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:AGCO Talk:Kati Agócs Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Nina L. Diaz 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:Global Citizen Awards Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Elham Kashefi 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:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman 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:Steve Tappin 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:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zerodur Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Sam Ayoub

• Sam Ayoub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kirsh80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation

Cars

Some COI-related info regarding Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was posted at WP:ARC, after which an Arb suggested this may rather be handled by COIN than ArbCom. So here we are. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do I not have a coin-notice on my page? Secondly, I am not even paid to edit on Wikipedia. That's a hobby from adolescence (including unreg. IPs), slowly to present as an engineer. I have always stated who I work for to be transparent and it never became an issue, until a user brought it up in an AN/I (I created) migrating it to ArbCom.--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What is transpiring regarding this matter of COI? Have I been determined to be guilty of dubiously editing automotive articles per COI for personal gain and has evidence been provided to support such an assertion? The party who requested this has left the discussion, so I am just checking in at this point.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notification done – sorry for the delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, okay thanks.--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• For clarity: Preliminary discussion at ANI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is perceptions of bias, not biased editing. Step back and look at this like a user of Wikipedia, not an editor. We have an editor here that is making an issue of his expertise at ANI. ANI, the place the media looks for leads to write articles slamming our accuracy. He has stated directly that he is employed in a key position by a particular automaker. A position that usually incudes some profit based compensation. So ask yourself, as I did: knowing that a very active editor across a broad selection of automotive articles gets part of his income based on the profits of a particular automaker, does that make you more or less confident of their accuracy? The only possible answer is less. If you want to assess the quality of a specific product, would you look to the company's website or a neutral source like Consumer's Report? Being so overly focused on one topic area and so unaware of other facets of our project (like its survival or the public's perception) that you can make such potentially destructive statements in such a visible place just cannot be tolerated. Whether or not his specific individual edits show bias or not isn't relevant. To the general public, a person in a key position at a particular automaker isn't capable of being unbiased regarding that company, that company's products nor the same regarding competition. Is it more important for a particular individual to be allowed freedom to edit without restrictions or for the project to maintain its credibility? I'm a devout Christian, but I stay away from editing articles about religion because I'm not certain I can be unbiased (faith is the exact opposite of verifiability), and because other's perceptions of my edits, given my very public affirmations of my faith, would be they are biased. I gave up trying to edit in areas related to my expertise (hotel management) because the public's and virtually all editors here perception of the hotel business is very incorrect. If I was still working in the hotel business, I'd not edit articles about it, as perception would be one of bias. Wikipedia started out as somewhat a lark. I doubt even Jimbo envisioned Wikipedia being what it is today. We are the world's #1 source of information. Period. That means we as editors have a responsibility to give the public accurate information and we must proactively prevent things that defile our reputation. Having a connected editor editing as extensively in the area of his connection as Carmaker does creates a negative impression. When the editor brought that on himself by his own words, how do we not act? Although comparatively to other instances, Pete Rose's bad acts were probably not too big a deal, they banned him for life from baseball for bringing negative perceptions by openly gambling on baseball. Baseball couldn't afford negative perceptions and neither can we. John from Idegon (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Do not make accusations without proof provided, per your line "Being so overly focused on one topic area and so unaware of other facets of our project". For many years and to present, I have edited across multiple articles related to music, television, etc. Ask folks in music and they'd recognize the name. I don't even log in as much. Ford stock is in the dumps and Wikipedia has no benefit to it and never will, simple as that. If it did and I had a factor, James Hackett would be jobless and then we'd really have problem with COI across multiple automakers, if that boosted profitability. Plenty of great evidence here with my topic interests: [1][2][3][4]. I stepped back from editing music, because of issues with finding good links and citations on 1970s to 2000s material.

I expect full objectivity and not the tone of editors, clouding cases being made against me. The automotive media gladly borrows from Wikipedia, per lazy journalists or criticizes credibility in most cases, due to vandalism or unchecked edits, hurting accuracy. In a twisted sense, they favor professional involvement here (friends with quite a few) to assuage concerns. Problem with that is WP:EXPERT. I'm not a cheerleader nor an apologist for anyone, so I welcome anyone thoroughly objective to make their observations on this.--Carmaker1 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @John from Idegon: I'm afraid you'd need to be a bit more specific before this can be properly handled at this noticeboard. Carmaker1 self-disclosed their employer (if I understand correctly), thus two questions:

• Did Carmaker1 edit any articles connected to their employer? If so, which ones, and please provide some diffs that corroborate?
• Did Carmaker1 edit any articles connected to competitors of their employer? If so, similarly, which ones, and please provide some diffs that corroborate?

Having some professional expertise on a topic does not a priori exclude the person with that expertise from editing articles on that topic: so you'd need to illustrate with diffs (see WP:DIFF#Linking to a diff) that something untoward would be going on. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken, Carmaker hasn't denied editing articles about automobiles and I am not claiming his edits are per se biased. I'm saying that openly stating you are employed in a key position by one player in a wide interrelated field creates a perception of bias, which can and should be avoided. I really cannot understand why that isn't an issue? Will we make it an issue if the media picks up on this? That's pretty hypocritical in my book. I think we can all agree Bill Gates is an authority on computers. But would we welcome him coming here to edit articles on Windows or Linux? Doubtful, as he clearly cannot be neutral due to the huge profit motivation. The value of experts here is their ability to locate sources that mere mortals cannot easily find. That value doesn't decrease with a restriction to talk pages. They can still provide those sources, and argue for their inclusion and how to weigh them. If restricted to talk, there can be no public perception of bias. The question isn't whether his edits improve the encyclopedia. The question is does it make Wikipedia a more accurate and dependable source in the world's view. We make a product here too. An encyclopedia. It's free. Profit isn't a motivation for accuracy here. The only thing that gives us our place in the world's culture is the public's perception of our accuracy. And having people editing about a field in which they make their living, that have the ability to increase their personal income by spinning articles, is going to create a negative perception, whether they are actually doing it or not. No-one is suggesting stifling his viewpoint. Just his ability to directly edit articles. The trade-off simply isn't worth it. John from Idegon (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

[H]aving people editing about a field in which they make their living. By that logic, DocJames, for example, would not be allowed to write about medicine because he makes his living as a doctor. El_C 17:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) John, I work at a hospital. I would agree, I shouldn't edit the Wikipedia article for my hospital without disclosure, as that could give the impression of a COI. However, your argument is effectively that I could not edit any hospital's article, as that would involve... well, I'm not sure how it would be a conflict, but you apparently think it is. Suffice to say, I find your interpretation of COI so overly-broad as to effectively ban many people from ever editing articles of interest to their profession. Further, comparing Carmaker to Bill Gates is laughable. If Carmaker were perhaps a former-CEO of Ford, it might apply, but otherwise it's ludicrous to make such a comparison. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, El_C, I think that part of the difference is the economics in play - you have a lot fewer choices of hospital than car. If you edited about your hospital, that would be a COI, and if you edited about a local competitor hospital (is that a thing?), that would look like a COI, but if you edited about a hospital a thousand miles away, that would not really be a COI (since there's no competition). However, at least in the US, most car manufacturers are in competition with each other in some way, which triggers the appearance of COI. Note that this is not a judgment either way on the merits of the case, just a comment on the analogy. creffett (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I work for a company that (in part) produces software. I agree that I shouldn't be banned from writing about software, but I wouldn't edit the pages on my company, its competitors, or either of their software products. creffett (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that claiming a COI from all modern cars is just overly broad. That's what we're saying when we are talking about barring Carmaker from any "competitors" articles. This is a case where I think strictly adhering to COI would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. If specific issues with Carmaker's edits come up, sure, then we can revisit this. But I don't think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is appropriate here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty clearly, my thinking doesn't match up with the community's, so consider this dropped on this end. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Actually, there is one other thing that should be considered here: whether or not Carmaker1 is lying about his credentials. S/he's just recently disclosed who they are, but having edited the field of motor vehicles for so long it is not out of the realm of possibility that they could be lying about who they are. If so, that could broadly be construed as butting against the terms of use section 4) Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and Engaging in fraud. If you're back was against the wall and you attempted to rally on the strength of who you are/were, it wouldn't be totally out of the realm of possibility that you could find a name affiliated with your area of interest and claim to be that person. Edits from alleged experts on subject matter here have leaked in before - notably in the case Essjay, whose edits credentials with regards to his edits ultimately sparked the Essjay controversy. The catch here though is that there is no way to independently confirm who s/he claims to be, so it would boil down to whether we feel s/he's trustworthy enough to be taken at face value or whether we feel that playing safe be following this through under the COI umbrella is the better option. This is also a higher standard since you'd need to find actual evidence that the credentials were used to intentionally justify having edits remain in articles. In the case of Carmaker1, we have the attitude, but no evidence that the expertise card was knowingly or intentionally played specifically to retain edits in articles, which would make proving this line of thought very difficulty. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you have any specific reason to suspect a dishonesty from a co-editor, or are this just wild WP:ASPERSIONs in an attempt to damage? Nor WP:COIN, nor any other page, would be admissible to start a fishing expedition, in the hope that something would turn up, eventually. That's not how it works. This noticeboard is not for gratuitously entering a co-editor's privacy. If you have suspect diffs to show, please list them, but general unsubstantiated philosophies of what could have gone wrong, comparisons with cases that may or may not have some similarities (without anything actually being demonstrated), etc, generally reflect rather poorly on the poster (WP:NOTBLOG and all that). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm of the mind to take Mario's advice here, but to close this by answering your question above, no, nothing specifically. That being said, admins need to keep an open mind, and our editor here has been swinging wild the last few days like a fish on a line. I have uranium pellets insofar as I can prove edits to car pages, but do I have enough for a self sustaining reaction? Nothing I've seen in my admittedly limited look through suggests the answer to my hypothesis above is anywhere near yes - at least not yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
      • The second and third sentences can be taken as a personal attack, making one question the objectivity of the inquiry.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I would suggest leaving the outing discussion at ArbCom, hatting the above discussion here, and start from scratch: adding a well-formed report with list of relevant articles, user, diffs and a concise explanation of the issue. If there are still outing issues, it may be better to wait for ArbCom resolution or email evidence to paid-en-wp@. --MarioGom (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – after Carmaker1's declaration at ARC I see little reason to keep this COIN topic open any further. If nobody objects or closes this earlier, I'd close this as "resolved" in a few hours (or days). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

So why is this still open after 10 days now? Arbitration committee already dismissed any case, AN/Is closed weeks ago and it stands to reason, I am not editing articles via paid means nor am I attacking the pages of competitors. The manner in which this was opened...--Carmaker1 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Château de Montbrun

• Château de Montbrun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• OstaraIK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to be owner of property. User has edited page over at least a couple of years - attempts to engage user have been unsuccessful. Tacyarg (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

They disclosed in a roundabout way two years ago "the article that is present on Wikipedia doesn’t correspond with french version which has been corrected through by our employee and the volunteers." but have not answered any questions on their COI since. Clearly they should not be editing the article aside form minor (sourced) factual corrections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious new articles

• Max India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Antara Senior Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) subsidiary
• Max Ventures and Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) subsidiary
• Max Financial Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) subsidiary
• TerentiusNew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Will follow up in a bit... ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything linked from Template:Max_Group is suspicious at best. creffett (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That template is pretty slick promotion. How do we go about getting rid of that, as a start? Is there a template notability guideline?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We PROD/AfD everything it links to, then take it to TfD as an unused template. creffett (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and draftified everything that this editor has created relating to Max India as suspected UPE, but if other editors here would prefer to restore them to mainspace and go through deletion procedures, I will not object. creffett (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Bri, are you planning to notify the creator of these pages? I find it extremely suspicious that they cranked out several decent-size articles in the span of a couple hours too, but you know the drill. creffett (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay sure ... an admin was doing some checking and I wanted to give them time ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm really saddened to see this here, and to have to face the insinuation that the articles are a case of paid-editing. But, then again, I also understand it is in accordance with Wiki policy. So, for the avoidance of any doubt, let me categorically state: I was not paid a single dime to create these articles, nor am I in any way related to anyone at Max Group, or have a vested interested in creating these. I have mainly written and edited arts-related articles, but was spurred on to create articles for Max after reading about Max Hospitals in the news, researching hydroxychloroquine for their staff treating Coronavirus. Noticing that Max Group and its subsidiaries, all very prominent in Indian business space as a quick web search and the used references show, do not have a page, I went on to start them with the most basic NPOV, well-sourced structure they deserved.

I don't know what else to say, but you have me as a willing participant, and my full cooperation, in whatever investigation you would like me to be a part of. Finally, much as I would like to put on a brave face and pretend otherwise, it does hurt a lot (especially, when you're spending extra time on Wiki as an antidote and a coping mechanism for Corona news), to see all your efforts undone in a single click... TerentiusNew (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to assume good faith on that. The article subjects speak for themselves.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see why it might be hard for you. But if there's anything I'm guilty of it is this: falling prey to that false sense of accomplishment you get on Wiki, and a feeling that I was righting some wrong in my own little way. Here's the thing - after reading about their work and being aware of Wiki's northern hemispheric bias, I researched the group, its companies, and with a sense of purpose started those articles, which honestly I figured would have been created some time ago if they were a British/American conglomerate (with revenues of USD3.2 billion and 25,000+ employees) or prominent listed companies (therefore, I would humbly disagree with your position that the "subjects speak for themselves"; in fact, a rudimentary search shows it's quite the opposite). In a fit of activity, I gathered info, scanned reliable and quality sources, enjoyed making infoboxes and the template for the group, and to be frank felt exhilarated, as one does getting Wiki's instant gratification. So, hard as it is for you to assume good faith, please make allowance for the fact that I might be telling the God's honest truth. I'm fully open to any background/CheckUser checks. My conscience is clear. And weirdly, in a way, I'm thankful this happened, as I became aware of my own effing ego as it said, "I put in so much effort, how dare they!?". Anyway, sorry for this long post, but I would like to ask one final thing, before the pages are deleted if they are deleted. Just to feel that all my effort has not gone to waste, can any one of you (or anyone reading this) please look at the five articles I wrote, Draft:Max Group, Draft:Max India, Draft:Max Ventures and Industries, Draft:Max Financial Services, Draft:Antara Senior Living, read them on their own merit, ascertain their notability and presence in India independently, and then give me feedback if what I wrote was wrong and why. If there are any learnings from this experience, I would genuinely feel some justice, and not think all my effort has gone to waste, after having been wrongly (but i guess understandably, given the flurry of activity) suspected of paid-editing. But only if you're willing! I would hugely appreciate if you can leave the feedback (if there is any) on my talk page, as this is my last post here. It's as far as I can go with presenting my case, no disrespect meant to anyone. Thanks TerentiusNew (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TerentiusNew, thank you for this explanation. I accept your categorical declaration of no COI. I hope you can see why this activity looked odd. Those of us who watch for abuse can be nasty suspicious bastards, and sometimes that leads to a bad outcome. My searches indicate that you're right, Max is a significant presence. Unfortunately there is a long-standing problem with real and perceived paid promotion of Indian companies on Wikipedia, no doubt compounded by language barriers. I hope you won't take this too personally. Creffet, ThatMontrealIP and Bri are nice people, honest they are. Guy (help!) 12:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear JzG, thank you for your lovely note. I felt touched (my eyes got a little wet, I'll confess!). I fully see where you all are coming from, and not for a moment did I think these people are out to get me personally, my replies acknowledge that as much. In fact, I can imagine how it might have looked to them. On the day/s I was working on the articles, my mother kept coming into my room, saying "When are you having lunch!?", I felt so engrossed, reading/creating, even though I have little interest in the field of business. As I read on how their Antara senior living project is the first in a country that stigmatizes old-age homes, I put that study in, giving the article some social depth. Like someone "righting a wrong", I felt like a crusader thinking "this is an Indian company that deserves an article!". Maybe I was wrong to think that way, I don't know. But all the while, acutely aware of the kind of article that belongs in a Wiki, I was making sure I wasn't just unduly promoting some fledgling or a jumped-up organisation; this was a well-covered major undertaking by a big Indian conglomerate. I believe revealing my deepest psychological workings in such a way is the only kind of conflict of interest I can declare here...Oh dear...going on and on, after breaking my vow! Just to end, I note your points about long-standing problems with Indian companies; I shall stick to my arty things. I didn't take anything personally, and I'm pretty sure Creffet, ThatMontrealIP and Bri (and you) are perfectly decent people, just doing their bit to make Wiki a better place. My apologies, too, if I sounded full of myself or spiteful anywhere (I always avoid conflict as I keep reminding myself the only reason I'm here is to "enjoy"!) And more so, during such a virulent time...I wish you all safety, good health and plenty of good cheer! Kind regards, TerentiusNew (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TerentiusNew, yes I understand. Perhaps as a quick fix I could WP:REFUND those articles into Draft space so you have time to work on them in peace? Guy (help!) 17:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, But aren't they already in Drafts mode; do you mean publish them? Sure, I can work on them for the next couple of days, but to be very, very honest, I just thought of giving them a decent start, so someone more interested in businessy things could eventually add to them whenever. But, happy to put in some more referenced stuff (including yesterday's fresh Max-Axis joint venture deal), as I realise they're just skeletons currently. Thank you TerentiusNew (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi JzG, have further worked on the 5 drafts. In some places, there are 2-3 references supporting a single, uncontroversial claim. I just added those thinking they would be available for other editors if they need them to maybe reference other points -- as there was extra information in there I didn't make use of. I could have added more, but I've run out of steam here :/ ...the articles as they stand reflect the extent of my contributions and interest for this topic (only stating matter-of-factly). But I hope they go some way in laying the groundwork and filling a lacuna. Please have a look when you can, thank you TerentiusNew (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, wondered if anyone has had the chance to see the drafts? Creffett, would it be okay to move them into article space? TerentiusNew (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

National American University

• National American University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lauren Scheibal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lmoehle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor only edits National American University and the most cursory of searches will show a legitimate reason to suspect that this editor is paid to edit this article but refuses to engage with other editors or reveal if there is a connection. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I put a paid1 warning on her talk, but I'd suggest limited blocking of her only on the article in question until she discloses and starts talking. John from Idegon (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely certain that there is sockpuppetry at work here too. Will be filing a report. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, there are also quite a few IPs that have only edited this article, but I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. Also, Lmoehle has declared in an edit summary (here) that they have a COI, though for this specific reason I'm not sure. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I removed some of the promotional content, and up popped Erinschwartz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another name match for the school. Seems they are rather keen that people don't read about their financial difficulties. Guy (help!) 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lmoehle --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheri L. Canon

Resolved

 - Based on good-faith. Don't forget to WP:AGF! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Cheri L. Canon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DomniqueNewallo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ive seen stuff like this before, I thought Id post it for once,seems paid/coi. did notify on talk/[5] and pasted the notification above[6], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not being paid and am not receiving any financial compensation for edits or entries. DomniqueNewallo (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)DomniqueNewallo

the administrator for this noticeboard will determine based on several factors, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no administrator on COIN who "determines" things, there are just users and the occasional admin who passes through. We work things out by discussion here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

DomniqueNewallo, are you connected to the subject in some way? Also, if you're not connected, how is File:Canon19.jpg your own work? creffett (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett She is the chair of a radiology department that I am not affiliated with. I am a resident physician that wants to increase the presence of notable women radiologists on Wikipedia. Secondly, the image was forwarded to me by her administrative assistant. I did not physically take the picture myself but it was given to me with permission to upload it to Wikipedia. DomniqueNewallo (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)DomniqueNewallo

DomniqueNewallo, then it is not your own work, and you need to properly credit it - I'll also be tagging it as needing permission, since we cannot just take your word for it that you have permission (and we have to be sure that the copyright holder actually is okay with the Wikimedia licensing terms). creffett (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett thank you for the clarification. I appreciate the learning experience. I will go review the licensing terms again to see how I can rectify the issue with the image. DomniqueNewallo (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)DomniqueNewallo

@DomniqueNewallo:, from your explanation, it sounds like you have good intentions. Creffet is right about the image: you will have to get someting called an OTRS ticket to authorize its use here. Sorry for the rough welcome but we are careful about COI as many people try to promote themselves or their friends on Wikipedia, or try to do so through paid editing. Your intentions sound to be very positive to me! I would encourage you to have a look at the Women in Red project, (especially the talk page), which is for a project on Wikipedia devoted to improving the coverage of notable Women on Wikipedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This item sounds resolved to me, per the good faith explanation above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Andreas Antonopoulos

• Andreas Antonopoulos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aantonop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Andreas Antonopoulos article's subject is a BLP. This subject is a relatively famous advocate of Bitcoin, Blockchain, Ethereum, and an author books on those subjects. A user, who is apparently Antonopoulous himself, pointed out that David Gerard is an advocate against Bitcoin/Blockchain & an author of a blockchain book titled "Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain: Bitcoin, Blockchain, Ethereum & Smart Contracts", and Antonopoulous stated that Gerard (an Admin) should not edit his article due to COI as a "competitor." Antonopoulous stated that Gerard had deleted content, which Gerard has done 1, 2, etc. I will also note that I dont disagree with any of Gerard's edits thus far on this article, I often ping Gerard (maybe to the point of annoyance) to get his input on various blockchain articles as I value his experience and expertise on the subject matter, and I have never noticed in recent memory any sniff of his 'anti-bitcoin views' clouding his edits thus far on any article. I felt that since the article's subject did request a review Talk:Andreas_Antonopoulos#Should_a_competing_(contrarian)_author_be_making_edits_here?, and since Gerard himself did both deny the COI and also suggest COIN review here, I will raise the COI investigation process and welcome comments. I will note that this article is the subject of sanctions WP:GS/Crypto. If I have mis-formatted this COIN post, please feel free to edit it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: a previous COIN thread was close as "No COI". Could you review that and determine if it answers your concerns?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: I was raising this COIN on behalf of the article's subject, as it appeared the right thing to do. I personally haven't seen any evidence of bad edits by Gerard on this article. Also the earlier case doesn't really satisfy it, as today's examination was meant to be more specific to this particular article. I dont think that Gerard has a COI to the entire space, but the article subject did raise the issue. But I thought the question interesting, for example would a shareholder of AMD have a COI if they edited the Intel article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: No, the dicussion you refer to examined whether David Gerard had a COI in the Cryptocurrency or the Blockchain articles. This time, Jtbobwaysf is asking whether David Gerard has a COI in the Andreas Antonopoulos article, which is a different subject matter. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You also tried to claim I did - now you're here, are you able to make your case? - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No. What I tried to claim is that if it is true that you have a COI in relation to the Andreas Antonopoulos article, then you should not edit the article. That is what you can read in WP:COI. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• This doesn't appear to state an actionable claim. The original claim that purported to be the article subject seems to be a weak attempt to block a non-advocate from an area plagued with advocates. It was the sort of "COI" complaint where a WP:FRINGE advocate passionately believes that not sharing their ideology ("contrarian") constitutes bias and hence a COI - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Blockchain is no longer fringe. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is important. David Gerard claims that the Andreas Antonopoulos article is "an area plagued with advocates" characterizing himself as a "non-advocate" of Andreas Antonopoulos. I do not think that it is appropriate to classify oneself as a "non-advocate" while classifying others as "area-plaguing advocates". This demonstrates that he does have a specific attitude caused by his WP:COI towards this specific living person. Another point demonstrating the specific character of his attitude towards the subject of the article is that he characterizes Andreas Antonopoulos as a "WP:FRINGE advocate", which is not a consensual point of view between the Andreas Antonopoulos article editors. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not what a COI is, let alone a WP:COI - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that is just a proof that you do have a specific attitude towards the subject of the article. The WP:COI lies in the fact that, per your own admission, Andreas Antonopoulos is a colleague (fellow writer, concentrating on the same subject) of yours, favouring opposite opinions than you do. I should also point at another important difference. Andreas Antonopoulos is considered notable, while you, his fellow writer David Gerard, are not. Another point worth noting is that Antonopoulos' books are published by a reputable house, while David Gerard's works are not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: you're not going to win anyone over to your argument by putting down other editors. Stick to the facts and skip the speculation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this is not "my case". I do not care much how it ends up. Second, can you tell me what is not a fact in the above text?Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The put downs aren't necessary. Also, if you must edit your posts after other have replied to them, then use strikethrough.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to make sure that the listed facts are not misrepresented as speculations. Regarding the facts you characterize as put downs - They are not put downs, in fact. They demonstrate how David Gerard misrepresents Andreas Antonopoulos as a "fringe advocate", when the works of the two authors substantially differ in reputability of their publishers. This is very relevant to the subject matter. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree here that esscence of the point (which I disagree with) is that Antonopoulos' is fringe, Gerard's position is not fringe. Yet Antonopoulos is an author and the subject of this article and thus has a COI on this article, yet Gerard doesnt have a COI on this article as his position is mainstream in that he has a competing & contrarian view of the article's subject. Seems all a bit convoluted to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Greg Neri

• Greg Neri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mkusenba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe that Mkusenba, who created both the page for Greg Neri and for one of his books (and who has done the vast majority of edits on each of those pages) has a major COI with Greg Neri. I stumbled across this potential connection about a month ago, by complete coincidence. Further off-Wikipedia investigation (which I won't go over here, because of WP:OUT) convinced me of this even more (FWIW, the evidence I saw was very, very strong/convincing). As for on-Wikipedia evidence, Mkusenba seems to be a single-purpose account solely devoted to Greg Neri-related topics. In addition, many of their edits of these pages seem to excessively praise Neri, or cast him in a positive light. As an example, this early version of the Greg Neri page (up through that point Mkusenba was the only editor of the page) seems to lavish excessive praise on Neri, with the best parts from each review being cherry-picked and put on the page, and seemingly very positive OR (for example, the section on Surf Mules describes the book, without attribution or quotes, as "harrowing and funny".) On top of that, there's way too many quotes from Neri himself, and every single hyperlink of the book's title is to the Amazon page to buy it.

Now, I do realize that that might be reading into a version from 9 years ago a little too much, but even today, the current version still has many of these problems; there's a large section devoted solely to Neri's "writing approach", filled 95% with quotes from Neri talking about how great his own work is, and in addition, I'm not even sure there's enough reliable sources to justify a page for Neri in the first place, with a large chunk of the references being posts written by him, and some of the references, like the 17th one, not even mentioning Neri once (BTW, some of these criticisms of the page's bias also apply to the page for the book I mentioned. I asked Mkusenba about my suspicions about 3 weeks ago, and they have not responded. So, in conclusion, based on the singular focus that Mkusenba has on this very narrow topic, as well as the seemingly biased edits they've made on those topics, as well as other evidence, I believe that Mkusenba has a large conflict of interest on Greg Neri-related topics. Stavd3 (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stavd3: Mkusenba has only made three edits in the past four and a half years. The last one was five months ago. Given the fact that they are not particularly active, I would suggest being bold by removing any puffery or problematic content in the article might be the best strategy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at it and ended up trimming it from 19K to 12K. There was a lot of puffery and bad sourcing, as you described.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, but I'm sorta(?) new to Wikipedia, and I wasn't sure what the best course of action was, so I decided to put this out there. Thanks for responding, though. FWIW I was planning on maybe cutting down the articles myself. Stavd3 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up question, because you have more experience than I do: does every single book that Neri has written need a summary on his page (or is there a policy about this)? As far as I can tell that doesn't seem to be standard protocol, given the other author pages I've seen, although I might not be looking at the right pages. Stavd3 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I deal more with articles on artists than authors, but I think short mentions of each book are fine. There are actually guidlines somewhere for this kind of thing, but I am not sure where. These can be expanded in the case of secondary sourcing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just planning on removing weird interjections left by the article creator, and shortening summaries from 3-4 sentences to one sentence. Stavd3 (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mihr (theatre)

• Mihr (theatre) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stella Loretsyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hard evidence on possible violation of WP:COI or WP:PAID in regard to this article and Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan, both interconnected subject-wise and created by same user. Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan is currently pending review for deletion for lack of WP:GNG at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tsolak_MLKE-Galstyan. I obviously cannot divulge anything else out of privacy concerns but should be an easy find for a seasoned administrator. Please let me know if anything further is expected from my side. Charmanderblue (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been studying contemporary dance and art for already 15 year and during my studies I have found out Mihr theatre. I only attand their performances and I am a follower of their pages in Facebook and in Insatgram, because I want to new nes about them. Sometimes I share their posts, but I have no personal connection with them. As I mentioned, I study contemporary dance in the world and in Armenia, so I have decided to put articles about contemporary dance in Armenia and started with MIHR theatre, as they are one of the developers of contemporary dance, and in my opinion they are important for the contemporary dance scene of Armenia. After them I have decided to represent also other performers in contemporary dance of Armenie in wikipedia platform. I work volunteery on my own initiative, I am not being paid, I have no intention to make promotions and I only want to enrich wikipedia with English articles about Armenian artists and performers to get them recoganizeable, as I am also translator of the English Language and can write in English. Stella Loretsyan (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Stella Loretsyan. Thank you for your explanation. There is still the question of why you would upload so many images of MIHR productions to Wikipedia Commons and then say they are your "own work". Here is an example, and here is another. Did you take the pictures, or obtain permission to upload them from MIHR? If proper permission has been obtained they can be kept (via an OTRS ticket) but it there is no permission they will have to be deleted.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced from what I'm seeing. Please kindly consider that if you have a history of prior or active employment connection with the management of the Mihr (theatre) then this may be also grounds for WP:COI. Either way I will give way to more experienced editors on this now. Charmanderblue (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the full list of the 70 images of the theatre's productions that were uploaded to Commons by Stella Loretsyan.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I really appriciate your attention to my work. I can say that I sent an offical email with the request to MIHR Theatre for the permission to use the photos which are avaiable in the public domain from their offical website. They kindly gave me the permission to use the photos. All information used in the article is based on my own research and work.Stella Loretsyan (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, but you say above I have no personal connection with them and now you say you have exchanged emails and letters with them. Do you have what they say in the email? The images are going to have to be deleted or you need an OTRS permission ticket for each one. There is no "public domain" release on their site, in fact what I see is "© 2019 MIHR Theater" on the bottom of their main page. Please let us know if there are any other connections to them you have not disclosed. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I can offically tell you that I do not have any connection with MIHR Theatre. And my interest is starting and finishing in my reasearch of contemporary dance and influence of MIHR Theatre on the development of contemporary dance in Armenia. Stella Loretsyan (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are exchanging emails with them, there is a connection, obviously.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The images are marked as "Own work", which suggests that you in fact own them. If per your own statement the theater holds the rights to these pictures, then it is them who should have released them. Charmanderblue (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Charmanderblue: This is a common mistake made by uploaders who think that the fact that someone said it is ok is the same as it being ok, which is not the case.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven' t exchanged letters there is only one email to them with request to get official permission for using pictures, because I know that I need the permission to use photos in wikipedia. Stella Loretsyan (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is my fault that I have marked Own Work, I can change it, if you help me Stella Loretsyan (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good then. Thank you for your answers on the COI questions. People are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion al the time, so sorry if our questions are difficult. I for one will accept your explanation. The images are at Commons, so they have to be dealt with there rather than here. Watch your talk page there. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. I really appreciate whole passion in the discussion to protect wikipedia, which, for me as an amatour editor, is a place for professional articles, which are based on facts, not a place for promotion. Stella Loretsyan (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. We try to assume good faith, but sometimes, like this case, where editors are interested in a single topic, we get suspicious. Thanks for bearing with our questions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again! I will continue to work in contemporary art and in contemporary dance particularly in Armenia. And with support of the international community of wikipedia editors, there will be more articles about contemporary arts and contemporary dance in Armenia, which will be, of course, useful for professionals who trust and use wikipedia.Stella Loretsyan (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating page for my own book?

I am an author and would like to write an article about my own book? Would this violate WP:COI? --James Miko (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: Thanks for your question. Yes, that would be inappropriate. We are not here for self-promotion. Sometimes people ignore the guidelines you mention above, in which case we will generally send the article to draft space and through the WP:AFC process, where it will get extra scrutiny. The thing to do is resist the urge to self-promote, and wait for someone neutral and unconnected to write the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Jamesmiko, yes it would. I see you're an experienced editor, but a rundown of the just so that we're all on the same page: if you have reliable sources to show that it meets our book notability criteria, then you may create a draft and ask for it to be reviewed; if it is accepted, you'll be expected to make edit requests on the talk page and not edit the page directly. creffett (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: Yes, definitely. But worry not, as you can simply follow the steps on Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. You will be able to create a draft of the article and have it submitted it to be reviewed by Wikipedia's volunteers. Charmanderblue (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think we've made the answer pretty clear, given that there are three similar answers within a minute of each other :). creffett (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Creffett I mean, you know what they say - that things happen in threes.

The quality expertise here is staggering!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone! I will make sure to follow your guidance. James Miko (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Oliver Sean

• Oliver Sean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• W.O.A Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JoyBrag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has only ever edited those two articles, the record label being run by Oliver Sean. What triggered this report were these edits, claiming that his latest mix album reached the Top 40 on the Official UK Charts (No.36) in 2020, supposedly referenced by a press release from his record label. What the press release actually claims is The Goa Chillout Zone Vol.9 produced by Oliver Sean and released on Valentines day has hit No.1 in the UK on the iTunes Album Charts in the Electronic Music Genre. It's possible the editor isn't aware of the various music charts there are in the UK these days (although if they are making the edits it's their responsibility to make sure they are correct), the UK Albums Chart and the UK Album Downloads Chart are the ones run by the Official UK Charts Company. Their electronic album chart for the period 14-20 February can be seen here and contains no mention of Oliver Sean or the The Goa Chillout Zone Vol.9, neither does the week after (I checked just to be thorough). I can't find any archive of the iTunes UK Albums Charts in the Electronic Music Genre charts history, this page lists the current chart but says This site does not store or archive chart positions for genre charts. They do store the non-specific genre album charts, see here oder here. This does confirm it reached #36 on 19 February (falling to #83 the following day) the iTunes UK Albums chart (which is a totally different thing from the "Official UK Charts"), but there is no independent source for the #1 in the electronic music genre chart. A question that may belong at RSN but it can just as easily be answered here is whether Oliver Sean's own press release is an acceptable reference for claiming he reached #1 in a particular music chart? Given the number of dance acts in the chart above him in the overall chart of 19 February, I would suggest it is a highly questionable claim. FDW777 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization. It is thus inadmissible as a source, especially one that would suggest notability or achievement of the subject of article. Charmanderblue (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Upon further review of W.O.A Records I have noticed obvious puffery and citation violations. Please see its talk page if interested. Charmanderblue (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ironically, the user reporting this has been blocked for using a proxy/multiple accounts and possible UPE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)>

I have???? FDW777 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As Mark Twain would have said were he a WP editor, "reports of my block are greatly exaggerated!" 1000 apologies, wrong editor!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Charmanderblue and others' UPE

• Dickson Despommier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (edits reverted)
• Vincent Racaniello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (edits reverted)
• Draft:Charles Knirsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Kiefer O'Reilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • User:Charmanderblue/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Parasitic Diseases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) book published by Parasites Without Borders
• Parasites Without Borders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) speedied
• User:42isthedefiniteanswer/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Calvin Dontez Ross, music industry person
• User:42isthedefiniteanswer/sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Peter Jay Hotez
• User:42isthedefiniteanswer/sandbox3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dickson D. Despommier
• User:42isthedefiniteanswer/sandbox4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Daniel O. Griffin
• User:42isthedefiniteanswer/sandbox5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Charles A. Knirsch
• User:42isthedefiniteanswer/sandbox6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Parasitic Diseases
• User:42isthedefiniteanswer/sandbox7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Parasites Without Borders
• Draft:Daniel O. Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Calvin Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

accounts

• Charmanderblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 42isthedefiniteanswer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Creations of blocked accounts are listed here. I want to say something wry about parasites here, but will refrain. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Am I allowed to make comments here, or is your injunction global? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprinklr deal controversy

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprinklr deal controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mywikiupdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am suspicious of the pattern of an editor having a sprinkling of edits in 2017, 2018, and 2019, showing up in an AfD that is clearly rife with sockpuppetry. My suspicion is enhanced by the presence of a username basically including the phrase "My wiki", which has been used in commercial efforts before (e.g., User talk:Mywikipediaarticle). BD2412 T 19:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

K3 Cine Creations

• K3 Cine Creations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Karansonu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the article the sole editor writes "We" meaning that he is part of the band. Idan (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I restored the article to draft space given this issue and the lack of reliable sources. Melcous (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Melcous, could you add the draft templates? I'm not keen on that. Idan (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to add that the user has done a few more edits and created another article which is worth taking a look at. Idan (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Durdana Ansari

• Durdana Ansari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Salvatore42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MonksCroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lakokhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hba5921 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Very likely WP:PAID; shortly after it was created by User:Salvatore42, this image was uploaded by a different user; Salvatore42 denies any connection to that user, which seems very fishy. Shortly after Salvatore42 stopped editing, four new accounts were created to edit this article, with no edits to other articles. It's possible there is some sockpuppetry going on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This person has received mentions in Pakistani media lately so maybe other people saw her too. I thought she had notable accomplishments in broadcast media and now being involed in female empowerment and decided to create the article. I removed her page from my Watchlist which is why I have not received any notifications about what's been happening to her page. I left notifications on for when someone mentions my username, which is how I found out about this message. I have not made any edits because I'm afraid to do anything on Wikipedia at the moment. I've had some charged language used against me recently and have been accused of doing things I did not do, so I've stopped editing for the time being. When I do return to editing, I will be focusing my volunteering efforts on the CAT:UP project. Salvatore42 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• April 27 - 16:46 UTC - User:Salvatore42 creates the article [7]
• April 27 - 21:53 UTC - Commons user Ansarimobeen794 (with no previous edits) uploads photo of Ansari to Commons as "own work"
• April 28 - 02:07 UTC - Salvatore42 adds new photo to article
• Salvatore42 denies knowing or collaborating with Ansarimobeen794 [8]
  • I'd like to assume good faith, but that's quite a coincidence. (Note: The commons timestamp is newer than the timestamp of the photo addition to the article; it may be that en and Commons are using different timezones). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate assuming good faith. I was just trying to add an article about a woman who seems like she is well known around the world especially in EMEA for her military credentials and recent work in female empowerment. All the information I used had sources from various pubs online I found on search engines and LinkedIn. I realize I over-sourced, but I have a hard time stopping when I keep finding good sources, or at least sources I think are good. I was going to keep track of her page and make corrections and new edits as I found them, but now I don't want anything to do with her page and regret thinking it would be a good idea to create it. If you think this page should be deleted, you won't have any argument from me. Salvatore42 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Adam Riess

• Adam Riess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 130.167.171.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has pretty much flat out admitted they have a COI. Read talk page on article and diffs comments. Thanks! Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 00:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The IP address has left a message on my talk page and may be viewed there. I will not be responding to the editor however I am requesting immediate administrative review. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 02:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Kalamazoo Musum UPE

• Seashell414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per this diff, user admits to being an intern for the Museum and has been adding mentions of their collection to numerous articles on artists. Most of their additions have been reverted for being undue or unsourced, but some have stuck and are helpful. Initially Posting here so we can be sure to get the UPE aspect of things cleared up. Will leave UPE notice on their talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree. No COI has been proven here. Why open up a COI just to admit that the problem isn't one of COI but one of WP:V, a case of of a new editor adding (sometimes) "undue or unsourced" info? A second problem with this nomination is failure to prove COI: If, for example, I admit to being a resident of NYC and go out of my way adding cited references regarding each and everyone of NYC notable tourist attractions, does that make for a COI case? No, of course not. To add to arguments against this nomination, according to this edit, the submitter appears to be in cohorts with Modernist in regarding Seashell414, and such behavior, per COI's own header, should be taken into account when considering the true intentions of both sides. In fact, from this, abuse of WP:ROLLBACK privilege by Modernist appears to be an issue here, as well as Modernist's apparent violation of the WP:3RR policy, many times over, relative to Seashell414 edits. Specifically, this other edit to Modernist's page (by Yours Truly) may be relevant here as well, for this nomination was posted just shortly after that edit and there appears to be an element of abuse of the rollback privilege I mentioned above which I advised the editor in question about. On the surface, I get the impression ThatMontrealIP may appear to be acting as an agent of Modernist. Mercy11 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy11: you gotta relax here and assume some good faith. I posted here because Seashell414 does indeed have a COI: they made about 100 edits promoting the collection of the Kalamazoo museum and have disclosed that they are an intern for the museum. That is the definition of a COI: they work for the people they are placing edits about. Modernist and I were both concerned that we had to revert many edits by this user. Posting here is a way of generating discussion. FWIW, Seashell414 has disclosed that they are an employee, and posted the relevant disclosure on their talk page, and I gave them some tips there about how to contribute neutrally. Finally, I have no espionage training and am not anyone's "agent"! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This case is a good a time as any to remind people that there is a difference between WP:COI and WP:PAID. The former is a community guideline here at en.wiki, and only encourages COI editors to be tactful and recommends they not edit articles they have a conflict of interest towards. WP:PAID on the other hand is policy, written and governed by the en.wiki community but also heavily inflected by the Wikimedia Foundation's WP:TOU and paid contributions policy. COI gives editors some wiggle room, but PAID does not, and editors who want to continue to use the site must comply with both en.wiki's WP:PAID policy and with Point 4 of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Fion_Gunn

• Draft:Fion Gunn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FionGunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Writing their own biography not Wikipedia:Notability (people) Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the article tag to "autobiography". Probably not much to worry about here as it is still in draft, and unlikely to make it out of draft as available sources are very scarce.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Article was deleted for copyvio. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor has been warned. So far all she has done is two edits in a draft. There is nothing more to be done now. If we had to deal with a report here for every time a new editor in good faith makes a draft about themselves we would not get very far in dealing with the more serious conflict of interest cases. (Incidentally, as ThatMontrealIP mentions, I have deleted the page, but that was nothing to do with the conflict of interest.) JBW (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Molokele

• Daniel Molokele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Daniel Molokele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user first edited the page in 2017 but then edited it again right now. Maybe we should wait? But I’ll leave it to the experts. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 15:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Brett Reylander

• Brett Reylander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would welcome a second opinion regarding a series of edits to this article, especially with regard to WP:BLP. Bonusballs (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability and sourcing seem to be a bit thin, most likely some PR work. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Drew Chicone

• Drew Chicone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Danfundibu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mlepisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:6c0:c100:9550::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Created by WP:SPA, reads like a CV or LinkedIni page. Came to my attention when IPs from this range made multiple attempts at inserted links about the subject. Page was prod'd, then resurrected via DRV by User:Mlepisto, who admits to knowing the subject, but denies receiving any compensation for contributing to the article. Posting here for additional eyes/feedback. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I don't know if it is appropriate to respond here so please forgive me if not. I have update my user page to provide some insight and clarity/transparency, and responded to this notice on my talk page. Mlepisto (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sumesh tripathi

• Draft:Sumesh tripathi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sumesh tripathi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has made the draft Sumesh tripathi which is their username. So a pretty clear COI. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The4lines, you generally don't need to report someone to the COI noticeboard for an obvious autobiography like that - the COI template (or its relative, uw-autobiography) should be sufficient, and if they keep creating the same page they'll probably end up blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Also, you need to notify anyone you report to this noticeboard - I will post the notice for you this time, but please remember to do so in the future. creffett (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Disregard the second part - I see that you posted the notification since I started my response. creffett (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Creffett Thanks for the heads up. I did notify them when I posted it. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Keren Ann

• Keren Ann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Savoir Faire Mgmt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"curprev 00:55, May 11, 2020‎ Savoir Faire Mgmt talk contribs‎ m 14,712 bytes +571‎ →‎Discography: I'm Keren Ann manager and want to reorganize his wiki page with more details and different organisation." The user has been editing the page since May 5, 2020 without disclosing COI. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 08:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair in this case, no warning about conflict of interest was placed on their page when this was first disclosed on 5 May. The WP policies on COI are not as widely known in the wider world as some editors assume. The notices on the editor's talk page were only added after subsequent edits, and they were given, effectively, no time to respond before being blocked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle:the user name is blocked as promotional and implies a shared account. That is what they got blocked for. Not for COI. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 11:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

They weren't warned about that either, so far as I can see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Planet of the Humans

• Planet of the Humans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a documentary that criticizes the fundamental nature of environmental activism and a green climate science industry.
• Femkemilene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self described climate science student who made the following unsourced edit on edit on Planet of the Humans: "The film has been widely critized for its misleading and outdated claims."
• Earlier today I removed the word widely pursuant to MOS:NOTE because it presumes the readers' knowledge of the subject and added a "citation needed" template for the rest of the claim. This edit was quickly reverted by Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the reason given "Been there, done that" which is a FUD non-reason.

• I then attempted to seek out the reason on Calton's talk page which is full of bold, presumptuous FUD language that presumes anyone who has a question about or a problem with anything he has done on wikipedia is either drunk, assume he's stupid or assume he's Montel Williams for some reason.

• I then pinged both users on the film's talk page to try to get a consensus about the statement. Femkemiline then undid her previous comment attempting to defend the presence of the statement, so I removed the statement in question from the lead because the film is only widely criticized as being misleading or outdated by people who work and are activists in the climate industry.

• Almost immediately, Calton reverts my edit once again, WP:PERSONALATTACKS me for being allegedly "bogus and FUD" with no legitimate rationale for the reversion, then posts the same on the talk page when he could have been discussing the matter in a civil way there when I pinged him three plus hours ago. I have no interest in edit warring, but I reverted Calton's last edit and was about to try to explain that every cited criticism regarding misleading or outdated information in teh film is made by people who work or are otherwise politically invested in the industry being challenged by the premise of the film, but Calton's past behavior leads me to believe that it would only be met with more vitriolic FUD personal attacks against me. I honestly don't care if the statement is left in the lede, but the argument is limited to a specific set of biased activists and employees. To say it is "widely criticized" is misleading. And the statement in the lede should have at least one source to support it per WP:RS. To be accused of FUD for that is just WP:BAIT.

• In the half hour or so it has taken to write this complaint, my final reversion has not been edited so I am not sure what kind of action I am requesting other than maybe some advice and a review of the page for a third or fourth opinion about the matter?

Kire1975 (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is not the appropriate forum for this. Please go to Wikipedia:ANI and start the discussion by clicking on the 'Click here to start a new discussion' button. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 09:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree this isn't an appropriate place for this, but I can't agree with opening an ANI thread. I see nothing here that requires the attention of ANI. I suggest the OP keep discussing on the article talk page and stop reverting. Some appropriate form of WP:Dispute resolution could be used, which is never ANI, but I'm not sure if this is needed at the time since the dispute still seems quite new. The discussion should focus on the content issues, not on what any editors did or other personality clash issues. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: - I recommend ANI due to the personal attacks. If those persist no DR is going to help. They can start with 3O if the criteria is met. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 11:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing described in this thread that is a personal attack that has any chance of earning sanction at ANI. Frankly the worst seems to be from the OP themselves with their comment on Femkemilene. For better or worse, nothing so far is really that far outside the norms of normal discourse her on Wikipedia. So IMO opening an ANI thread will just be a waste of time. I also don't see that 3O would apply since from the OP's own description, confirmed from a quick check of the article, there have been at least 3 editors involved already even if only 2 of them have commented on the particular issue on the talk page. More generally, while seeking outside help via some form dispute resolution would IMO be a better solution than ANI and is generally not a wrong move whatever the circumstance, one point I was trying to make in my comment, we shouldn't forget the most basic part of dispute resolution is often discussing the issue in good faith among existing participants. AFAICT, the discussion on the article talk page has been open just over 12 hours [9]. In that case, it could easily be too soon to assume outside help is even needed. It may be better to simply continue to discuss on the article talk page, with all parties doing their best to put aside any personal or behavioural issues which don't belong on the article talk page, and continue to negotiate and listen, which includes accepting you could be wrong or may have misunderstood policy. And yes stop reverting until a consensus is reached. Also if the OP is 80.47.95.45, they really need to remember to login and edit from their account and sign their posts to avoid confusion. (If they aren't then I guess this means there are at least 4 people involved.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue for WP:ANI or dispute resolution, not WP:COIN. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)