Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Edward Forman

• Edward Forman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sabih omar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently a new editor asked for help at the Teahouse, saying that she wanted to hire a freelancer to manage the technical aspects of making Edward Forman. The Teahouse discusion is here, and additional discussion was on the user's talk here. Multiple editors then worked to improve the article, write additional content, and post it to mainspace. Unfortunately, this wasn't what she was looking for, and subsequently a job was posted on Upwork here to hire someone to edit the article instead. On August 8 a contractor was hired, and on August 15 they were paid for 7 hours work on the article. So clearly someone has been doing the work. On August 8, just after someone was hired, User:Sabih omar started working on it, and Sabih omar has made extensive changes to the article. No other editor has worked on it other than Sabih omar and the original editor, in spite of a contractor being paid for successful work. There has been no disclosure. Sabih omar originally denied being paid in relation to a different article, Uma Preman, but subsequently admited that they were paid. Currently Sabih omar has been saying that they don't do paid work, (except for Uma Preman), but instead find jobs on Upwork which they then do without bidding for them, even though people are hired to work on them, and in some cases they create the articles from Upwork even though they know that the subject is non-notable. This makes no sense to me, especially in light of later admitting to being paid. I have flagged the Edward Forman article as possible UPE based on the job, but there is a dispute about whether or not the flag should stay. I do have additional information about Sabih omar which leaves me in no doubt that Sabih omar was hired for this and other jobs, but which I am reluctant to post here as it may constitute outing. I passed that information on to paid-en a month ago without a response. - Bilby (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Use the email link under tools to email an admin, if you have information that shouldn't be published here. Mathglot (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am an admin. - Bilby (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

So you have access to the admin IRC channel, which might be a good place to discuss details that shouldn't be widely published. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sabih omar:, you could save everyone a lot of needless discussion, if you would comment here, and WP:DISCLOSE on your user page regarding any possible COI issues with the Edward Forman article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disclosed in both user and article talk pages. I understand that this will potentially lead to the termination of my account and I accept it. But I have one request-- Could you please help update the two pages Edward Forman and Uma Preman for neutrality and help remove the "paid content" banners? There are so many badly written articles in Wikipedia for non-notable people, while these are two articles that deserve to be on an encyclopedia and deserve to be well-written. The updates I made were in good faith, unlike the response to Bilby's queries.

I am impressed by Bilby's detective work. I do some snooping for article requests as well (especially non-notable ones) on Upwork/Freelancer for my personal amusement. I recently submitted a few AfDs based on that as well. Assuming I will lose my account, is there a contact where I can email bad faith requests like this if I come across them? - Sabih omar 02:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sabih omar, I'm not an expert on this, but being a paid editor is not prohibited at Wikipedia, it merely comes with some restrictions. Now that you have fulfilled this, I don't believe there's anything actionable here and you are not at risk of losing your account, I don't believe. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep editing, even for pay, as long as you continue to meet the requirements of the WP:COI policy, chief of which is WP:DISCLOSURE, as I understand it. Hopefully someone more expert than I will comment here.

Bilby, afaic, this settles the issue of the banner, which should remain in place, or be restored if it's been removed. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sabiah omar, you need to disclose all of the jobs you have been hired to do, not just two of them. Can you provide a full list? - Bilby (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see my user page. I have updated all if them. Sabih omar 07:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you got to say about DIRECT EDITING of articles by paid editors? It is strongly discouraged. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong—the banner should not remain, as it is about undisclosed paid work, and that is no longer the case. I will go remove the banner now. There is another banner about coi editing that may be added to the Talk page, but I don't know what it's called; feel free to add it. Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You beat me to it; thanks. I think we're  Erledigt. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sabih omar:, You asked if you could "email bad faith requests like this if I come across them" in your response above. I believe this is referring to your AfD work. I am wondering if you consider your nondisclosure of paid editing bad faith. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

At the time, I was considering requests as bad faith when they were blatantly promotional (non-notable subjects, asking to remove scandalous info etc.). Now I understand that any COI edit can be construed as "bad faith" even if they are not promotional. Sabih omar 14:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I find the answer puzzling and not direct. Do you consider your failure to disclose your paid editing bad faith editing? When you say "requests as bad faith when they were blatantly promotional" is not exactly true. I monitor freelancing sites and saw one of the ads which you then sent to AfD. There was no specific requests made in the posting so the only way you would know if they were "blatantly promotional" would have been to respond to the ad. It gives the appearance that your AfD recommendations are not in good faith and that there is an ulterior motive. Also, prior to going to ANI and requesting formal restrictions to your editing, I am hoping you can provide some clarity. How do you plan on handling edits going forward with regards to regular edits, your own COI edits, and AfD participation? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do consider the failure to disclose as "bad faith". As for AfDs, I did not send pages to AfD only for bad faith requests made on freelancing sites, I looked at the articles and tried to figure if they were "sneaked in" with "bad faith" editing in the first place or if they just do not belong in Wikipedia. And some of them did appear to have evaded review for a long time. Not trying to score a point here, but the motivation was not very different than Bilby's.

If I am allowed to keep my account, going forward here's what I will do about my COI edits-- 1. Refrain from making any edits to existing pages, make requests in talk pages with disclosure if needed. 2. Create new articles only through drafts and with disclosure. 3. Refrain from submitting AfDs altogether, as this seems problematic. Sabih omar 23:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a list of AfDs I picked up from Upwork/Freelancer.com (looks like I was right in most of the cases in detecting non-notable articles)--

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen P. MacMillan

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Userful

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Manning (photographer)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Hoss Schiller

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Masouri

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Binau Sabih omar 23:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Are these your competitor's? If you're doing this as a competitive edge sharpening, this needs to be disclosed. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If you were so concerned about the "sneaked in" of pages, you could have come to COIN to report it. Instead, you took them to AfD while at the same time failing to disclose your paid affiliation with others. Unfortunately, I do not have faith that you are here to help the Wikipedia project and instead only here for financial gain. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not even know about COIN before I appeared here! And why would I flag them for COIN, I was submitting AfD based on notability concern. To answer Greywall's question- I got involved with freelancing activity in the last two months only. So do not know any other freelancer to compete against. These were all just poor judgement on my part, but I understand the concern and will accept whatever action you want to take. Actually could you explain to me why we are discussing the same thing over and over again? What is the next step? Sabih omar 07:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@WikiSabih:, what is your relationship to Draft:Varo Bank and Draft:Amos Pewter?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No relationship. Saw them on the AfC list and made some minor changes, mostly stylistic. Sabih omar 02:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC) Sabih omar 02:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What is a COI editor doing DIRECTLY editing any article anyways? Graywalls (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar @Sabih omar: From now on you will need to start using the Edit Request mechanism to update the article. This is the standard way for paid editors to update the articles they wish to work on. No more editing these directly please. scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I have started making requests in talk pages. Sabih omar 15:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of edit requests, could you please help review my suggestions on Talk:Edward Forman? Sabih omar 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  When you make edit requests, they're visible to a pool of people who watch all sorts of "edit requests" as they go into a list of requests even i they don't visit here or the article's talk page. This is why edit requests is the preferable way to do things. Changing a photo within the article for the reason such as the other person in photo with the article subject having criminal records (as you mentioned in talk page) is not an acceptable reason to remove it and in fact, it's considered white washing. A conflict of interest exists when alteration of the article is to make it favorable to subject's reputation. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, and removing or substituting contents for the purpose of managing subject's reputation is censorship. Removing clutter like "subject has been on tour with big names, A, B, C, D,E,F E and G" though does not add to encyclopedic value and such removal is not censorship. Graywalls (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Understood. I should have proposed the alternatives in talk page (which I did) and not edit myself. Sabih omar 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar I just have one question. Jon Bon Jovi wants PR? Is there a tour coming up? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, he (or his PR team) wanted to correct some factual errors. And I made some edits on my own (like updating number of albums sold etc.). Very legit edits. Sabih omar 15:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Not sure if it should be proposed here or ANI, but I would say that user should be required to use talk pages to request all COI edits like COI editors who have been following the rules. I would also recommend a ban on all AfD work as it is suspicious to me that someone wants to help rid Wikipedia of "bad faith requests" while they themselves are operating in bad faith. If they feel there is something on a freelancing site that needs addressed, they can raise the issue here for the community to address. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

James Bloom

• James Bloom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Generative art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Digital art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Londoncalling777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:64BD:D00:531:6108:444B:3F9E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wheel2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Londoncalling777 and 2A02:C7C:64BD:D00:531:6108:444B:3F9E are two accounts that have been spamming NFT related promotion about a person of very little interest into overview articles about art history, as well as editing the article about that person. Wheel2002 is a similar older account that shows how long this conflict-of-interest editing has likely been going on. Elspea756 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It says in the Wikipedia guidelines that the COI page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue and that COI allegations should not be used as a trump card in disputes over article content. The edits I made to the article on generative art are accurate and pertinent. The references are reliable too. Londoncalling777 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Attempts to resolve the issue via talk pages both recently and in the past have been unsuccessful in stopping the COI editing here, as it is continuing after warnings. Elspea756 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

And Londoncalling777 is still engaged in COI edits. Elspea756 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute

• Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sudeep Marwaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vjgautam09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some eyes on this article and user would be useful, based on their edit summary as part of changing it into an advertisement twice: "Changes are made as per the official directins from Director of the institute". — Trey Maturin™ 12:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Another editor had appeared, making similar edits. — Trey Maturin™ 08:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Vjgautam09 has declared they are an employee of ICAR-IASRI and that their edits were "approved by ICAR-IASRI". As far as I am concerned, this is a declaration of paid-editing status. I have advised them that they must follow COI and other relevant guidelines, so they are at least on notice now about COI policy. —C.Fred (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. — Some random Trey Maturin™ 11:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have extend-confirmed protected the article due to the rather massive unsourced and promotional edits made by these editors. They need to propose changes on the talk page like any other good editor with a COI. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Long term cite spam/coat rack involving author John Paull, PhD from Australia

↓ copied over from User_talk:Beetstra. Reporting the concern here at Beetstra's suggestion 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This unexplained edit to my watched article raised suspicion where a academia.edu journal article by John Paull was inserted Special:Diff/1172292612 After further investigation, I found a long term trend of various articles authored by the author being inserted into multiple articles by anonymous editors that do not seem to fall within reasonable editing process. After locating John Paull sources in articles, it was found that same IPs from Australia or UK tended to insert John Paull with each IP exhibiting a pattern of different John Paull sources into different articles. As you specialize in spam, I was hoping you had a useful feedback. These are a few examples I tracked down:

1. Special:Contributions/86.161.250.120 July 2011 SPA
2. Special:Contributions/203.45.17.190 2016-2020 Australia
3. Special:Contributions/110.142.48.21 April 18, 2018 Tasmania, AUS
4. Special:Contributions/203.53.100.186, 2021 Australia
5. Special:Contributions/65.181.3.220, one article. March 15, 2023 Sydney, AUS
6. Special:Contributions/59.167.200.223,three articles in 2017-2018 Tasmania, Australia

Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls::

• 86.161.250.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 203.45.17.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 110.142.48.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 203.53.100.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 65.181.3.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 59.167.200.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I asked COIBot for some reports. Some stuff may be before that, but lets see. It may however show you certain links that are added, and a search for those links may show up more. I think I would suggest to submit this to WP:COIN. Edits like diff (first paragraph) is very strong a coatrack .. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I could do that, but should I? If it was a specific URL, it's easy to handle it. I am wondering if it's technically feasible to do anything about it in something like this with case the current site software in which the only constant is the specific author being inserted, but by numerous IPs. Graywalls (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: We could first just report and discuss, it gives more eyes to see what is happening.

Then if it is deemed disruptive and we have some attempt to contact the person doing this (which is rather futile I agree, but a message on their last used IP and an attempt to do that on the next used IP as soon as possible should be attemped). It is easy to generate an edit filter triggering on additions of "Paull, John" in monitoring mode, and some IPs seem to be used for a longer time so they may return and see messages to them. A sufficiently long block on the last IP is also an option (for not-too-bad spammers that edit once a month I just start with a 3 month block, knowing that they are likely to come back within that time so it enforces their attention).

Later steps could be warning or blocking filters or blacklisting (even pre-emptively) all their specific material. The edit I referenced above is rather bad, it is really a sentence that should be referenced to a proper source, but it is a coatrack for (what I expect) their own source. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Kommentare

I found this really interesting. I encountered a paid editor once who used a fake academia.edu account to claim a pile of publications there there was no chance that their client had written, including works published before the client was born. Academia.edu just asks you if a publication is yours based on the name, so it is very, very easy to claim a bunch of publications which have nothing to do with you, and there dosen't seem to be any checks. So this rang alarm bells. As a result I dug into this a bit more, and as near as I can tell, there are at least two John Paulls. One is a retired anaesthetist who moved into history research after he retired and received an OAM for his services. The other appears to be a researcher into organic food. Both are connected with Tasmania, but the retired anaesthetist lives and works in Tasmania, while the organic food researcher appears to have been connected with Oxford University for a while, but also may be connected with the University of Tasmania. That would perhaps explain why these geolocate to two different countries - they are different people. I am a tad confused by the author of the lithium buttons articles, but maybe that became an interest of the anaesthetist - it would be stretching things a bit much to assume a third John Paull living in Tasmanaia. Anyway, if you consider that there may well be at least two different people in these, then I think the problem becomes a tad more normal. - Bilby (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Two different people having a pattern of shoehorning/academic boostering journals into articles from IPs, who just happen to be John Paull from Australia? Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It does look that way. There is definitly a John Paull, OAM, who was a Tasmanian anaesthetist [1]. This John Paull retired and started doing research in history, in particular on William Pugh. In looking at the academia.edu page, it would make sense that he was the one who published the medical articles. Then there is a second John Paull who was at the School of Land and Food at the University of Tasmania and spent time at Oxford as a visiting academic, who has a PhD, Bachelor of Science and a Masters in Environment. He is well published on organic farming, and had a particular interest in Rudolf Steiner. Both Google Scholar and Academia.edu seem to conflate the two, but they have different qualifications and write in different areas. That said, I'm not sure that there is much evidence of shoehorning - some of the recent links seem a problem, but looking at how much one of the Paulls is cited regarding Steiner, it doesn't seem much of a surprise to see Paull cited on that topic here. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It is definitely strange to see their reference getting shoehorned into lithium ion battery to say swallowing button batteries is bad for you by an anonymous Australian IP. Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned, some of the recent links seem to be a problem. Mostly that one, but also this one. - Bilby (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This shows which source articles can be linked to the same John Paull Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that was where I was coming from. You can’t trust academia.edu to be accurate. It has no checks to confirm that the papers are by the same person, as it only relies on the name. It is possible for papers by multiple people with the same name to be added together as one person, either accidentally or deliberately. - Bilby (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.utas.edu.au/tsbe/people?queries_all_query=paull no result found.. hmmmmm Graywalls (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I found the same thing. I’m thinking I might follow that up today. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I have found some archived pages showing that both John Paulls were at the University of Tasmania, one as faculty. So at least that is good. I'm inclined, based on the publications, to accept Paull as an expert on Steiner and organic farming, but I'm far less comfortable with the button batteries and political science papers. I'll keep an eye out for more being added. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Found one that's even older, but one thing is a constant. The inserting editor is an anonymous IP from Australia. Special:Diff/164457426. If he's a prominent figure in scientific community, I would expect a larger spread of editors utilizing it. Graywalls (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether 1 person or 2 independent editors, I do think that these IPs are (COI?) spamming Wikipedia with this material, and there are obvious coatracking edits amongst them. This editing behaviour is problematic, even if they are well established or that the material they ‘spam’ is good material. That others do not use their material could be telling about the quality/usefulness, but even if others did use it does not excuse the ‘spamming’ Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Karl Tilleman

• Karl Tilleman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tilly wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User and WP:SPI has spent their editing career singularly dedicated to adding grossly promotional material to the article for Karl Tilleman, a Canadian lawyer and former athlete. So far as I have seen, they have not gone through the process of COI disclosure at all. GuardianH (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a false accusation with no verifiable information to support it. I simply am a fan of the history basketball in Calgary and Canada. I learned about Karl Tilleman and saw that his objectively verifiable accomplishments have not received the recognition they deserve. Every statement I placed on Karl Tilleman's Wikipedia page was objectively verifiable with third party unbiased sources. GuardianH's inappropriate actions are depriving the world of knowing of important Canadian basketball historic information, like that Tilleman set the record for most three-point field goals made in a single Olympic game. I believe GuardianH may have an inappropriate, undisclosed conflict of interest against Tilleman.

I will be working to remove this false and possibly libelous accusation from GuardianH Tilly wiki (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be promoting the subject in a rather unagreeable way, against all Wikipedia policies regarding promotion and conflict of interest. Are you a paid editor? Because it certainly looks like it. I'm seriously thinking of reverting your whole block of edits. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what you're thinking. No, I am not a paid editor.

In the edits, I've tried to only cite to information that can be sourced in an unbiased way. Are you seeing any edits that are phrased in a biased way or phrased inappropriately? I want to only portray accurate, unbiased information, so if we can phrase any information in a more objective way or remove anything that is not verifiable, I would like to do that Tilly wiki (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I am Canadian and really value Canadian basketball history. So I was disappointed about the accusations of COI and that a lot of information regarding Canadian history was simply removed after the research I had put in. But after realizing I needed to be as calm, respectful and civil as possible, I went about incorporating the edits in an unbiased and verifiable way. So if there's any edits that are inaccurate or presenting in a biased way, I would really appreciate that feedback to ensure the article is objective. Tilly wiki (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Habitat for Humanity, et all

• Habitat for Humanity Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Habitat for Humanity Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Habitat for Humanity – New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Habitat for Humanity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (mostly cleaned up by now)
• Habitat for Humanity Toronto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (I re-directed this one)
• user: non-specific. public relations editors

One of the more intensive corporate promo effort. It seems like this could be a central corporate directive to spam Wikipedia. I've already massively cleaned up Habitat for Humanity but I can't believe just how much primary sourced fluff there was. The other ones are quite bad too. It maybe reasonable to combine them further once more organization, or their business partner sourced contents are pruned. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I did some cleanup on Habitat for Humanity Canada but more work is probably required. Worth checking for copyright issues in these articles too; I found some in the Canada article. /wiae /tlk 12:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

United Nations Literacy Decade and UNESCO King Sejong Literacy Prize

• United Nations Literacy Decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• UNESCO King Sejong Literacy Prize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• UNLD115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user named UNLD115 added an amount of content to the United Nations Literacy Decade article back in May 2009, and also created the UNESCO King Sejong Literacy Prize article. The "UNLD" part of the username seems to be an acronym of the "United Nations Literacy Decade". JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

UNESCO is a persistent issue of a sort... see

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_115#Children_in_emergencies_and_conflicts
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Prix_Versailles
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_196#Continuing_UNESCO_COI_issues
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_199#UNESCO_issues_(again)

Graywalls (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@JSH-alive: The particular account you mentioned has a total of only 40 edits, spanning one month, 14 years ago. That account is, for all intents and purposes, stale. While I agree that the COI evidence is compelling, and their account likely should have been blocked for WP:ORGNAME at the time, it's a moot point now. The notes at the top of this page state: "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." Since that was never done, this isn't the proper forum to resolve it. The best course of action is to review any of their edits that have survived to the present day and clean them up/delete them where appropriate. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we should work on developing the path forward to deal with UNESCO advocacy editing though, because it's a persistent long term issue that shows no sign of stopping. Graywalls (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Mengly J. Quach Education

• Mengly Jandy Quach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aii Language Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (merged to MJQ education)
• American Intercon School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (merged to MJQ education)
• Mengly J. Quach Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hpisseth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hpisseth acknowledged in May 2022 that they work for this company [2] and was asked to properly disclose COI/PAID editing, as well as not remove maintenance templates. They appeared to agree to do so in September 2022 [3] but since then have continued to remove templates despite multiple warnings and edit articles promotionally, and have not completed the disclosures. Melcous (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Layla Love

• Layla Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Abaldi1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Abaldi1998 has almost exclusively edited the biography of New York-based photographer Layla Love, an article which has seen a persistent pattern of promotional editing recently, from a series of single-purpose accounts and IPs. What appeared to be promotional editing at the beginning of August led to a notification of WP:CoI policy, and an enquiry as to whether Abaldi1998 had any connection with Love. The response given was that they were "editing Layla's page as part of an art history course on modern contemporary artists". [4] There followed a brief discussion regarding appropriate sourcing, but Abaldi1998 made no further edits to the Love biography until today.

Looking at the series of edits being made today, I found it difficult to believe that this had anything to do with an "art history course", and instead seemed solely intended to promote Love, and accordingly enquired again about a possible CoI. The resulting dialog was less than illuminating. [5]

As for the edits themselves, Abaldi1998 seems keen to emphasise that some have been cited to sources already used, but beyond that offers little explanation as to why an art history student should be looking to add commentary-free items to a list of exhibitions, or adding an entire paragraph to a 'philanthropy' section, based on an article regarding the launch of an philanthropic organisation that mentions Love only once, [6] and another paragraph sourced to a personal acquaintance of Love.[7] Regardless of whether the sourcing is appropriate (not all is, in my opinion, e.g. where citing gallery websites for participation in exhibitions [8][9] - clearly not independent sourcing), the pattern of editing simply does not appear consistent with that of an uninvolved Wikipedia contributor, or of a student editing as part of an assignment, rather than someone intent on puffing up an article that offers precious little in the way of the secondary analytical commentary we'd like to see to demonstrate that the subject merits coverage as an artist. If there isn't a CoI involved, I'd like to see a better explanation for this editing pattern than the one offered so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the page in a truly level headed, fact based way. Pulling information from previously cited sources, and adding in a few articles as well. Everything was individually published in order to be able to be undone if simply one thing was incorrect or unsubstantiated for some reason.

While I originally identified an interest with Love for an art history course, I have followed up due to a personal interest in her humanitarian efforts. I believe in the causes her non-profits represent, and that has led to my appreciation for her art. Though, I must note, I am confused as to why my desire to edit her page is creating such a stir. My background as an art history student has no relevance to my editing of her page other than to note why I originally decided to research a semi-famous contemporary artist. Andythegrump mentioned confusion as to "why an art history student should be looking to add commentary-free items" to which I must ask - is that not what wikipedia is? Commentary free information. People choose to edit pages that interest them - that is simply what I am doing.

I also have begun to ponder why user Andythegrump continuously has issues with things being added to Love's page (he has been undoing edits for a few years from what I can tell)- even when based in cited fact with no "fluff" added. Additionally when I asked (three times) for him to explain why he believed my additions to be "promotional content" he has failed to explain. I will admit that I am new to wikipedia, and thus have tried to listen to feedback and understand what I am doing wrong. His lack of most recent explanation, leads me to believe he has no substantiated evidence that I am adding in "promotional content." This does lead me to wonder if perhaps he has a personal negative relationship to Love which makes him not want her to have acknowledgement for her achievements that are noted in popular media sources. But that is simply an aside.

To sum it up, I have continued to make edits to Love's page because I appreciate her work both as an artist and in the non-profit world. Because I appreciate her work, I'd like to see her get the recognition she deserves - as any artist would deserve. Editing a page because of personal interest and appreciation is common. I believe my edits have been properly cited and added in a factual and neutral way. Without explanation as to why what I've added it "promotional content" I have trouble understanding what I have done wrong. Abaldi1998 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been a problem in the past, both for and against the BLP subject, but as I've edited the article I won't be taking any action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion that I have any "personal negative relationship to Love" is needless to say absurd. My initial involvement with the article resulted from a posting at WP:BLPN from someone (now blocked) who seemed intent on denigrating Love, and promoting an adult film actress who performed under the same name. [10] Having seen that particular issue resolved, my only subsequent concern has been that the Love biography conform to Wikipedia policies - which is to say that it should be based on secondary sources, and explain to readers why Love merits a biography as an artist, what critics have to say about her work etc, rather than a mere listing of exhibitions etc, along with disproportionate coverage of 'philanthropy' sourced to articles written by her friends and/or articles that confirm little beyond stating that she is involved. If Love engages in philanthropy, that is obviously a good thing. It isn't however a legitimate reason to hide a lack of critical appraisal of her work behind a wall of text that would look better on a resume, or on Facebook. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe AndyTheGrump is correct. I first noticed the article a while ago, and it seemed like it was created by a PR firm or other COI editor. The sources were either low quality, or seemed like they may have been native advertising or sponsored content. I checked out the claim that the artist is in the permanent collection of the White House, but they were not found in their searchable database. None of the exhibitions are at notable galleries, they are really quite minor or pay-to-play venues. IMO, the list of shows should be removed. Much of the article is souced to what appears to be a modified press release [11]; I removed one source that was an art sales site/user-submitted content[12]. I agree that it looks alot like COI or even UPE, but perhaps it was indeed created by a student editor who simply doesn't understand what promotional editing is. Either way, I am unconvinced that the artist is notable per our standards, even tho the 2021 AfD resulted in a keep at that time. Netherzone (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Unity Environmental University

• Unity Environmental University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PatriotsFan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor was initially named "UnityCollegeMedia" so it is reasonable to assume that they have an undisclosed paid relationship with the institution (it was previously named "Unity College"). They have not replied to any Talk page messages and they continue to edit the article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes that appears likely, this may be related to the attempted sale of their legacy campus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. Their most recent update was described as "Added updates for accuracy and to come in line with current state of the institution" which included linking to a page about the university's president and praising his leadership. Definitely a conflict. Oswako (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Lord Ivar Mountbatten

• Lord Ivar Mountbatten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• IvarMount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 26 January user IvarMount edited this article and deleted Ivar Mountbatten's involvement in Cambridge Analytica. I do not know the correct next steps to take, so I have referred to this location. IvarMount is listed as Ivar Mountbatten's Wikipedia editing account on Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia. Clear conflict of interest, and harmful to the article. I do not know if this is an offense that warrants a ban. Spiralwidget (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

reporting possible paid editing

If this is the wrong place to report it, I trust someone here will send it to the right place
I came across this [13] on Reddit. It basically claims that the article's

• Alummoottil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gizmogo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lewis M. Steel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jason Binn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Market America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Chamath Palihapitiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

were all done in exchange for money.
I don't have any expertise in this regard, which is why I'm leaving the info here.
Dutchy45 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• I see offhand that Jason Binn was created by User:Veggies 2, who is indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. BD2412 T 19:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Kinney Zalesne

• Kinney Zalesne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kzalesne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user above has a long history of editing topics related to their own name/career. The user has ignored repeated messages asking to request edits rather than edit their own page. Seems rather straightforward. 30Four (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It does seem problematic that they are editing their own Wikipedia page. Have they stated their COI at any other point? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alex Shieh

• Draft:Alex Shieh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tintinthereporter226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has created the draft multiple times. When the draft was rejected the first time, they moved the draft without permission into mainspace. (as evidenced by their talk page notices, and also deleted the rejected Afc notice shortly before submitting again (see the talk page and draft edit history). I had attempted to add a COI notice to both the draft talk page and their user page due to these notices, which was quickly reverted with the 'Not constructive' edit summary (which is vague and not really applicable in this instance), so I reverted it back.

Since the situation was escalating, I had attempted to resolve the situation by communicating with the editor at the draft's talk page, which was mostly unsuccessful aside from agreeing to keep the notice I added to the editor's talk page. As a result, I brought them here. This draft/article, and the connected Draft:The Phillips Academy Poll also has a history of sockpuppet allegations being thrown around at users. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jfkadmirer and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

For anyone stumbling across this report and trying to parse it, I've blocked Stanmarsh97 and Tintinthereporter226 as socks of each and unrelated to other socks. I've learned better than to ever say 'ignore this report', and it's not like there haven't been some issues, but this report does seem to me to be a lot of self-generated noise about nothing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

HDR, Inc.

• HDR, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article needs a thorough look over. The COI is obvious. Just looking through edit history and checking some of the editors, a handful of SPAs are in use in addition to some Omaha, Nebraska, US based IP edits that shows no significant edit elsewhere in the relevant time frame. It looks like the entire page is more or less curated into place by people associated with the article subject. Graywalls (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of their acquisitions were here before Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_148#Sean_Buckley_(entrepreneur). duffbeerforme (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is so imperative for public relations

For the interested. There are no astounding revelations, but it's a well-written piece for its kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dw.com/en/inside-wikipedia-attack-of-the-pr-industry/video-17745881 this one is dated at 9 years old, but they talk about the use of sock puppets by the PR industry. Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Linton Wells II & Eric Rasmussen (physician)

• Linton Wells II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eric Rasmussen (physician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Linwells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rasmussene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Linton Wells II article was created, and edited heavily, by Rasmussene, and also includes contributions by Linwells. Roughly the reverse is true for the article Eric Rasmussen (physician), which was created by Linwells and then heavily edited by Rasmussene.

Linwells' has few other contributions, and those are also potential conflicts of interests: Fay Gillis Wells (Linton Wells II's mother) and Strong Angel (an organization with which Wells is involved).

Rasmussene also has few other contributions, primarily to Strong Angel (an organization with which Rasmussen is also involved).

Linton Wells II and Eric Rasmussen are clearly associates in the world outside Wikipedia. In addition to both being associated with Strong Angel, Wells and Rasmussen are listed as members of the executive team and board of advisors, respectively, for Star-Tide. Rasmussen also lists Wells as a reference on his CV.

Given the usernames and the pattern of edits by these two accounts, it seems plausible that either (1) these accounts belong to two friends who are editing both their own and one another's pages (and, in the case of Linwells, his mother's page), violating Wikipedia's guidance regarding conflicts of interest, or (2) one or both of the subjects has hired someone to create articles and edit them on his behalf. I don't see any disclosures from the owners of either account (their personal Wikipedia pages don't exist at this time, nor do I see appropriate disclosures in edit comments). In any case, the edits go beyond simple correction of misinformation (extending as far as the reciprocal creation of the two articles linked above).

Beyond the misuse of Wikipedia, the potential of an ethical lapse here by a US Assistant Secretary of Defense and a physician respectively makes this situation especially concerning.

Szarka (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Klermodalwonfeyz

• Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Klermodalwonfeyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Danny Lendich

• Danny Lendich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 103.14.70.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above IP editor has disclosed on the IP talk page and in edit summaries that she is the daughter of the article subject. After a couple of warnings from Yoshi24517, a post from Tim O'Doherty, and a thorough explanation of COI policy from myself, the IP editor has continued to make edits, including adding information without citations to WP:RSes (see this diff). I wanted to avoid bringing this here, but it appears that the editor has ignored our advice to follow the COI policies. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Voorts. Just got word and saw that the above IP has been blocked for a week, so we shall see what that will do. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Also thanks for the ping voorts, appreciate that. Shame it's had to come to this, hope the IP will learn the lesson and pursue her edits via the proper channels. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Deerfield Academy

• Deerfield Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Deerfield Academy alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jahaza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [14] and it is their most edited page [15]. Also the #1 editor at List of Deerfield Academy alumni[16]. 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" [17], removing credential puffery[18], removing vandalism[19], removing athletic championships that were trivial puffery[20]. 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[[21]], 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 [22][23][24][25][26]. That is through the beginning of the month. Earlier diffs [27][28][29]. 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? [30] 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)

Eric Johnson (Texas politician)

• Eric Johnson (Texas politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2603:8080:6F00:981A:DFF:A722:1580:6E05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Todd Newton

• Todd Newton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Facts2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Singaporean politicians and people

• K. Shanmugam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hannah Yeoh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fandi Ahmad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Louis Chua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2502renegate2502 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)