valentine has edited multiple articles - not all of them are listed above - to add unsourced material that includes or explicitly focuses on "Steven Valentine." They have not replied to the message left on their User Talk page or even used edit summaries. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted some more blatant and egregious self promotion and left a warning, after which it simply continued. I have reported at WP:AIV for spamming as I thought that might get more immediate attention? Melcous (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Epesi

Epesi is an article that has a lot of promotional language in it. Also, it has very few sources; most of them are just reviews. This report coincides with an AfD nom.

Epesi was created multiple times by User:Jtylek under a few names and speedy deleted. Jtylek's edits account for 81.7% of the article. The creators of Epesi are Janusz Tylek and Karina Tylek (who also appears to have edited the article with User:Ktylek). They haven't edited in at least six months so I have not warned them. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Jtylek has admitted to being Janusz Tylek and thinks because he donated to Wikipedia, we should keep the article. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 18:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
User:Jtylek has started to edit the article again. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 00:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

1928 Institute

JumpingJimmySingh is blocked from editing India League due to a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#India League. Their editing continues to consist of attempts to establish that 1928 Institute is a continuation of the India League, and they probably should have been blocked from the latter at the same time as the other block. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm suggesting that we extend JumpingJimmySingh's block to include 1928 Institute. This would still allow an editor with a COI to follow WP:COIREQ. Pinging Drmies as the blocking administrator. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to hear a bit more evidence before I do that. User:Hemiauchenia? Drmies (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't really have any skin in this dispute. My removal was because I thought the addition was unencyclopedic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
The main issue has been JumpingJimmySingh repeatedly trying to add claims that the 1928 Institute is a continuation of the original India League, when that's not supported by third-party sources. If you review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#India League, you'll see that JumpingJimmySingh had been asking about SEO, and there were some strange coincidences involving updates of the 1928 Institute's website to support their edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
...not to mention knowing personal, unpublished details about the organisation's founder. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ashot Khachaturyants

CN Digital Work has made repeated efforts to add material regarding Khachaturyants' philanthropic work (see [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31].) In all cases, CN has added notes about arts projects that Khachaturyants has financed, but provided links that do not verify such financial support. CN has been warned about this several times, but has not engaged in any discussion about the matter. The nature of the user's edits (they have made no edits other than to this one article), as well as the user's name, lead to the conclusion that they are working on behalf of Khachaturyants. The user has been notified of this discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello WikiDan61, unfortunately my english skills are not the best. First of all, my name is CN DigitalWork, because I am involved in many areas of digital life (web, graphics, photo, installations etc.) I do NOT receive any money for updating Ashot Khachaturyants site. Since I like AK's philanthropic work and this benefits all arts, I think there is nothing wrong with it. I have tried to take my enthusiasm out of the changes and briefly, succinctly state his stations in the theater. How can I specifically give appropriate references if they only exist on posters, posters? CN Digital Work (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@CN Digital Work: If Kachaturyants' philanthropic work has not garnered coverage in independent media, then perhaps it is not notable enough to mention here at Wikipedia. I would also note that you have been contacted several times by multiple users regarding your edits at this page; you have ignored all such contacts until now. At Wikipedia, when other editors question your edits, it is best to engage in those discussions rather than ignore them, in order to reach proper consensus. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Chambers Management

User:ChambersMgt received a soft username block this week for making very mildly promotional edits to biographies of clients from https://www.chambersmgt.com/artists

User:EGCM1 appears to be the new username the company selected, but they haven't acknowledged or followed Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest and paid editing. They've also moved up a notch to creating promotionally-tinged draft articles about their clients (Draft:Dee Allum and Draft:Reuben Kaye so far) and adding a client's podcast as an example on another article without disclosing the professional connection. Belbury (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

License laundering is obvious. photos identical to those uploaded by those users have been found in published, copyrighted materials that dates prior to when the files were uploaded. Copyvio CSD submtitted to Commons. Graywalls (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
If they're the management company then they may well own the rights and be genuinely willing to release them under a free licence, which would be useful. If they're ignoring COI notices here then they may not be reading very closely when agreeing to licence a photographer's work for commercial reuse on Commons, though. I've started a deletion discussion on Commons for the remaining four photos. Belbury (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
It's all too common for these public relations editor to launder license but the actual copyright owner/photographer is not willing to fully release them under CC-BY-SA for any and all use, including modifications and commercial use with no restrictions whatsoever. The release means the photo is also released for irrevocable release for any uses the users see fit under CC-BY-SA. All too often, the copyright holder try to only allow it for "Wikipedia page publicity purpose". Graywalls (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Crowdfunded vehicle article slash brochure

People of the noticeboard might want to take a look at Aptera (solar electric vehicle). I just removed a section on options that was sourced to company brochures. There are other dubious WP:PROMO-ish things going on, especially section Configurations, also cited to the crowdfunding website or the brochures and/or press releases. The article's creator, Fotoguru received a PROMO warning on their talkpage. Their response to my inquiry about a conflict referenced an investment but I'm not going to dig into it; people reading this are welcome to take whatever action is appropriate next. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I started but got pulled away. Looks like it can be almost stubified once the unreliable, primary, or non-independent sources are removed. Too much cited to the company website or WeFunder. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Added another article, almost exactly half of the references are the corp site also. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Its mostly all references to the website, the ceo, or ask a question at company events type, WP:PRIMARY references. There is not going to be much left. Stubbed is the best bet. scope_creepTalk 08:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Aptera (solar electric vehicle) was a mess. I had to research the company history to determine which vehicle was actually produced. After doing a slight update on Aptera Motors, I merged the solar vehicle there as I cannot see having a WP:CFORK for something already covered on that page. The Aptera 2 Series is the original vehicle that failed prior to the company going into liquidation (prior to the recent re-launch). Going to tag the company and the Aptera 2 page for cleanup. I think Aptera (solar electric vehicle) would be a good AfD candidate if un-merged. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
FYI. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Bri and CNMall41 has gone way too far trying to "improve" these articles about the notable Aptera EV and the company that designed it. They ended up removing most secondary citations, then declared the article didn't have enough! Then CNMall41 decided to delete the article!
At his request I added a "No COI" notice to my user page, but that made no difference. Can we restrict CNMall41 from making more destructive edits? Fotoguru (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
As I wrote in the change history to the Aptera SEV article, this vehicle is considered significant by sources including MotorTrend, RoadAndTrack, the WSJ, Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, IEEE and more. Fotoguru (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Once all the cruft is removed, I think they'll be short enough to easily merge into one article. Graywalls (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Aptera Motors article (and their product articles) are being butchered by some folk who don't think Wikipedia articles should have much company information. Are these article butchers correct?
Please review the recent history of deletions. Are they proper? Should Wikipedia articles on notable companies such as this one be so sparse? Should they delete all factual primary information sourced from the company? Fotoguru (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Fotoguru (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Viatcheslav Kantor

Additional articles
  1. European Jewish Congress
  2. Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance
  3. European Medal of Tolerance
  4. European Jewish Fund
  5. European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation
  6. World Holocaust Forum
  7. International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe
  8. Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery

My colleagues and I published a Russian-language investigation about Vyacheslav Kantor. You can use Google Translate.

The main idea is that since 2009, Kantor’s PR people have been closely involved in his articles in Russian and English Wikipedia and have pushed many articles about organizations associated with him. The main account, Acvec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked in 2019 for copyright violation. Then the account accidentally admitted that 'we are the PR department of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation'

After Acvec was blocked, they not only actively edited as anonymous, but also decided to look for experienced Wikipedians and involve them with their reputation to work on the necessary articles. In particular, from November 2021 to May 2022, Николай Эйхвальд (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the most famous and titled authors of Wikipedia in Russian, an eleven-time WikiPrize winner in ru-wiki with 137 thousand edits, took up articles about Kantor. For Kantor's sake, Eichwald returned to English-language Wikipedia, where he had made only 7 edits over the previous 6 years. It detailed Kantor's public activities, removed references to his ties to Putin, and created a new article about the ridiculous concept of Secure Tolerance that Kantor and his PR consultants came up with back in 2011.

Also, in September 2023, as part of a campaign to lift sanctions against Kantor, a new editor, Kaplans2007, appeared in the English-language article. He said that Kantor is not a Russian entrepreneur at all, is not connected with Putin, and the sanctions were imposed on him unfairly.

My request is the following:

  1. What to do with all the articles written in Kantor’s interests all these years? How can I mark them with templates?
  2. What to do with Николай Эйхвальд (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?
  3. What to do with Kaplans2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?
  4. Should all articles related to Kantor be protected from anonymous edits? Gruznov (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Attempt to puff article by paid editor

Editor came in last, brought 13k article to massively puff the current one. scope_creepTalk 06:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor has admitted they have a coi and as employee League Inc, a company run by Serbinis who is the ceo, they are in effect a UPE. Asked them to disclose. scope_creepTalk 06:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
At least a bit of copyvio from here. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Variety Paid Editors

Recently, a FFU Request was made a few days after attempts were made by Ltowndown12 to "update" the cover on the Variety (magazine) article to a "newer cover image".

After I commented that I saw no need to update the image, an IP purporting to be the 'Director of Brand Marketing for Variety' commented in reply. A close IPv6 address (4 segments the same) also edited Variety (magazine) around the same time as the other attempts. They were told no, and I believe this may have been a marketing stunt by the management at Variety to push the Scarlett Johansson cover

I think this shows that the not only is the IP range and Ltowndown12 linked but there is absolutely UPE going on in relation to Variety (magazine). Therefore, although this is not an SPI, I would ask for a CU to check (but obviously not confirm) the link between the user and the IPs. - RichT|C|E-Mail 23:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say that updating to a cover from the 2020s is a reasonable idea, but I don't think the suggested [32] would make a very good leadimage, it's just a lot of red. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

CharlieSmith98

Hello, I want to draw attention to CharlieSmith98's edits to Sulaiman Al-Fahim. The account seems to have been created less than a month ago for the sole purpose of sanitizing the article of unflattering (yet well-sourced) material and adding random puffery to the article. Similar for 1NicholasSchmitt1. ViewmontViking has tackled some of the edits but should CharlieSmith98 & 1NicholasSchmitt1 still be editing this article? 87.200.229.168 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a true WP:SPA editor, suggesting a coi. scope_creepTalk 08:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

User Stravensky

Highly promotional editing across the board, often using unreliable sources, often includes sizeable amounts of unverified content in BLPs, and often WP:OVERCITEs. Admits to a COI with the four articles listed above. Has created 43 articles, of which 11 have been deleted. Most of the remaining articles have serious problems. Hipal (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The most recent two article creations are for GaS Digital Network and the co-founder, neither of which seem to be notable and are now at AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth's Call Fund and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Ray. Jfire (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I think many of these will eventually make it there. I looked at both you nominated and neither come close to meeting notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Surviving articles created by this user and my assessment:

I think probably a handful of these would survive a deletion discussion in their current state, and the rest would be deleted. Overall I don't find it credible that this user's COI is limited to the four articles they've admitted to. Jfire (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Bmchedlishvili

 Courtesy link: WP:ANI § Bmchedlishvili

This is a heads-up of an ongoing situation that has now spread to ANI. Bmchedlishvili (talk · contribs · count) is "deputy head of strategic communications department at Prime-Minister office Georgia", and has been editing and warring at Irakli Garibashvili (current P.M.). There has been discussion at Talk:Irakli Garibashvili and at User talk:Bmchedlishvili. This has now spread to this discussion at ANI. Imho, that discussion should have been started here and not at ANI, and I will make a proposal there to move it here, but in the meantime, in order to minimize fragmentation of discussion, interested readers here should either be patient here or respond there if you have to until it is moved. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion copied from AN/I:
Bmchedlishvili (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed sourced, verified content from Irakli Garibashvili without explanation. They have also repeatedly changed the lead image (without explanation) multiple times, despite there there being a discussion in progress on that topic. I have attempted to discuss the matter with them on their talk page; I have warned them multiple times that if they continue this behaviour they will end up here. I have discussed the issue on the talk page (see discussion), along with NobodyUser and Emperor of Emperors. However, many of their responses were accusations of bad faith on my part: and i asking again, whats your interest when you change our image? you trying to hart us hard, lets talk with mods! yes you really "care" and trying to add wrong information and bad picture for us That discussion did not prove fruitful, and they have continued their unexplained changes, neither leaving edit summaries or responding to my messages on their talk page, two of which offered technical help if they are having difficulties leaving edit summaries.

I don't want to be here. I want to sort this out on a talk page. But when a user completely ignores discussion, and continues their same edits with no explanation, and accuses me of attacking the article, something needs to be done.

Diffs of unexplained content removal:

  • Special:Diff/1179934648
  • Special:Diff/1179550630
  • Special:Diff/1178469304
  • Special:Diff/1177988023
  • Special:Diff/1177605106
  • Special:Diff/1177579425
  • Special:Diff/1177579586
  • Special:Diff/1177493224

Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: It appears the user may have a COI with the article subject, as they say on the talk page that they are deputy head of strategic communications department at Prime-Minister office Georgia, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I say yes that is a COI. This is work related editing. Secretlondon (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I was just about to post that I'd dropped a message on their talk page about WP:COI because of the same statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was going to do that a while ago, but I thought there was a specific template one should use, searched for the template, couldn't find it, got fed up, and then forgot about it. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Twinkle has one. Secretlondon (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
...and Bmchedlishvili continues their slow edit war over the lead image, even though a discussion on the talk page is in progress exactly about that. Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Still at it. I'd suggest an indef block, since this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Edward-Woodrow • talk 11:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes still reverting every day. Secretlondon (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not in disagreement with most of the above, but imho, this is the wrong venue for action on this. I would like to suggest that this be moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where it more properly belongs. If there is no objection, I will move the discussion, or Edward-Woodrow, as OP, feel free to do the move (see Template:Discussion moved to). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Bare minimum, Bmchedlishvili (talk · contribs) needs p-blocked from Irakli Garibashvili to end the COI editing there. They can discuss changes on the Talk page. If they move to tendentiously editing other Georgia-related articles, then a topic ban could be implemented, but I'm not sure it needs to be done right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also appreciate an official caution regarding their talk page behaviour, which I would describe as hostile and with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I have blocked them from editing the article. I'll also try to keep an eye on the talk page going forward. SmartSE (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Alan Jackson (businessman)

This editor has exhibited WP:OWN behaviour over these two articles for some time, including moving them into article space after they were rejected at WP:AFC. The editor's previous responses to questions about COI (with other articles) have been somewhat evasive and stretched credulity as evidenced here. They have now ignored a specific request about a COI here and continued editing. There have also been some discussions on Commons that Timtrent may be able to speak to.
I want to abide by WP:OUTING (and please let me know if independent editors think this is crossing that line), but it is not difficult to find from the sources provided that the two subjects are connected in that they have children who married one another and thus they share grandchildren. Much of the content, and some of the photos, that the editor has added, are not publicly available and strongly suggest a family connection. Melcous (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been discussing on Commons matters of copyright and licencing, not having researched into this level of detail. I do believe we should consider c:User talk:Carey3146 in this discussion, even though I believe it shows a simple determination to upload pictures there without choosing to be aware of the laws surrounding copyright.
My own concern has been of an editor remarkably impervious to advice, with articles on people who are likely to pass WP:BIO, but whose referencing is of such "unusual quality" and text is so cluttered as to obscure notability, coupled with an unusually strong determination to preserve every detail by that editor. Indeed, I have become so concerned that I have asked elsewhere for other eyes on my discussions and actions in case I am incorrect. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Timtrent, I think that both subjects are probably notable, so not so much a walled garden, but this has all the hallmarks of COI editing, including some comments the editor has made on Commons about where the photos are coming from, and I think they should be required to use the talk page rather than edit the articles directly, and to give space for non-conflicted editors to clean up the trivia and memorial-type content. Melcous (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Melcous Your thoughts make sense; I believe the editor started with goodwill and enthusiasm, and probably believes they have retained both of those things. If self restraint is not something they are willing to use (history suggests limited use) then mandatory restraint may be the sole choice remaining, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Some evidence of potential COI might be inferred from their comment at C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr James May in the late 1980s.jpg where the ownership of a printed out copy, then digitised, suggests the relationship with May needs further scrutiny. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    Timtrent this edit made after the discussion had started here suggests both that the editor is aware of the COI issue despite not responding, and I believe makes clear exactly what the connections are. @Carey3146: you should disclose your conflicts of interest and stop editing these articles directly, using the talk pages to propose edits instead. Failure to do so, or indeed to engage in this discussion, could see you blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    Melcous It is hard to continue to maintain an assumption of good faith. They are evasive, they dissemble, and they bluster. To me that edit is crystal clear.
    I often marvel how wise I have been not to take on janitorial responsibilities here, lest I make a unilateral blocking decision in such circumstances. I am torn between seeing massive COI and seeing NOTHERE. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
    In defence of my recent actions, I have been too busy to contribute to another conversation until now. However, your searching of my personal sandbox I find slightly disturbing. Nevertheless, I will remove any confusion hereafter about my alleged conflict of interest.
    I have a conflict of interest, for the Wikipedia pages of Carey, Alan Jackson and Jim May and nothing more as I have made no articles other than of these two men. As some have already explored my sandbox, that will only reinforce what I have said. I respect and submit officially to the understanding that I will no longer be able to edit any of these three articles and that I will only have access to the discussion pages, not the articles themselves. As such, I respect any action undertaken by Wikipedia to remove the risk of my editing on these three articles from now on.
    Despite acknowledging my many faults, what I have done in my 9 months on Wikipedia have had the full intention of advancing Wikipedia, not hindering it. Now, I recognise that my methods have been improper and my referencing is one thing that I can and have improved on. Yet, some individuals insistence that all that I have done has been incredibly damaging is ignoring what I have done in full. In conclusion, I am unreservedly sorry for my mistakes and I hope that despite this, both articles that I have created, will remain, not based on my actions but by their individual merit and notability which has thus proven to be worth keeping.
    I came to Wikipedia hopeful and encouraged to provide more facts to articles, and I now leave defeated and shocked in both how I have behaved and how others have subsequently treated me in my short period on Wikipedia. Carey3146 (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I will leave it to uninvolved editors to decide how to respond to this procedurally, but just to note @Carey3146: that there is nothing "disturbing" and your sandbox wasn't searched - all contributions made to wikipedia are public, and the fact that your first edit after this discussion was initiated was to delete that page rather than to respond here is what alerted me to it. You were asked back in January if you had a conflict of interest with Carey and you repeatedly denied it. You also specifically said "Will do" when asked to disclose any other conflicts you had. I'm sorry you are feeling defeated, but you should not be shocked as you were warned explicitly and all this could have been avoided had you taken that advice (and wikipedia's policies) seriously back then. Melcous (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Carey3146 I find much about your response to be distasteful. It is hardly surprising that some editors have scrutinised what you have done, pushed back on it, criticised it. Your behaviour, something you now state yourself to be "shocked at" and now, finally, with your metaphorical back against the metaphorical wall, apologise for, leaves a repellent taste in the mouth. It is patently clear that you have been caught out. This all reminds me of people of apparent stature who attempt to bludgeon "lesser mortals" by asking "Do you know who I am?"
Paradoxically, I am sorry that you have chosen to leave. You are, if you abide by the rules, a good and useful editor. You have much to contribute. All you had to do was to take the advice you were given. Your lack of that led directly to the slow escalation, and where you are today, feeling shocked at your own behaviour.
As with Melcous, I feel that other, uninvolved editors will consider what further action to take. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like Jim May passes NPROF criteria though. If good sourcing can't be found, the article can be trimmed down to as short as 2-3 sentences whether or not the creator likes it. Graywalls (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment I've just went through the Alan Jackson article to stubify it. I don't think there is any doubt that there is a real WP:COI here. There is really fine detail in that article that is not covered by references combined the photo make it clear. Process isn't being followed. scope_creepTalk 21:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    Do you know why you have deleted over half of the article when most areas included were referenced? I understand the article was written mostly by myself as a COI. However, what was included was by and large referenced and thus most parts not deserving of removal. Carey3146 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    I also know some parts included significant parts about the companies he worked for, yet that was included as it was completely related to what Jackson was doing at the time. Carey3146 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this editor editor is NOTHERE they've been editing with clear conflicts of interest on a significant number of articles, when they are questioned about it by other editors they are elusive and obfuscate, myself and others have had to decipher tedious layers of obfusction get the truth out of them - I personally think that kind of deliberate obfuscation is a clear sign of an editor acting in bad faith.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed all primary references from the article, most of them were WP:SPS sources. A lot of them were very poor and were unsuitable. It is a biographical article. The general daily minutiae of company operations, finances and so on, are unsuitable for a biographical article. The amount of the detail is problematic and because it indicates you having a WP:COI. The more I edited that article past the family block, the more I was sure that there was something wrong. scope_creepTalk 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    I understand that you removed primary sources but you also removed independent and secondary sources. Such examples included the BTR takeover of Nylex in 1995 which Jackson played a major part in. This information has been completely removed. Also, since when was lots of cited information a problem on Wikipedia? Carey3146 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Carey3146 you are, once more, exhibiting behaviour that you have stated ...shocked in both how I have behaved... about. My prior thoughts that "I am sorry that you have chosen to leave" no longer hold good. Your arguments remain that of a paid editor, whether paid or not. Your COI is large and you are not showing repentance. I see you as WP:NOTHERE and feel it a strong probability that your stated decision to leave will be made firm by an administrator observing this conversation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed,I have made a formal proposal to that effect below. In my view WP:ROPE has shown us that rehabilitation is not possible. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    Can you please stop being defensive for a harmless and respectful question asking your reasoning behind your edits. I have not edited an article since I said I have ‘had enough’. However, I do believe that there is nothing harmful in asking a simple question as you have asked me questions in the past. So, I invite you to respond to my question, rather than dismiss it and reiterate my COI, in which I am not even editing the articles I have a COI of anymore. Carey3146 (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Carey3146: Is this question directed at me? scope_creepTalk 12:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
No, this is towards @Timtrent thanks. Carey3146 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Carey3146 I had strong hopes you would progress from your stance to starting to become collegial. It seems I was mistaken. No matter. And I see no question directed at me, so have given you no answer. I will not, however, enter into question and answer ping pong with you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
That is up to you if you want to answer my question. However, I stress this question was not posed in a negative light but rather a collaborative one. Nevertheless, I respect you opinion. Carey3146 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

That Carey3146 be blocked indefinitely from the English Language Wikipedia as WP:NOTHERE and as an editor with a strong WP:COI whose arguments in favour of their edits are deceptive, who obfuscates and dissembles when questioned, and is not displaying the attributes of a collegial editor despite strong encouragement. This behaviour has been exhibited since the start of their editing here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

  • Support as proposer 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    I think that is something for AN/I than here... Graywalls (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support No good can come from their editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support: I had hoped this editor might be able to branch out into other topics where they did not have a COI, but they have not really shown any interest in doing so. They have obfuscated and flat out lied when asked about COI, and once it has become clear that this was the case, they have still not made a clear disclosure on their user page. Sadly I think they are WP:NOTHERE. Melcous (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose as this seems like an overreaction and not a just punishment for my COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carey3146 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal

Generic discussion about the COI itself should continue in the section above the proposal. This section is purely for the discussion of the proposal itself.

  • Comment It has been 10 days now and the editor has not edited. So I think this whole RFC is moot. If he comes back then yes, send him to ani. scope_creepTalk 09:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

West Virginia University

Adding possible spam links, claims in edit summaries that they are “updating the information for the health system”, Restored external links added in 2021 that had been removed only 18 minutes prior, and has failed to disclosed a COI. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a single-purpose COI account to me. Not everything in [33] can be labeled as problematic, but considering the unsourced statements, peacock language and excessive spam links, it's definitely disruptive. Discussion with the editor has failed, hopefully they'll address the concerns here. NotAGenious (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

James Grier (bishop)

Editing on own article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you exactly want us to do? You've warned the editor, and they've actually stopped editing since. NotAGenious (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Timothy Ramthun

Username suggests the editor is the same person as the subject of the article. I reverted this series of changes with the edit summary "Unsourced, non-neutral ("But failureship again, in its desire to obstruct truth to protect their status quo, failed epically to do the right thing for Wisconsin and our nation"), likely conflict of interest based on username", and added a CoI notice to the editor's Talk page. Editor has since made further non-neutral and unsourced changes, including statements like "Ramthun sought truth to end the mysteries and allegations of the presidential election results in Wisconsin". Tacyarg (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia site is not a factual or accurate description of me. I request to have the expression, posted by another no properly educated or informed, removed. I'd rather have zero information about me on this site, than false information. TRamthun (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    • After these edits [34]; [35]; [36]; [37], a topic ban is the very least that can be done. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E13F:8936:C820:C22A (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
      • ScottishFinnishRadish, now I'm wondering whether the multiple accusations made in these edits are standard political rhetoric or constitute defamation (and merit rev/deletion). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E13F:8936:C820:C22A (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
        I don't think it rises to the level of requiring revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E13F:8936:C820:C22A (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
They have been blocked from editing the article indefinitely. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Organizational citizenship behavior

I can't quite figure out the motive, but is suspicious and appears to be intentionally evading scrutiny and a potential sock situation in topic area (industry/organization psychology) that has historically seen sock activity. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue as to who the Sockpuppeteer maybe. The account was created, made one large contribution over 10kB an hour after the account was created and disappeared. The very next day, an Auckland, New Zealand IP 219.89.62.146 added about 7,600 bytes. This happened at the end of September 2023 and neither of them have any other contributions and have gone dormant. These two edits are definitely someone with fair bit of editing experience. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Massive edits to that article in March and April 2011 by several SPAs are also suspicious. One SPA did a 25kB add. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. This page was updated as part of a Master's course on People Management. OCB was on a list of suggested topics that were underdeveloped or under-referenced on Wikipedia. Two of us added contributions to this page; neither of us has ever updated Wikipedia before (and aren't likely to again; I'd create an account if I thought I would continue editing). There is no conflict of interest to the best of my knowledge. We were simply satisfying course requirements, and did our best to maintain neutrality supported by research. On that note, I've never been on this noticeboard before, either, so I hope my response is appropriate. 219.89.62.146 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@219.89.62.146:, In academic sphere, "original research" is acceptable where you review multiple sources and imply an idea by putting the sources together. On Wikipedia, any ideas and conclusion presented that can not come from simply looking at the sources and require analysis to come up with the idea is not allowed. This is explained in WP:SYNTHESIS. Is the contributed content 100% verifiable by published sources or was there part of it that was the inference and original research of students themselves? Graywalls (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous post provided for transparency: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Burner_accounts_doing_massive_contents_drop_in_I-O_psychology_relevant_articles Graywalls (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The research is 100% verifiable by published sources, as per footnotes. There was no original research undertaken, only reporting on the findings of peer-reviewed research to help enrich the content of the page. 219.89.62.146 (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Dan Hicks (archaeologist) ‎

Landscape walker was dormant for four years before suddenly removing criticism from the Dan Hicks (archaeologist) with no edit summary[38]

When it was restored they removed it three more times[39], [40], [41] claiming one of the two articles they were removing was "retracted" when in fact there was a simple correction on a detail. Looking through their earlier edits, they have done nothing other than promote Dan Hicks (examples: [42], [43]) When confronted on their talk page they haven't responded. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Going deeper into the history of the Dan Hicks article there is a stunning amount of SPAs that either only edit that article (Oxensie, Oxford fad, Archaeofacts) or only promote Hicks in that and other articles (Anthrofac, Poiuy00, GadsebyE, As998877, Sjceji2) This has been going on for years. Not sure if they are sockpuppets or meatpuppets but this is a serious problem. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @ThaddeusSholto I also made what I felt, and still feel, is a useful edit to the Dan Hicks article and find now that @landscapewalker reverted immediately without explanation. I assume good faith in respect of every editor but notice that 'landscape walker' and the other handles you mention relate very closely to work by, and other associations with, Dan Hicks the person. I do not suggest that Dan Hicks himself has created multiple accounts in order to edit his own Wikipedia page but it does seem at this point that someone might have done. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that a COI is very likely here. I've opened a SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NB1965. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Both accounts have been checkuser blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Motor City Rockers

Schtickla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has a conflict of interest, he has a business relationship with the Motor City Rockers. I have warned this editor to stop editing the article, and I gave him a link to read about the conflict of interest rule. He still chooses to edit the article anyway by removing material. Catfurball (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"We only want to make sure there is accurate information..." and non-rejection of the connection [44] IMHO presumptively this is UPE, which is not an "unwritten rule" but part of the Terms of Service that are not even from the enwp community, but from the operators of the servers, the WMF. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Collinleonhardt

This user has the same username as a high school football player recently graduated from West Morris Central High School. Their contributions are only to the two pages above in regards to their football programs. The user is updating information about the sports teams' records without adding new sources to verify the information. This is a young person, a new Wikipedian. I'm assuming good faith and that they just don't know. I don't want to make a bid deal out of it, but they've been making these posts for over a year and a half now. They were given a warning in August. I would like to ask someone here with more experience what to do. Thank you in advance. Kire1975 (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'll just keep adding warnings until I get to a level 4 then maybe come back. Each edit seems to be months apart now. If no one has anything else to add, feel free to close. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


John Arcilla

Described a situation that was an obvious conflict of interest, then tried to deny any connection with the subject of the article. Has repeatedly been warned on their talk page about disclosing a conflict of interest and proposing edits instead of directly editing the article, but has done neither.

This account's first edit said they were "authorized" by John Arcilla and asked how to "prevent others from changing the entry I did"[45] (emphasis mine). A few days before this, an IP user made two edits with edit summaries saying they were "with approval of Mr. John Arcilla. Do not change without his permission".[46] After receiving COI warnings, they have denied having an external relationship with John Arcilla while clearly describing an external relationship,[47][48] and later denied it completely.[49]

(The article has a history of obvious COI edits from IP users, often with a similar or identical edit summary to this account's "updated the information" and mention of permission or requests from John Arcilla.) AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Mukuru Service

First article needs a thorough copyedit, if it is notable. We have the usual WP:Identifying PR issues of citations to biz partners and self, and little else of substance. The ever present "awards and honors" section, though.

Draft was tagged for UPE by another editor (not me): [50]

We also have a bunch of revdel for copyright violations at Jessica Page (beauty pageant contestant), which is not a good sign.

Wondering if the creator needs to have the Terms of Service explained to them. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Bri, while I appreciate your work, I also want to remind you that you are not approaching editors well. To me, that looks like WP:BITE. I understand you are performing your duties to reach some next level (I guess). First of all, when a user is not following the rules well, the first thing is to approach them on their talk page and discuss with them manually (this is done without using automated template messages). You haven't done this. There was a day when we all came to Wikipedia not knowing how it works but gradually after some time and friendly people, we learn and understand it. Also, I would like to tell you that we have different interests on Wikipedia, just as in real life. If my interests are in games, I will write about games, or if in movies, I will be writing more about movies. So, if one chooses to write about international pageants, that means it's what they are interested in. My interest shouldn't trouble or bother me. This is Wikipedia, no one WP:OWNs an article, so if my article is not well written, you too, or any editor can help fixing it than pointing, accusing or suspecting things that don't even exist.
Again, the draft you have tagged (Draft:Andrea Shelly) is not even my article creation and I don't know why you have added it here. I would really advise you to approach users first and discuss with them than just filing them here. Not everyone understands copyright violations, not even half of wiki users. Be a friendly editor who aims at teaching other editors, than being a harsh editor who aims only at executing other users. Each day we learn new things, so be that good teacher. Peace and all the best.---Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
You are right, you are not the creator of Draft:Andrea Shelly but you did edit it along with the editor who has a list of unusual article creations. This is often a concern at WP:COIN. I'll wait for others to respond before commenting further. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The other editor appears to be part of a sockfarm, and an undeclared UPE after all. [51]. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bri When we write anything on Wikipedia, we agree to Wikipedia policies which includes that any text can be modified by any user, at any time, even if it were a draft. This is like targeting a user and stalking them every edit. You can't suspect a user to be this user by just seeing them editing only at "one" article, unless they have been Checkusered. This is some form of harassment. Note, I am a sysop and Interface admin in few projects, meaning I understand Wikipedia policies against Spam, Paid editing, Sockpuppetry, Vandalism and such. I would never engage myself in any of that. However, learn to be friendly and informative towards other editors. Your 10 yrs on Wikipedia don't seem it has taught you anything at all, if this is how you approach other users.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a standard report. It is not 'harassment' in any way, and attacking the reporter is not going to improve the situation. Your attempt to deflect blame back onto Bri rather than yourself is rather transparent, and it won't work. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@MrOllie That is not a blame. Even the first guideline of this page states, "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." Bri has not contacted my talk page for discussion. Why would you post an editor on a noticeboard without consulting them on their talk page for discussion? Kind regards. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikilawyering about technicalities isn't going to be received well either. MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Noting here that Tumbuka Arch tried to remove part of the report. MrOllie (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

D2iQ, Inc.

Account seems to be almost exclusively used for promotion of this company. One diff has over 15000 bytes of promo. A more obvious promo account was restricted recently under COI guidelines, so I wonder if they are now using this account. Catalyzzt (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Article is now nominated for deletion, thanks @scope_creep. Catalyzzt (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

John Felix Raj

User:Wiki orb2 discloses on his user page that he is a paid editor. In the mean time he is trying to whitewash John Felix Raj and St. Xavier's University, Kolkata from the instances of a controversy. In this, he claimed that it were false allegations. But now, in his last edit on John Felix Raj he tells a totally different story than the source Wiki orb2 provides. This whitewashing or diminishing is contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and also at odds with the available sources. As I am new here, I do not really know what is possible here. Is a permanent ban from the two in the filing mentioned articles possible? The Banner talk 12:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor Wiki orb2 created this article. I notice there has been a mountain of edit warring since March, its seems to almost every 2 or 3 days since then. That needs to stop and somebody that is not involved take the article. What was the whitewashing event? I do know that India is a very traditional country, similar to what the uk was like say 1890-1920. Women cant show any skin. scope_creepTalk 13:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Removing and/or denying that the controversy ever happened. Even with plenty sourcing available. Wiki Orb2 is already in 2020 warned about his COI, probably in relation to the article Felix Raj (speedy deleted on G11 and G12). The Banner talk 16:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@The Banner: Rector makes him notable, so I think attempting to delete wont do any good. I think the editor needs to be page blocked first, because of the huge amount of edit warring since March, its phenomenal, worst I've ever seen, or even blocked. I don't think making a move to WP:ER will do any good. Then the details can go back in. I don't mind doing the work, getting it back to WP:NPOV. If page block is not coming for edit warring, then edit warring noticeboard, or ANI. Either way, the editor needs to withdraw. I would happy with a full block, to be honest. There is WP:CIR issues, as the editor can't reach consensus. scope_creepTalk 18:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not attempting to remove the article. Both subjects are notable. What I am looking for is a way to protect the info about the controversy being removed or diminished. The Banner talk 23:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@The Banner: Is the content block bag in the article? I had a look at it, but hard to tell. If its not can you put it back in. If the editor remove, I plan to make a report to WP:ANI. scope_creepTalk 09:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The latest development is an addition that the case was not heard by the court. Editor claims more or less that the cases is dismissed, I read the provide sources as that the cases is delayed due to faulty paperwork and is not over. See the discussion on the talk page of the editor. The Banner talk 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Ichiro Fujimori

Garden variety self-interest. Such additions [52] are always a red flag. Is notability an issue? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No, seems to be an IEEE Fellow making him eminently notable. scope_creepTalk 09:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be a coi. Left a message to declare and use ER. scope_creepTalk 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Michelle Salzman

Need additional eyes on Michelle Salzman, where the article's subject is editing, and which has had a UPE tag since last year. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of unreferenced information and original research that is being added. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
There is also this edit summary for context and what looks like disclosure. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Curbon7:, was the user notified of this discussion? I see they are still editing and some of the content is unsourced or puffery. I am inclined to revert all of the edits.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I did not previously notify them as this initially was just a general "can someone take a look and make sure it is above board", but as this has now shifted to a discussion about the user, I have notified them of this discussion. Curbon7 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. I am not the subject but live in her area. I commented a moment ago on the other post. My intention was to display more than the single sided bias that was added by a previous editor (who appears to create multiple accounts and target the subject repeatedly) and included more excerpts from the original referenced article. Please let me know if I did this incorrectly. Thanks again. Soul Jazz and Snips (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not the subject. I am a constituent in her Florida House District. Did I reference that update incorrectly? It's quoted from the same article as the other information, but removes targeted single-sided bias that was posted. Soul Jazz and Snips (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Kitten Kuroi

KittenKuroi only edits Kitten Kuroi. She was warned back in February 2022 about COI but doesn't appear to care to follow the guidelines. She has made 10 more edits since that time all to her own article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Username blocked 2 days ago, no unblock request yet NotAGenious (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

James Raven

Editing own article. Has done so off and on for the past several years. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 08:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Has stopped editing since NotAGenious (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Michael Abramoff

This article already had COI templates because of a self-declared COI from one of the original editors (see Talk). I noticed that this editor, Mobilizecloud, had been making large changes to the article, and only this article. Today though I noticed that they removed the COI templates. I asked on the Talk:Michael Abramoff § COI, and they said:

  • They (Mobilize Cloud), a web development agency, are editing on behalf of a company
  • They are editing on behalf of Digital Diagnostics, which is Dr Abramoff's company

Kimen8 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked mobilizecloud. Secretlondon (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_201

Leave a Reply