Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 191

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sagar Wahi

Sagar Wahi is a long term spam targe for paid/coi editors and there doesn't appear to be any change with the new iteration. Shruti Bera originally disclosed incorrectly on their userpage and now is claiming they "made a mistake" when they said they were paid. This is pretty transparent and like the rest of the spammers before them, they refuse to adequately disclose and thus should be blocked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Asheema Vardaan does not appear to have been ready to move from draft to mainspace. --SVTCobra 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And it was moved in less than an hour after Praxidicae questioned the editor. --SVTCobra 23:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
It's at AfD now where a couple of us have called for deletion and WP:SALTing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
But what about Asheema Vardaan? It's barely two sentences. SVTCobra 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Big Ayeh


Connection can be proven on Commons: commons:File:Paa Kwasi (Artist).jpg#Summary. There was a VRT ticket confirming their permission to upload to commons. More at User talk:Big Ayeh#June 2022. They should ideally be page blocked. 0xDeadbeef 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice that the user's YouTube link goes to BigAyehMedia, which houses Official Videos for Dobble and Paa Kwasi. If the person is not associated with these musical acts, they need to change their username here, but it's likely they are associated, given how long they've been constantly editing on these pages and their own user page to promote their artist. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
User was blocked for promotional editing and username violation. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

TerraCycle

The TerraCycle article has been the subject of a number of edits whose sole focus seem to be deleting critical content or hiding it in other sections (which frequently are unrelated to the content).

These are from numerous IP addresses, listed at [[1]], but all share the same pattern of editing behaviour. The most recent IP address making these edits is additionally from the same /16 as a previous IP in the list.

In terms of the content, in every case that the entity has claimed that content was unsourced, I have provided details of source material in increasing detail. Where there have been some errors on my part, I have corrected them. The person/s has/have also claimed that their interest is in the quality/conciseness of the writing. In response, I have improved clarity/conciseness in good faith despite my belief that this is a bad-faith claim on their part.

The person/entity behind the IP(s) has been invited on several occasions to make a statement declaring that they do or don't have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, and has ignored the request on each occasion. Most recently, I did this on the latest IP's talk page at [[2]].

The person/s in exchange continue to make the claim that I have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, specifically that I have a connection to the BBC or Panorama. I have specifically gone on record stating that I have no connection to either of the two, or anyone else in the article. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see the comment attached to the most recent re-deletion, by the editing party, of section headers at [[3]] for an example of the type of justification given for the edits, as well as (untrue) assertions that I have a CoI. My only link to the documentary is that I have watched it, which is what led to my initial addition to the article. If Wikipedia has a mechanism for private verification of (non-)conflict of interest, I'm happy to do participate in it.
In the above edit comment the editor also makes (verifiably) false statements about the nature/subject of the documentary itself, which I believe to be in the hope that most people will (understandably) not want to sit through it to see which party is making accurate characterisations. It can however be seen at [iPlayer page for the documentary] that the summary states "Mobeen Azhar investigates TerraCycle’s green credentials and its relationship with major brands", despite the editor/s assertion that "The documentary talks about TerraCycle for all of five minutes, then moves on to the greenwashing conversation about plastic-producing companies". I'm using this as an example of what seems to be a pattern of dishonesty from this person or people, as it would demonstrate that they either have not watched the documentary or are intentionally mischaracterising it. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I've watched the so-called documentary, and it does only discuss TerraCycle for five minutes. Editor at 81.187.88.97 is associated with the documentary, and markets it maximally, in a forum not appropriate for it. 47.198.242.207 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, and as clear a case of projection as I've ever seen. 81.x is obviously not here marketing for the BBC. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The person/entity has now added abusive material on my talk page. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Mehdi Mousavi , سیدمهدی موسوی

I’m a new member; created a page and edited several pages, and then ended up in a page which because of my background I know had problems. see [[Mehdi Mousavi]);([4]) There were no references for most of the page -except one paragraph- and a couple of lines that had references, it would lead to the first page of a news agency; the text more resembled bragging than a biography. I added everywhere it needed references and decided to check out the same page in my mother tongue (Persian).
It was much much worse and virtually no references to speak of. Again I added that it needed references and that the references were to wrong pages. I was asked to write a summary of the edit with I did but then everything went back to the way they were and I was amazed that the guy was boldly editing his own page with the username the same as the name of the page! (https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_موسوی) by Mehdi Mousavi,

  • Which was one of the first roles that I saw when I joined. I reported him and informed him of the report. Then I noticed that he had erased all my work in the page of another poet: see مریم هوله ([5]);
But all I had done was adding 12 references to the page which was in real bad need of references. Then he told me that he has also reported me for “advertising” which I hadn’t done; all I did was adding a page that I found, as a reference so the reader can follow the reference and see if there is a book; something that is not possible on the page Im reporting since some times you read he has published 10 books without even the books names, much less any references.  see [[Mehdi Mousavi]);

(https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_موسوی) by Mehdi Mousavi, Actually its so bad that you don’t even need to speak the language, to be able to recognize something’s really wrong; just look at the paragraph after paragraph with no references -except the part of the page which is about an arrest- and all the references to the other parts lead to nowhere related to the text and a couple that do, are references to his own interviews and he basically doesn’t need any references since even when he uses one, it refers back to him! I felt helpless, regretted joining and don’t think I would waste my time editing pages -even though its much needed especially in a language like Persian- because after spending a couple of hours the “owner” of the page can come along and return it to the same old baseless window dressing for his business. I’m just gonna wait and see the result of this report since I’m really pissed by what what happened. I know and appreciate the fact that you guys also spend your time and energy to elevate people and I apologize for being so pessimistic; please stop fake people from dragging down Wikis; thank you. 

(https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_موسوی) by Mehdi Mousavi,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaghahraman (talk • contribs)

@Minaghahraman: I am sorry you are getting frustrated with the circumstances on Persian Wikipedia. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and our policies and guidelines have no jurisdiction on other language versions of Wikipedia. Each version of Wikipedia is governed independently by its own rules, so we have no authority to intervene there. You can try to find a Persian-speaking editor to help you on Persian Wikipedia by checking Wikipedia's Local embassy, but that is about all I can suggest. Good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Otrium

This account seems to be created a a large number of spammy articles on private businesses. Over the last few couple of years, a good number have been deleted, csd'd, drafted, images deleted by commons and so on. 7 out of 26 have been deleted and many of the remaining ones look like brochure articles. I reviewed one of their articles, Otrium, it went to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otrium and was deleted.The account went off the deep end during the Afd, and opened a spurious Ani notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2. Several weird things came to light including, rapid article output. I asked whether they were being paid, and they said no. More eyes are needed. scope_creepTalk 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment Retaliatory filing for an ANI report I filed highlighting abusive behavior from a seemingly experienced editor. Detailed response is given at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scope_Creep:_revenge_and_disruptive_editing_part_2. This is an exaggerated report. One article I wrote was just deleted, but that's the first in 6 years. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ventures was also recently deleted, but I didn't write it. As I explained in the deletion discussion, I just improved it and moved it to mainspace, until it was wrecked by insiders. Logo deletion activity on talk pages is common when they are replaced with a new version. Nothing I wrote has ever been draftified. This report simply substantiates what I reported at ANI. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • With Otrium deleted, my comment about recent additions to the article in the Otrium AfD is less clear because I did not identify which editor made the additions - to clarify, the diffs point to additions by TechnoTalk. Other contributions by TechnoTalk are also discussed in the Contentsquare AfD and the Cambrian Biopharma AfD. As a general matter, I think it can take some time to learn how to identify promotional sources, and TechnoTalk's conduct in these AfDs may indicate some assistance is needed. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Beccaynr: I'm always trying to learn. I spend a lot of time at the AfC help desk helping other editors with poorly-sourced articles. As far as I know, none of the publications I used as sources are flagged as problematic on the reliable sources board, and indeed they are used in many articles, without drama. I'm unclear how I'm supposed to know to not include them just because another editor doesn't like them. If someone doesn't like the sourcing, wouldn't it be better to try to get them blocked or declared unreliable so this issue doesn't keep coming up again. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
TechnoTalk, the issue isn't always the source itself but the specific content of the article. A source can have useful articles mixed with churnalism, advertorials and routine transactional information that do not indicate notability. After awhile you will get a feel for what's a press release even if it has a byline. If nothing else, avoid using any sources that discuss funding rounds as they are consistently dismissed by the community as not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Slywriter (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Beccaynr: Thanks for clarifying. I've seen some discussion about funding rounds where they distinguish unicorn funding from routine everyday funding. We have a unicorn (finance) article and List of unicorn startup companies suggesting that not all funding rounds are treated the same by Wikipedia. But I'll avoid them as much as I can. And LoanDepot listed above is now public anyway. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
TechnoTalk, that was Slywriter, not me - my reply is below. As to the potential for unicorn funding to be distinguished, the WP:CORPDEPTH guideline seems to already accommodate this, because a reliable source discussing the significance of unicorn funding could also provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, that per WP:ORGIND, includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, and then it could support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:SIRS encapsulates that point and it holds true regardless of whether it is related to "unicorn" coverage. The issue I'm seeing is Techno not listening/understanding/accepting their opinion that unicorn funding rounds make the topic company notable and announcements mentioning this fact must be acceptable for establishing notability despite being told multiple times by multiple editors this is not the case. Techno is still pushing sources that are clearly based entirely on promotion/announcement/PR. I can understand Techno's dismay at seeing articles he created being at AfD, those articles having been nominated by SC. But it isn't SC that decides at AfD, it is up to the community and the closing admin who reach a consensus. I can understand why he believed he was justified in filing a complaint at AN/I but again, Techno isn't listening to what is being said by *others* at AfD and AN/I. Others have now said to him that he isn't "reading the room" and in danger of WP:BOOMERANG. It shouldn't happen this time but I'm less positive if Techno continues in the same manner. HighKing++ 11:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (edited for clarity)
TechnoTalk, in the Otrium AfD, HighKing commented, "there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability" before an extensive analysis of applicable guidelines and sources [6]. I quoted part of WP:ORGCRIT in the Contentsquare AfD [7] and Cambrian Biopharma AfD [8], specifically The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. These are established policies and guidelines designed to protect the encyclopedia. I agree with how Slywriter describes the general landscape, and I think this helps explain why only focusing on whether a source is reliable is not enough, because we need sources that are reliable and independent to build an article. The guidelines for independence are detailed for organizations and companies, and this helps determine whether there is sufficient sourcing to overcome the second prong of W:N, i.e. whether the article should be excluded per the What Wikipedia is Not policy, including WP:PROMOTION. Beccaynr (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Special:Permalink/1051303009 - Potentially useful RfC that got archived without being closed but discusses Unicorn funding rounds and notability. Not sure whether I should (or is even proper to) drag it out of archive for a proper close. Though TechnoTalk, it may be a useful starting point if you wish to pursue a fuller community discussion at the proper notability page. Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It is likely that there is no COI and that Techno was over-enthusiastic instead without a firm understanding of our notability guidelines. HighKing++ 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Coincidentally I just stumbled across FabFitFun, which is so spammy I was surprised to discover it had just survived an AfD, so I did a source assessment, which is at Talk:FabFitFun#Assessing sources. It's not pretty. I went to TechnoTalk's talk to discuss and found this COIN. I am pretty concerned about the article creations by this editor. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if this editor doesn't have some sort of COI with all of these companies, they need to start using AfC for a while to help them learn what is and isn't a usable source for supporting notability. valereee (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: That is excellent wee table you have made there. Mighty handy. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep, there's a handy wee script called SA Table Generator. Lets you define number of rows and just fill in. valereee (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm going to take the suggestions to heart. I'll look at AfC. I've never used it myself, but see a lot of rejection frustration coming from it. Looking at Valereee's sourcing table, I still disagree that coverage based on press releases shouldn't be used to source articles, or specifically to show notability. It's more nuanced than that. A press release is how companies alert the media that there's something noteworthy happening, and the media can decide to cover it or not. The vast majority of press releases immediately disappear, only to exist on the company's "In the news" page. The reliable sources noticeboard should be our bible for sourcing, not whether we think a piece is based on a press release or not. Otherwise it's the same discussion rehashed over and over again. As discussed above, I also disagree about the general disqualification of funding news. That also seems to be a popular one accompanying delete votes in deletion discussions. Some funding announcements are major, especially if the company gets unicorn valuation as a result. Such announcements should be considered on a case by case basis, rather than dismissed outright. I wish there were more people in these discussions who actively contribute business articles, but I can understand their shyness after seeing where my efforts have gotten me. Thanks for that permalink Slywriter. That looks like the one I read, but I couldn't find it. I'll see if I can rekindle interest and get a definitive consensus on the funding and press release subjects. If I can, that will effect not only my article creation efforts but the advice I give at the AfC help desk. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    @TechnoTalk, you wrote: I still disagree that coverage based on press releases shouldn't be used to source articles, or specifically to show notability. It's more nuanced than that. It's really not. Press releases are not independent, period. Full stop. They represent what the company is saying about itself.
    This is why we are telling you that you do not understand sourcing and notability. This is why your articles are getting AfD'd by editors with 50x the experience you have. You need to start listening to what more-experienced editors are saying to you about WP policy, especially those surrounding sourcing and notability. It's an absolute necessity that you stop arguing that you, a relatively inexperienced editor, must be right and multiple experienced editors must be wrong. You are noobsplaining here. valereee (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Valereee and now, despite admitting their lack of knowledge, they are responding to every question at the help desk (and bad advice, at that)...so @TechnoTalk you have to pick one. Either you're experienced enough to know better, or you aren't and shouldn't be engaging in areas you don't know what you're talking about, especially with regard to sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Praxidicae, Valereee I agree that TechnoTalk has displayed a general ignorance here and at AFD about our policies and guidelines when it comes to sourcing and notability. The requirements for editing at the help desk include "a demonstrated understanding of the policies and guidelines mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various notability guidelines" and "reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial)". I think we have clear evidence that neither of these criteria have been met by TechnoTalk, based on the content of the articles he has created, his comments in this discussion, and his comments at the AFDs of his articles. As such perhaps a ban from assisting at the help desk is warranted and a requirement that he use the AFC process for his article creation until he has demonstrated an understanding of those policies.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Praxidicae: Where did I admit a lack of knowledge? Are you saying that because I just said I never used AfC to create an article? If that's what you mean, that's a bit unfair. It's like saying I have a lack of knowledge if I didn't do the Wikipedia Adventure. I've made 202 edits to help novice article creators at the AfC help desk. Please show me the bad advice you are referring to that 4meter4 feels is grounds for me being banned from volunteering there. If it's so bad that I can't be trusted to give advice, I'll step away and find another place to contribute. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: I agree with you 100% that press releases are unsuitable. No debate. Please don't take my clarification as noobsplaining. What I was talking about is coverage based on a press release, in a reliable source. That's how a lot of news stories get started. I read Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases and it says Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called "churnalism"). Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article. If that's what you're referring to, then by all means I agree that we should exclude lazy cut and pastes of press releases, especially if there's no author in the byline, just "staff". I often reject possible sources when I see the telltale fawning tone, and have accordingly excluded many cut and pastes from my sourcing. I also exclude syndicated content, which the policy doesn't seem to mention, but is essentially the same as churnalism. I think where our disagreement comes from is with how much independent reporting and interviewing we require be added to content derived from a press release before it can stand on its own as a decent source. When you flag my sources as pr-based, it helps me understand your concerns and hone my radar. So thank you. Peace. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    By you saying you didn't understand the nuance between promotional material, press releases and sourcing. You either do, or you don't. You either have the experience to determine what is appropriate or you don't and if you do, as you imply by your posts to the help desk, I can't help but think this is all an act to get away with some covert WP:ADMASQ PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    @TechnoTalk, multiple (I always find three before deciding to move to mainspace) instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is what's required to prove notability.
    You said how much independent reporting and interviewing we require be added to content derived from a press release; interviews also do not count toward proving notability. Just like press releases, interviews tell us what the company is saying about themselves. We. Don't. Care. And anything that's simply being added to content derived from a press release is not going to help. We need an original story, completely independently written from any contents in a press release. A reporter writing such a story might include a tiny amount of info from the press release to fill in their article -- maybe they use "according to company sources revenues were $300M last year" -- but most experienced editors wouldn't include that in the WP article. Unless what is in the PR is completely noncontroversial, such as date of founding or how many retail stores, we don't use it. I am starting to feel a little frustrated, here. valereee (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Praxidicae: An instance of bad advice I've given please. I was going to ping the other prolific editors there but don't think I need to drag them into this. You can instantly end my help desk efforts with a good example of my unworthiness, if you can please provide one. I linked to my contribution history above. And @Valereee: thanks for the clarification. Rest assured that I'm not going to keep beating the PR issue here, since I'm feeling under attack and am also frustrated, and am trying to be nice to deescalate. This is supposed to be fun. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    You missed the point. How is it that you think you are qualified to assess sources for an article to help someone else, when in this very thread you repeatedly claim that you could not properly assess the sources and in fact asked others to explain it to you? I can actually provide diffs though: diff at least 2 of those sources are blatantly unreliable, blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Praxidicae: The diff you posted was me showing two sources that I found, to show that I had tried to find some, and I said they were not suitable. The article was already rejected. Your point then is? Better examples or WP:DROPTHESTICK. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    I've made my point - you cannot claim you don't understand sourcing and create wholly promotional articles under the guise of it being a mistake while simultaneously thinking you're competent enough to assist others with their sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @TechnoTalk, absolutely. It's supposed to be a fun hobby. And it can be, if you educate yourself and listen to others. The reason this became unfun is that you tried to create articles before you understood notability, and then you refused to listen. Creating articles is hard, and there is a very steep learning curve. There are many things you need to know, but the most important, the absolutely most crucial of those, is notability. Creating articles before you understand notability is a bit like deciding you're going to jump off a cliff and hope you sprout wings on the way down. valereee (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it would be a good idea if the editors new article creations when through Afc. That is a standard approach for this situation, re:Florida Army. Would that need a ANI discussion? How would I get consensus for that? scope_creepTalk 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    My hope is that the discussion here, at the recent AfDs, and the AN/I thread can help clarify the importance of avoiding promotion and advertising, e.g. the use of non-independent corpspam sources. In the Orgain AfD, TechnoTalk made a recent comment [9] that increases my concern over whether they are WP:NOTGETTINGIT despite their stated intention at the AN/I thread [10] to improve their sourcing. However, I agree with HighKing's assessment above about a WP:BOOMERANG and hope there has been sufficiently clear communication, including the offer for further discussion about sources [11] from Girth Summit, that will help prevent disruption in the future without a further need for action at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. It is disruptive to continue NOTGETTINGIT when so many different editors have tried to explain and assist. HighKing++ 20:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think they are getting it either. There has been several attempts by different editors to explain it. The next article will be the tell. If it's covered in promo and dodgy sources, it will be the door. scope_creepTalk 20:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I reviewed the loanDepot article and added a section titled "Litigation" because there have been four lawsuits filed against the company since 2020, including two class actions. I was also able to use an in-depth New York Times source to expand the article and made some other edits for promotional tone and to update basic information. Beccaynr (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to report undisclosed paid edits and socking on page Randy Sosin as per a job posted on Upwork. As per this job post on Upwork a freelancer was hired to edit the page. The above mentioned IP address first made some edits and then removed the paid tag after which Ericjort joined and start editing. I removed the paid edits as per WP:UPE and WP:SOCK but my edits were reverted by @Hey man im josh: which ok as per his comment as he is unaware of it. If anyone needs more details please let me know. Thanks. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey @113.193.45.183, I reverted your removal because all the content that was added was sourced and the article doesn't appear to have taken a promotional tone. I understand why you believe the edits were paid, but we (you and I) technically don't have anything besides circumstantial evidence at this point in time. It's a good idea to raise the issue to those who can weigh in on the subject, but I don't agree with removing sourced content that improves an article based on an assumption. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: I removed those contents in the light of the policies under WP:PE because as per the job post a freelancers is already hired and working on this project but they did not disclosed their paid editing here and if you see the first edit of the IP address it was to remove the paid editing tag. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
My problem is we don't know for sure that the registered user is a paid editor. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
To me they look the same as per the time they edit, their editing pattern and i think any user with check user rights can identify their geo location. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Having looked at the advert myself, it's fairly obvious it is the same person. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, I suspect most of the sources are not reliable as per WP:RS such as TVGuide.com, AllMusic and many more. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey @113.193.45.183, TV Guide is actually considered a generally reliable source based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: Yeah but for television-related topics not for biographies i think. 113.193.45.183 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Grant Kereama

The IP editor is presenting themself as the subject of the article (through edit summaries) and is adding unsourced information, including unnecessary details about their very young grandchildren. I would not have come to COIN so quickly if it were not so similar to this which saw the then-registered editor blocked. After that incident, I worked hard to make the Grant Kereama article as well-sourced and complete as I could. I have concerns about the details listed about the grandchildren who seem to be otherwise non-notable and the WP:KIDS policy. --SVTCobra 17:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Fariman Jabbarzadeh

I am cultural attache' of the Italian Embassy in Tehran and I know Fariman as Iranian independent artist based I Tehran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Yaroslava Romanova (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Yaroslava Romanova: Are you saying that you know Fariman Jabbarzadeh personally? If so, please place the {{UserboxCOI}} template on your userpage. If he is paying you to write about him, then you must disclose this using the {{paid}} template on your userpage.
I see that in your draft, the majority of sources are Persian-language sources, which is fine as long as they meet the definition of a reliable source. However, if you can find any reliable English-language sources, that would help us to evaluate this person's notability. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I do know him, but I am in no way paid to write about him. I'll place the {{UserboxCOI}} template on my page (not sure what it is and how it works, but I'll try). Yaroslava Romanova (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Yaroslava Romanova: I removed the "nowiki" tags, because it messed up the formatting - it's displaying properly now. Basically the template indicates that you're disclosing a close relationship to the topic you're writing about. Being transparent about it is a sign of good faith on your part, and helps build trust. As a result, other editors will be more willing to help you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

St Joseph's College

This user seems to have a close connection with this topic. He tried to insert one one of his own Facebook link, but it failed. So instead, he decided to insert his own Linkedin link. Kaseng55 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  • It appears to be the official Facebook page for the Toronto chapter of the St Joseph's College, Hong Kong alumni association. So at least it wasn't a personal Facebook page. At the time SJCOBAHKTO was updating the external link from an archive of a dead website of the Toronto chapter to the live Facebook page, which is understandable. Also, at that time the external links section hosted a number of links to affiliated associations and clubs related to St Joseph's. This was all too much, of course, and they have all been removed since, as Wikipedia is not a directory. The only remaining external link is to the college's official website. While the COI seems obvious, I don't think any action is needed unless the user attempts to re-add the link or begins to edit the page's content. However, the username does imply to represent an organization and possible shared use, which is against username policy. --SVTCobra 13:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Kaseng55: Yip, I don't think that is a coi really. More a reaction to the revert. scope_creepTalk 13:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Museum of Toulouse

Here we have an editor, who, over the course of ten years, has done nothing but post images, mostly of animals and plants, from the collections of the Museum of Toulouse. While I believe the images are great from an encyclopedic point of view, they make no effort to explain their significance, only adding a lifeform's scientific name and "MHNT" (the museum's abbreviation) in their image captions. (here is an example. Literally all their edits are like this.) I see no reason to do this unless they are trying to promote the museum. Although they last edited in May 2022, they only edit sporadically, so there's a real chance they might come back in the future. I can't believe they've edited like this unquestioned for so long. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking further, I found this on Commons. Several editors, Ercé included, actually participated in a GLAM partnership back in 2013. But I don't see why Ercé would continue adding the museum's images ten years after the project supposedly ended, unless it's for promotional purposes. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Miracusaurs I think the main question is, are Ercé's edits improving the encyclopedia? As you note the images are good, but poorly captioned and the link to the museum in the captions is unnecessary. I have added a Global account information link as they are active in hundreds of projects and have been indefinitely blocked in Catalan and Dutch wikipedias. There has also been some discussion at fr:Discussion utilisateur:Ercé. TSventon (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: Just got this on my talkpage. I honestly don't know how to proceed anymore. Can you please help me? Miracusaurs (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad Dehghan

Seems as though this user is the nephew of the subject of the article, as per this revision and this one. Liliana (UwU) 21:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Kevin Connolly (writer)

Apismoclam88 has admitted COI [12], and seems determined to amend both biographies. Some edits are constructive, some less so. I've included a long defunct account, ENTJohn, which was responsible for the original POV issues over a decade ago. More eyes needed. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Long & McQuade

Page appears to have been created by COI entity. Edits and additions that do not serve the bottom line of the subject corporation are being removed. Investigation suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UofT Research in Commerce (talk • contribs)

It's a shame, too... it's a national business with locations all across Canada. But as noted... if no third-party coverage, then no article. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Taimur Khan Jhagra

Seems to be an account created for the purpose of editing Taimur Khan Jhagra, possibly by the subject themselves. Liliana (UwU) 18:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention the thinly-veiled WP:SOCKing. I've warned both accounts about that. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Business Insider

MrMarioNateRuizJr has stated that they are the PR person for Insider. They have also said How dare you insinuate I have a financial interest in making edits.. They are refusing to to stop making promotional edits, or to place a disclosure on their user page. I would appreciate any thoughts and attention the wider community has on this. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Appears to be (Redacted), which would make him a WP:UPE, as I don't see any coi declaration. scope_creepTalk 12:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Well it could be argued that this is a (clumsy) disclosure. I've added {{connected contributor (paid)}} to the article talk page.
Some serious WP:OWN issues going on here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Its not formal declaration either. I think edit requests are the best way forward. scope_creepTalk 18:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Another thought. The COI editor has periodically removed sourced content and replaced it with promotional text since 2013 [13]. I'm not sure why a block hasn't been implemented, let alone discussed. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes. So I see. scope_creepTalk 18:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Crofick

Crofick is a group of Mexican YouTube creators and channels, including Team From Music, which they advertise as a music label and talent agency. Over the past 2 years, this "enterprise" has tried to use eswiki as a promotional social platform for themselves and related projects and people, creating and recreating articles[14] [15] using various confirmed sockpuppet accounts,([16], [17], [18], pepe gonzales hernandez) being the latest, OswaldoNicolas,[19] who has been very busy this past month on enwiki trying to get his drafts approved (Crofick,Team From Music [1], Team From Music [2]. Grupo Colegio Mexiquense) and even keeps editing after being rejected[20]. MexTDT (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled abuse by Fritzmann2002

In February 2022, Fritzmann2002 created a biography, Jesca Wilfredy, sourced with spam sources, violating WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:COI guideline. Courtesy ping to @Kuru: and special thanks for cleaning up the junk sources. Their interest in obscure topic (with spammy history) clearly show they received some sort of payment for this work.

It is detrimental if such articles go unnoticed due to autopatrolled editors, so would be safe if NPR reviews their pages, while they learn WP:BLP policy and declare their COIs. I won't be surprised if we find more such obscure articles created by them. 84.70.167.121 (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Some copyrights issues too. See heading, Copyright problem: Glaucium calycinum, on their talkpage. Also, this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesca Wilfredy, is interesting too. 84.70.167.121 (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, this is the accused user. I have had my identity and conflicts of interest in my user page biography section for some time. I have not, and will never, accept monetary compensation for editing. I have not, and will never, edit articles in which I have a stake or would benefit from the promotion of.
I find it somewhat strange that the only edits made by the account accusing me of this are to do so. Nonetheless, I will still explain and be beholden to the process, even if it is really not what I want to be spending my time doing right now.
The article Jesca Wilfredy was one of my first forays into writing Biographies, after I stumbled upon WP:WIR a while ago. I thought the project was interesting and their mission was a good one, so I decided to try out creating some articles. At that time, I was under the impression that their published redlists were of all inherently notable people that just needed an article. Since then, I've realozed that's not the case. I wrote the article in good faith in an attempt to imprpve the encyclopedia, not because I was paid to do so.
I find the "evidence" presented against me baseless and grasping at straws. My interest in "obscure topics" is me trying to find a niche in the encyclopedia and actually create content. I created two good articles on plant species absolutely no one has heard about. Is that a sign that I was paid to crrate those as well? Absolutely not.
Please, by all means, review the articles I've created. There are probably a few more with some issues, but every good faith editor experiences a learning curve, and if any issues are found I'll clean them up on my own. I've done NPP in the past, and the workload there is large. I believe the number of articles that I create that don't have issues far outweighs those that do, saving NPP work and manpower. If consensus says otherwise, well my autopatrolled status doesn't help me create new articles so I really don't care whether or not I have it. I'll still keep producing content for the encyclopedia in good faith because that's what I enjoy doing.
I apologize for my verbosity, but this has really frustrated me. This IP has never edited before, has no actual evidence, and is baselessly claiming I am breaking the rules of the encyclopedia instead of assuming good faith. I wake up today to glaring templates on my talk page and a ping from here, instead of a message from one user to another or any other manner of attempting to resolve an issue before escalation. I hope this matter is resolved with haste. Fritzmann (message me) 16:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if "obscure topic" is referring to plants or biographies like this. I would assume the latter. I can't find Jesca Wilfredy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Business, so would you mind showing where you had found the subject? Also I think posting a history of biographies that you have created or improved that are similar to this article might be helpful. 0xDeadbeef 01:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@0xDeadbeef: No problem. I looked back and it seems like I wrote the article as part of the February 2022 Black Women event using the Tanzania redlink list. I listed the article as one of the outcomes for that drive and it can be seen on the project page. All of the articles I have created are listed clearly under the Contributions tab of my userpage. Most of them are from around that same time period, as that was when I was actively working in WiR. Fritzmann (message me) 12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
This checks out. See here (number 168). I remain unconvinced that Jesca Wilfredy meets notability requirements. SVTCobra 12:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest sending it to Afd to test whether it is notable. scope_creepTalk 13:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
No objection here. Like I said, when moving into biographies my grasp on notability wasn't the strongest and I though WiR would be a crutch, when in reality those wikidata redlists are more of a honeytrap. I'm just frustrated that the account that first accused me still hasn't come out of the woodworks. It's not a pleasant feeling to have this happen out of the blue, and have it be instigated by someone hiding behind a mask of anonymity. Fritzmann (message me) 15:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep and SVTCobra: just wanted to check back on this. I've put a pause on contributing in order to devote my attention to this issue, and I'd like to close this matter and be able to put this behind me, perhaps with some lessons learned, so that I can continue editing constructively. Fritzmann (message me) 21:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The core problem is that article Jesca Wilfredy looks like a badly written paid article, with particularly poor PR style references, for what is a WP:BLP. If you hand't already written 300+ articles on WP on a diverese category of subjects, I suspect you were a paid editor and would have tried to remove you. Are you a paid editor? Do you know the women? scope_creepTalk 22:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Scope, you might want to rephrase that. Fritzmann has already denied being a paid editor; and I don't even know what your second question means. Fritzmann has demonstrated he is part of the Women in Red WikiProject and that Jesca Wilfredy was part of the suggested articles. SVTCobra 22:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Fritzmann, I would not worry. As far as I am concerned, you have cleared your name of accusations of paid editing and/or COI with regards to Jesca Wilfredy. Your acknowledgement that the article may not meet notability requirements is further testament to that. I am sorry if you put all other editing on hold for the last four days. You should have carried on editing other articles if that is what you desired. The only question, as far as I can tell, if whether we should send the article to AfD for lack of notability. Cheers, SVTCobra 22:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I see Chris troutman has just now sent the article to AfD for evaluation. See here. This can take a long time before a consensus is reached, but Fritz, I think most of us on Wikipedia have had contributions deleted in one way or another, so fret not. Cheers, SVTCobra 23:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh that is cool. I'm glad its at Afd. scope_creepTalk 07:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Icertis

Judging by the edit history, the article has been written almost entirely by SPA accounts. Two have been confirmed as working for Icertis after Icertis Laura was directly asked about them.

While Icertis Laura is working from edit requests, the references offered are poor and promotional, as are those used in the article.

The article needs a rewrite as an encyclopedia article rather than promotion for their planned ipo.

Editors are having difficulty understanding how WP:NOT and WP:COI applies to the situation, and how to fix any problems. The focus until recently has been to argue about the tags on the article, rather than the content. After I removed information about funding rounds [21], after waiting a week without response, I'm accused of removing it "without input from anyone else".

This is too much like they typical arguments that happen when editors ignore COI (and NOTNEWS in this case). Hipal (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you asking to be done here? Do you have a COI policy issue with Icertis Laura? From what I've seen she's made civil and productive contributions and is following our WP:COI policy? ~Kvng (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I've tried to hang back in these discussions among independent editors because I don't want to be seen as exerting undue influence. But I would like to respond to a couple of specific points made here.
First, during my time working to improve the Icertis page, I have always disclosed that I have a conflict-of-interest and have left the review and implementation of my edit requests up to non-COI editors. When User:Hipal asked me about previous Icertis employees improperly editing the company page in the past, I looked into it and told them everything I know. I'm positive that I have followed Wikipedia's COI guidelines properly.
Hipal mentions above and in that discussion that the page has been written almost entirely by SPA accounts (by which I understand he means the accounts for Icertis that weren't disclosed). The current page is actually almost entirely based on my requests, which were reviewed and approved by non-COI editors. The previous content of the page before my involvement was definitely problematic but I tried my best to fix those issues with my requests.
Next, User:Kvng and Hipal were having an exchange on the Icertis Talk page about the validity of three tags Hipal had affixed to the page, as well as the page's content and sourcing. While that was ongoing, Hipal created a new Talk page section where they started discussing the History section, which had previously been reviewed and approved by User:PK650. No other editors weighed in, then Hipal deleted most of the content of the section. That's why I said that they "removed [that section] without input from anyone else." That process did not strike me as particularly fair, but I don't want to dwell on it, I'm more concerned to know specifically which pieces of sourcing and content are not encyclopedic. That way I can help improve the page and make better requests in future. The responses to that question so far have not been clear and it has made it very difficult to try to fix the areas of the page that Hipal would like to see improved. Icertis Laura (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Icertis Laura, thanks for the explanation. What it looks like is Icertis was using editors that were not following COI and PAID to edit the article, and when they weren't satisfied with the outcome you were assigned to have the article rewritten following COI this time.
The current page is actually almost entirely based on my requests, which were reviewed and approved by non-COI editors. If you had stated that this was your intent from the start, or anytime since, editors would have been more likely to look for the resultant problems. The relatively inexperienced editors who reviewed and implemented your requests (Heartmusic678 (talk · contribs) and PK650 (talk · contribs)), appear to have focused on verification and reliablity with little consideration for what makes a high-quality encyclopedia. --Hipal (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That sounds an awful lot like not assuming good faith Hipal- what makes you say that they are incompetent? Why do you think they did not use good judgement that it was improving the article? Multiple editors on the talk page have disagreed with you on this. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't notice this misrepresentation earlier. I didn't say they're incompetent, nor that they didn't use good judgement. Please strike. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I've taken my time to post anything because I had merely approved what I believe were two COI Icertis requests, one formal and a follow-up months ago. I am concerned though with the caliber of discussion and the subsequent turn this has taken. What I thought was a simple request for clarification re what copy edits were required, per one editor's view, in order to just address a curation template, has now taken a rather negative and personal angle which I do not want to engage with given my general aversion to drama. I exhort all parties to take a step back, perhaps for a week or two, and just let uninvolved parties offer their guidance as to what next steps would look like. I would suggest someone simply review the article's history and provide a list of necessary copy edits, if any, so that we can finally move forward so that a) potential promotional concerns are addressed, b) the tag is not merely a shaming device, c) all parties are satisfied with the outcome with respect to policy, d) the process of COI requests is not undermined, and f) we all learn to empathize a bit more. Regards, PK650 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
the tag is not merely a shaming device Why do you continue [22][23] to make this accusation. Please strike. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Is this a real dispute about conflict of interest, or is this a quarrel between two volunteer editors who seem to be trying to quarrel? User:Kvng and User:Hipal came to DRN a week ago. User:Nightenbelle was willing to mediate, but first asked what editors wanted to take part in mediation. No one answered her for three days, although cynical side comments were made, and she reasonably closed the DRN thread. If you have an article content issue, discuss it at Talk:Icertis. If you have a conflict of interest issue, then state it, but there doesn't appear to be a conflict of interest issue, only properly declared conflicts of interest, which are not an issue. If either of you has a conduct issue, read the boomerang essay, and then take the conduct issue to WP:ANI, and see what happens. Or find articles that need copy-editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm made my case based upon COI and relevant policy, and will continue to do so. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
What is your COI case based on policy? Maybe you have made your case, but I didn't follow it, and I think that I am not the only editor who doesn't follow it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer beyond quoting what I've already written. Could you be specific? --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Robert Swan, Winston Cowie, David Sims, etc.

Promotional edits to numerous articles, often connected by virtue of environmental topics or filmmakers. Some of it's legit, but a number of edits look like book and movie spamming. The Swan bio is a public relations piece that needs further work, but all these articles, and more, would profit from more observation. Several of the Thompson/Thomson accounts received COI messages, to which none have responded. They just return under a new name. Lots of IPs involved, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Notable" alumni from Columbia University

Conversation was originally posted to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#"Notable"_alumni_from_Columbia_University but was asked to be moved here

User(s) involved

Topics

  • Columbia University alumni

Comments

Today I came across Adam Cohen (government official), noting that there's no WP:SIGCOV, the only mentions are from employers or organisations that Adam is part of including his alumni from Columbia university. I have subsequently nominated the article for deletion. It then occurred to me that actually there is a pattern of such articles created by CatchedY. I am tagging Catched for transparency and WP:AGF - I do not want them to think that they are being spoken ill of or not given opportunity to contribute to a discussion about articles they have created. Catched has created a tonnes of stub articles about "alumni" from Columbia University. Almost all of them read like online bios/CVs/resumes. I presume this is so that their names can be linked in categories and other articles. However across all of them there is the common theme of reliance on sources from Columbia Uni and almost always organisations they work for praising their achievements. CatchedY has declared on their userpage that they are acting on their own volition and not being paid, sponsored or encouraged to edit by anyone else. I did just want to bring this to wider community attention. I'm not sure if this is the correct place for such discussions, but I am not an expert on Bio pages. However, I am concerned about the large influx of stubs about Columbia alumni and whether they are truly notable. Other examples include: John Clubbe (academic) and Neil Harris (historian). Some obvious cases where WP:NACADEMIC or other specific notability guidelines apply too. Appreciate everyone's thoughts. CatchedY's too. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this particular editor but Columbia University and several related articles have long been hotbeds of promotional editing and article ownership; things only recently began to quiet down some after I asked admins to indefinitely semi-protect the article a month-and-a-half ago. ElKevbo (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with people having an affiliation to their own university of study, I am hugely concerned about the mass of stubs that have been created. It seems that the purpose is so that topics can link to actual people but they all almost read like CVS/resumes and a bit like the purpose is to fill up categories relating to the university. I thought this would be a better place to discuss rather than mass nominate lots of articles for deletion. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention. The Adam Cohen (government official) article was created almost two years ago when I was new to Wikipedia and had to learn the rules of notability through trial and error. It was first created as a page, then moved to draftspace and was later put back by another editor. I realized it did not meet the standards of WP:GNG and merits a deletion.
I no longer have affiliation with the university, but I also work in academia and this is a part-time personal interest I have been pursuing for more than two years now. As per the academic pages I created, I have strictly followed Criterion 2 of the WP: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." The criterion specifically mentions that the Guggenheim Fellowship is a notable award, so adhering to the WP:ACADEMIC standards, I have been mostly creating articles for recipients of the Guggenheim Fellowship or "less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige". This applies to my articles Robert S. Levine, Herbert E. Klarman, Philip Nord, Victoria de Grazia, Neil Harris (historian), John Clubbe (academic), Rudolph H. Weingartner, Robert M. Adams (literary scholar), Seymour J. Mandelbaum, Eliot S. Hearst, Jerrilynn Dodds, Susan Rubin Suleiman, etc..
I also adhered to the WP:ACADEMIC Criterion 3: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)." I have mostly creating the biographies NAS, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE) members, including Bruce Wallace (geneticist), Donald R. Olander, Jeffry Frieden, Virginia Page Fortna, Douglas Rivers, and Ann Douglas (historian). Rather than questioning the notability of those scholars, I am more surprised at how long they have been left without a Wikipedia article. Also, this is not a complete list, but every academic article I created has merited at least one of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria: of winning a highly prestigious award (Criteria 2), belonging to a highly selective and prestigious academic society (Criteria 3), and in very few cases, holding a named chair appointment at a major institution of higher education and research or holding the highest post at a major academic institution. There are very few cases where the holder of a distinguished chair appointment does not fulfill Criteria 2 or 3. Examples included Michael A. Elliott, newly appointed president of Amherst College, and Soyoung Lee, the Landon and Lavina Clay Chief Curator of the Harvard Art Museums. David Weissbrodt, on the other hand, meets Criteria 7 for being one of the drafters of the Minnesota Protocol for the investigation of extrajudicial executions, in addition to full, independent coverage from the NYT.
Other non-academic articles I have created are based on editorially-reviewed obituaries or profiles of major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, WaPo), magazines (Vanity Fair, etc.), and journals (The Lancet) that I consider to have met WP: GNG to establish notability, such as Leo-Arthur Kelmenson, Arlene Shuler, Ira Millstein, Vincent Sardi Jr., Peter Mendelsund, Merrill Brockway, Herminia Palacio, Megan Greenwell, Christopher Radko, Heyward Dotson, and Ethan McSweeny.
In terms of artists, I have followed the Wikipedia:ANYBIO guideline on awards and I have included Emmy Award-winning professionals including Scott Ferguson (producer), Eric Tuchman, Tony Award-winning producer Barbara Whitman, Tony-nominated actress Gabby Beans, and Nathalie Álvarez Mesén, who is a recent winner of the most prestigious Swedish film festival award, the Guldbagge Awards, and Saim Sadiq, who won the Jury Prize of the Un Certain Regard section at the Cannes Film Festival.
In terms of journalists and authors, I have included recipients of prestigious awards such as National Magazine Awards, Pulitzer Prizes, and National Jewish Book Awards. They include Joshua Rubenstein, Sarah Bunin Benor, Marc Tracy, Rebecca Donner, Menachem Kaiser, Cecilia Reyes (journalist), and many more.
The articles are nowhere near perfection, but the fact that they are stubs should not be the sin per se and a number of them are beyond my expertise and I was expecting others to fill in the blanks after the creation of the page. For example, there is a whole journal article explaining Caltech professor Noel Corngold's contributions to the field of nuclear physics but unfortunately, I am not a nuclear physicist. Additionally, my articles Herbert Klarman and Keren Yarhi-Milo have both been improved upon many days/months after their creation by other editors and I encourage editors with related expertise to do the same. I would gladly, upon request, provide a list of rationale and the WP: criteria for every single article I have created ever since I joined Wikipedia.
CatchedY (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
On a separate note, while I appreciate your kindness, your original sentence "Catched has created a tonnes of stub articles about "alumni" from Columbia University. Almost all of them read like online bios/CVs/resumes." is a rather blanket accusation and I would rather not see the hundreds of hours of time and effort I put into creating those biographies being trivialized and belittled as such. I would really appreciate it if you could be just a bit more selective with your word choice...thank you and look forward to the discussion! CatchedY (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Firstly I apologise if you feel aggrieved about your work being questioned however there was no malice nor intent to belittle your efforts. My words weren't selected to tarnish all of your work - I dip sampled a bunch of articles but you have a huge contribution to wikipedia so it wasn't possible to analyse them all. My apology doesn't extend to brining up this issue though, as on your userpage you went out of your way to say you did not have an affiliation to Columbia U. Part of the reason I have brought this issue up is because I have been a page reviewer and have seen many articles similar to the ones you have written get rejected or ultimately end up deleted. I would like to graciously thank you for your detailed response however. I also note that you say you are no longer affiliated with the university. Can you please be clear (and transparent) about what your whether your "affiliation" necessitated your creation of articles relating to Colombia U? Its fine to be an employee or have graduated from there yourself, there's no issues with that at all. However, if you were encouraged by the institution itself or by someone affiliated to it (including a third party agency) this needed to be declared so that we can assess there was no undue attention or favourability given to the articles.

As for my comments about stubs about Columbia alumni. A stub is is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. I noted that many of your articles do adhere to WP:NACADEMIC etc however there also has to be substantial information that is independently sourced. My issue with lots of (not all; I checked a sample) was that many read like a biography with any direct sources from the person's employer plus 1-2 mentions from other publications where they have one a prestigious award. That is where we have a problem. You include Michael A. Elliott as an example - in my opinion, he is a good example of someone who may not be notable. Yes he has a publication (though the significance of it i'm not sure of) 2-3 sentences (a bulk of the bio) is sourced directly from one of his former employers and the tone is not encyclopaedic because its a WP:PRIMARY source. It sounds like promotional advertisement for Michael A. Elliott or like a resume/endorsement. The sheer volume of articles you have created demonstrates you have a clear passion for editing and the topic of Columbia University alumni is clearly of interest to you however, there are concerns that not all of these articles are appropriate for Wikipedia and/or may be not notable. Its going to be a big job to review all of these regardless of whether or not you have conflict of interest editing this topic. This is why I've asked others to comment as we always go with community consensus to ascertain if our rules and guidelines have been adhered to. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
By affiliation, I was a student and I have graduated from Columbia years ago. That was my one and only affiliation with the university. I have since then graduated and moved onto another institution, so there is no more "affiliation." Again, I am a doctoral candidate at another university and I don't get paid at all doing those articles nor was I ever instructed to do so. The only reason that motivated the creation of those articles was that I felt indebted to my alma mater for a good, well-rounded undergraduate education. I am also practicing my writing skills through those edits.
Yes, I realized that a lot of the academic articles I created recently are not in good shape, and I will go back and edit them by including more information on their research subject or reviews of their works. In my humble opinion, Michael A. Elliott satisfies Criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC because he is slated to become president of Amherst College, a well-regarded liberal arts college in Massachusetts, next week. CatchedY (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I may have been hasty with that. For that I do owe an apology. I have learnt lots today. Clearly my understanding of WP:NPROF is flawed and this perhaps isn't as big an issue as I first thought. It may be that Adam Cohen is the exception/outlier and that if many of your articles are about academics, there might not be as many issues like I initially thought. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Lil-unique1, thank you for your message. I did not receive the notification of your reply here but I saw your comment on my talk page. All good now! CatchedY (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a somewhat outsider comment here: I became aware of CatchedY’s edits while doing a casual check of some local NYC organizations on Wikipedia and seeing names I never saw linked to before being linked to. In the few cases I stumbled across, I was a bit puzzled by the fact that Wikipedia pages were being created or edited while their wider online footprints elsewhere were being, for lack of a better term, scrubbed.

I prefer to not go into the details about my knowledge of scrubbing of online content elsewhere here, but I find the timing of the articles being created in the context of scrubbing of content elsewhere to be a fairly odd coincidence. And then when I read CatchedY’s disclaimer on their profile page I was taken aback: “I have not been instructed, nor received any payments in exchange to edit, or create any Wikipedia pages. All actions are of my own volition.”

Why would someone be so glib in stating this in this way? Again, I am not accusing anyone of anything but I find the timing of these edits and this pre-emptive disclaimer on their profile page to be oddly coincidental. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Giacomo1968, would love to know if you can provide concrete sources to substantiate your first claim that I was "linking names to before being linked to" - thank you! I am just as puzzled as to what you mean by " Wikipedia pages were being created or edited while their wider online footprints elsewhere were being, for lack of a better term, scrubbed."
As for your question "Why would someone be so glib in stating this in this way?" I am a PhD student and my training has, unfortunately, not led me to write simple sentences. If my words are too convoluted, I am happy to change them into plain English. When I first joined Wikipedia, I noticed how much paid editing there is on this platform, so I preemptively added this disclaimer to my page to avoid the confusion as most of my focus has been on Columbia alumni-related articles. I might be accused of a booster, or someone working for the alumni office, or a school employee, or whatever. I don't even live in New York to begin with, and I have created pages that provide negative coverage, including a whole "controversy" section in the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. But unfortunately this gesture has only raised more eyebrows. It's a really a Catch-22 here: if I don't disaffiliate myself by saying nothing, I will be accused of COIN for sure and be asked to clarify my ties to the subject matter at hand, but even if I state that I no longer have any affiliation (as in, having graduated from the institution), I will still be accused of COIN.
Again, I write about deceased academics from the 19th and 20th centuries to political figures to 21-century singers and actors with really no order or specific agenda, if you look at my past history of contributions. The coverage of my edits and created articles span many industries, centuries, and I find it hard to come up with a cohesive "master plan" or some background story that explain how all of this can be part a coordinated publicity campaign as another editor pointed out yesterday. I see myself as more of a "grave digger" in the sense that I look up historical archives, old newspapers, magazines and obituaries and find people who went to Columbia whose accomplishments have been overlooked. CatchedY (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
First, please do not misquote me. I clearly said, “…seeing names I never saw linked to before being linked to…” and never said “…linking names to before being linked to…”
As for this, “Wikipedia pages were being created or edited while their wider online footprints elsewhere were being, for lack of a better term, scrubbed.” What I mean is while some subjects were cleaning/scrubbing their internet footprint elsewhere — such as on stand-alone websites, blog posts and even social media posts — suddenly Wikipedia pages were being created for these people or were being actively edited to clean them up. The more formal name for actions like this is reputation management.
I am not accusing you of anything. But in general, a lot of your edits personally raised an eyebrow on my side. As for proof of anything past this being a coincidence? I have none. That’s it. --21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Are there any specific examples you want to raise? Re the columbia U articles, we have established that there is no pattern of concern, and just some outlier articles that might not be notable. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Nope. Not now. As I have implied in the above comments, I do not have anything solid that could — within the valid context of Wikipedia — that would raise an eyebrow to others. This all comes from personal awareness and knowledge on my side of the subject and entities; no paper trail I can provide at this time. But decided to post here when I saw this thread. That’s it. I simply wanted to say, “Hey! You are not alone in the concerns presented here.” --21:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. CatchedY (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I misread that sentence so I misconstrued the meaning of your words.
As to your second point, this is my first time hearing of this so-called practice of reputation scrubbing and I have zero connection to any of the people I have created articles about. Would you please provide evidence of what you suspect as reputation scrubbing? I am happy to explain the thought process behind my actions. CatchedY (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
“Would you please provide evidence of what you suspect as reputation scrubbing?” See above. I do not feel I have anything solid I would be willing to share here at this point. This all comes from personal awareness and knowledge on my side of the subject and entities. That’s all. I will leave this discussion as-is; the coincidences seem to be justified by your explanations but I personally fine it all odd. That is all. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. CatchedY (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Nottingham College

This is a procedural notice. Jamesmacwhite has 90+% of Wikipedia contributions at Nottingham College and similar linked articles. This editor was queried over CoI in October 2018 and provided a $paid notice on 28 October 2018. This editor has continued to substantially edit the article, most recently being 18 July 2022 with removal of an entire section, but appears not to have been appraised of the undesireability of continuing to make direct changes.

I have tagged both the article and talk pages, together with notices at User talk:Jamesmacwhite#Your editing at Nottingham College and Talk:Nottingham College#Entire section deleted by an employee of the College.

User:Jamesmacwhite has confirmed being a direct employee of the college at Ntmamgtw's talk page, 28 October 2018 (in this diff), I am an employee of Nottingham College...I am not directly being "paid" to contribute to Wikipedia but I do have an affiliation as part of my role within the organisation. and ...I feel my edits are not a conflict of interest, they are factually correct and can be verified.

User:Jamesmacwhite has now been requested not to make any further direct edits to Nottingham College, instead to use Template:Request edit.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

University of Texas at Arlington

This editor is a single-purpose editor focused solely on this university. I directly (but politely) asked them if they have a connection to the university over two years ago but they ignored the question. They continue to edit and have now expanded to edit warring with multiple editors to insert material and references based solely on historical research using the university's archives. ElKevbo (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Their past edit summaries are interesting. Their writing styles vary widely, sometimes reading like a single, random person, someone who sounds like they are in an official capacity with the university, and the university making an official statement. (Notice the use of "we".) They also made a few changes to names to the style "preferred by the University". I don't know about you, but I feel like this is a shared account. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

New Hampshire Academy of Science

Editor was warned about a potential conflict of interest and then was informed that their edits appeared to be paid editing. The editor continued to add promotional information into the article and blew past all requests to declare their potential paid editing. VVikingTalkEdits 16:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor did not see any messages until now. Rest assured, editor is not receiving any compensation. Kindly restore editor's edits ASAP. WeLoveScience (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Your edits were entirely promotional and will not be restored, please disclose your connection to the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am a member of the surrounding community and town (it is very insular). This is a popular program that many people participate in (and it has also been gaining some media attention), and so I thought I would add some updated information to the Wikipedia page. Is that against Wikipedia rules? WeLoveScience (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Also, why are the edits "entirely promotional"? The language is very neutral. WeLoveScience (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
You actually copied and pasted promotional material from here [24]. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
So if I word it differently, would it not be considered promotion? I would be talking about the exact same thing. WeLoveScience (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
If I do original writing, can I get my privileges back? WeLoveScience (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the problem is your idea of what the article is supposed to be. Wikipedia is supposed to encyclopedically document things. Your edits effectively act as if you're writing for the NHAS's website, which is not what Wikipedia is trying to to do. For instance, much of what you copied over included the words "we" or "our", as if it was on the NHAS website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Zainab Salbi article's primary editor is the person herself

I noticed this article is largely edited by the person who it is about using a self-evident username. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Nagoya University of Commerce & Business

(Second link is a recent move of the original article's Talk page.) Editor has several times replaced sourced content with unsourced or poorly sourced content which reads promotional. Has not replied to messages on their Talk page. Googling suggests they may have a CoI. This is the most recent diff, which removed the CoI template and introduced promotional statements like "dedicating all his life to keeping up the ideals of the frontier spirit" and "The center holds over 210,000 books and valuable references. Inside is a self-study space designed to effectively improve foreign language skills". Tacyarg (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways

Username seems to be a match with the subject of the page. Also adds unreferenced content (from a primary source?). Liliana (UwU) 06:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The two editors are clearly the same, but that's acceptable as the first was soft-blocked only. Shivani Vaid, if you have any connection to the ministry you're expected to disclose it; if you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way by it then disclosure is obligatory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

U.S. universities partnering with ThriveDX to offer "digital skills bootcamps"

These new editors appeared today and added links to "digital skills bootcamps" in these articles. Each of these "bootcamps" are being supported and promoted by ThriveDX so it's likely that this is undisclosed paid editing in addition to the clear link spamming and sockpuppetry.

Is there any way to search for other similar usernames ("* digital skills") to see if there are other articles that need to be edited to remove this spam? ElKevbo (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Also [25], UM Digital Skills at University of Miami.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
All indeffed for promotional user-name, but it's not really conceivable that they're anything but a single person on a socking spree, even if (curiously) the accounts were created several months ago and not all at the same time. A search for 'insource:digitalskills' doesn't give me any more weblinks of the form they've been adding. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Carlos Hank González

SEO effort by paid COI account to distance one Carlos Hank González (businessman) (new page title created by COI) from Carlos Hank González (politician) (new article entry by COI) has generated this disambiguation issue at orignal article Carlos Hank González after conducting a bold page move. Also noticed that the original Carlos Hank González article has a history of critical commentary being removed by a single purpose account. Not sure, what, if any issue there might be with this kind of editing, but perhaps it warrants some attention. Acousmana 09:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing any CoI-related issue here. @Acousmana: You're required to notify editors if you mention them here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

CT55555/Canadaland podcasts

I have discovered what looks to be an ever-expanding web of conflict of interest editing on the part of an editor CT55555. The conflict of interest relates to the Canadian news website Canadaland, people involved with and subjects covered by their podcasts and to podcasting host Arshy Mann and/or news editor Jonathan Goldsbie in particular.

CT55555 created the biography of Arshy Mann back in February, then earlier this month one for Jonathan Goldsbie, and just the other day one for Robert Jago:

In at least the first two instances, notability is debatable, especially for Mann. I can't see any pieces here which are actually about Mann or Goldsbie. Thinly-referenced details such as "Goldsbie is noted for his love of theatre" strike me as hallmarks of promotional writing.

He created articles about and uploaded non-free logos for Canadaland's podcasts which, while interesting, probably do not merit their own articles, any more than Wikipedia has individual articles for every piece which appeared in the New York Times:

He also created articles about subjects, narrators and producers of those podcasts and books written by or related to them:

The majority of the articles listed above were posted over only three days (July 11-13) – someone must have been working on them full time for months.

As might be expected, he's also made a lot of edits to Canadaland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). One edit places Mann's name before even proprietor Jesse Brown's;[26] another refers to Gooldsbie as "JG".[27] Their podcasts are a central theme.[28] Some of the edit summaries appear to be deceptive, for example:[29]

Even CT55555's articles and edits which at first glance don't appear to be related to Canadaland or Arshy Mann or Jonathan Goldsbie often turn out to be related in ways that aren't immediately obvious. For example, this article below relates to Mann's own biography, which goes out of its way to highlight Mann's very minor role in the Rob Ford cocaine story;[30] see also:[31]. Mann also has a podcast discussing Rob and Dug Ford:[32]:

There are also a good number of edits about Canadian mining firms, about which Mann runs a podcast series.[33] This article about an anti-mining group in Papua New Guinea was featured in one of those podcasts – when another editor questioned the notability of this group on the talk page, CT55555 appealed to Canadaland:

CorrTimes (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any conflict of interests, but I am flattered that you think my few days work would take months. This is a first, so I don't know if I need to provide any more of an explanation than I hear stuff on the news and then add articles about the things I hear and Canadaland's podcasts are one of the sources of news that I consume. Indeed I have created articles about notable journalists, notable podcasts, notable stories that Canadaland reports. This is one of various themes I've worked on, other themes (that overlap in some ways) include journalism, journalists, books, mining, ecology. CT55555 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
And for everyone's information, the linked articles go even deeper than is mentioned above: when I wrote the article about Thunder Bay (podcast) I learned about Seven Fallen Feathers and updated it. Then I learned about a book by the same author and created an article about it All Our Relations: Finding the Path Forward. I learned of the death of Barbara Kentner and wrote an article about her. This is what happens, I write about something and that thing leads me to the next thing. I edited Jesse Brown (journalist) too, he is the producer of Canadaland. That lead me to learning about the Trial of Jian Ghomeshi and me updating Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi#Reactions_and_analysis. I could go on. And if you picked any of my articles about uranium mining, you'll note they are all deeply connected to all my other articles about the same topic too. Uranium mining in the Bancroft area is deeply connected to many other articles I wrote. I write one, and it leads to another. CT55555 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Writing your own biography is a conflict of interest. Writing about and promoting your employer is a conflict of interest. Writing about your own podcasts and the subjects they cover is a conflict of interest. CorrTimes (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with those statements. And I have no affiliation with Canadaland (other than being a semi-regular listener to their content). And I have already stated that.
I recognise that you are new to wikipedia, so just a polite comment on process: Normally editors raise concerns on each other's talk pages before they escalate things to notice boards. Also when they do escalate things to notice boards, they notify the editor they are raising an issue about. Please note in red and bold at the top of the page You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" Also please note 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 CT55555 (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@CorrTimes: While it is true that Wikipedia discourages users from writing about themselves or their companies or other endeavors, I see no COI in writing about a topic that one has podcasted about (not that this appears to be the case here). If I hosted a podcast and had done significant research on the Canadian mining industry, there would be no COI for me to bring the fruits of that research to Wikipedia, as long as I adhere to policies of neutrality and use reliable sources (which I would most certainly have available having done enough research to generate an entire podcast on the industry). (For the record, I do not have a podcast on the Canadian mining industry -- just using this as a relevant example.) In this present case, you appear to have confused a user's particular interest in a topic, and the information he has gleaned about that topic from a particular set of media, with a conflict of interest regarding that topic or that media. I would recommend this COI discussion be dropped. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@WikiDan61 He looks to have written his own biography. CorrTimes (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I have not written my own biography.
You have now made allegations about me in three different places (This page, also here, and also here).
You have not discussed your suspicions with me on my talk page.
You have not replied to my message on your talk page asking why it appears that you are following me around, and repeating allegations about me. Your only AfD contribution ever was to disagree with me. Your only activity on a noticeboard is about me.
I don't know why 75% of your edits since 01:00 on 27th of last month are disagreeing with me in three different places. But I have asked you to stop and because you have not replied to that request on your talk page, I am repeating it here. CT55555 (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@CorrTimes: I see no evidence that CT55555 has written their own biography. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I second WikiDan's assessment that CT55555 is probably not one of the hosts nor affiliated with Canadaland. An extremely easy way to explain their editing behavior would be that they have an interest in that particular subject, which would understandably lead to them listening to said podcast and subsequently start writing about it or edit articles related to subjects covered in said podcast. There's a definite lack of WP:AGF going on here. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Claudiailagan

Every single one of Claudiailagan's edit summaries say "We are Brookfield Properties NOT Brookfield Properties Retail and NOT Brookfield Properties Retail Group", implying the person editing those pages is connected to Brookfield Properties. Liliana (UwU) 22:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU, related to this topic, there is an ongoing CFD with regards to the categories Claudiailagan changed. Most of the user's edits consist of changing Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group to Category:Brookfield Properties and, despite the COI, I think the user may have a valid argument as the name of the WP article is Brookfield Properties. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@LilianaUwU Thank you! ALL of my edits were related to the Category change. I've disclosed my relationship with the Organization in my User page. I hope this will keep the edits final. Kindly advise if there are additional actions I must take to ensure the edits are final. Thank you! Claudiailagan (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Claudiailagan, for future reference, what you did is technically not how you change the name of a category. You have to request that the category itself be renamed before you can edit the category links on each article page. For example, you should have asked that Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group be renamed to Category:Brookfield Properties because the name of your company actually is "Brookfield Properties" (and that is also the name of the Wikipedia article). I don't think the renaming would be controversial at all because Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#C2D: Consistency with main article's name supports your position.
However, you changed the category links on each article before renaming the category. This created numerous red links to Category:Brookfield Properties. Someone who hasn't seen the discussion might be likely to revert these edits because Wikipedia:Red link#Avoiding creation of certain types of red links advises against having red-linked categories in articles.
To reiterate, I think your edits are justified. I'm not the person you were replying to, but, since you have now properly disclosed your conflict of interest, I don't think there is any problem on that front. There's still a category-renaming discussion here, which is still ongoing. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Independent Online (South Africa)

An ongoing pattern of company-promotional edits from a number of single-interest users over an extended period. The users do not respond to dispute the COI claims and do not participate in talk page discussions on pages they are editing. Most recently, user Lemonbisi is in a revert war over an opening sentence. User AzraFredericks creates company pages - Azra Fredericks is the name of the Marketing & Communication Officer, Executive Chairman's Office at the company in the group of companies in question. Similar edits to these pages have been made recently by a number of IP addresses as well as other users over the years. For context, there is political controversy around the group of companies, its owner Iqbal Survé, and an investment by the Public Investment Corporation in the group. The edit history of these articles shows a consistent pattern of removal of negative coverage, always by single-interest accounts with a probable COI. Zaian (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Zaian: Please be aware that, unless they have already done so voluntarily, revealing the real-life identity of a Wikipedia user is considering WP:OUTING and against policy - no matter what transgressions they may have committed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Understood, but I don't see how it can be considered "outing" if the username consists of a first name and surname and the same name appears as the head of marketing on the company website whose page is being edited in a clearly COI way. Zaian (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I have blocked Lemonbisi indefinitely as an SOA. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Lots of sockpuppetry happening here, which I discovered when investigating an unblock request for Lemonbisi. The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other: AzraFredericks, Lemonbisi, Nkakha22, Jenjhe, Lepantiti7up, Nkakhara. I'll block and tag. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

University of California Botanical Garden

The above list is selective, with contributions to numerous biographies and schools only to add content about the Herbaria [34], [35]. Twelve years is a long time to edit here without divulging WP:COI, especially given the intent to, in effect, gently spam multiple articles with content about one's workplaces and colleagues. A COI message at the user's talk page was left unanswered while editing continued. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6BB1 (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks as if Andrewdoran is editing highly selectively, not a crime in itself. It does look very much like COI, even if it is very quiet (almost genteel, like leaving business cards for one's tea shop on everyone's noticeboards), with little mentions of the botanical garden and the herbaria on multiple pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It is not difficult to discover the editor's connection to these subjects, and I believe this is therefore WP:PAID as well as COI editing, which requires disclosure, even if it is gentle or genteel. Melcous (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. The CoI seems unarguable in the circumstances. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm wondering if Doran259 (talk · contribs) is an associated account. Discuss. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6BB1 (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible. However there is only one edit to University and Jepson Herbaria and location and name to lend credence to that theory. Invasive Spices (talk) 12 August 2022 (UTC)
As well as edits to bios on other U of California, Berkley faculty Jennifer Doudna and Jillian Banfield, and Willis Linn Jepson, after whom Jepson Herbaria is named. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6BB1 (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I failed to notice those. I think you are correct. They must be the same user. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ryan Creamer

An IP editor, claiming to be the subject of the article ([36][37]), has removed sourced prose because I do not want my mommy to go on my Wikipedia and see that I called our family 'very very religious' please let this part fade away lol and Don't need to do me dirty saying im a LONGTIME PORN CONSUMER. Everything removed by the IP is actually cited to an interview with the article subject. While I do tend towards adding & citing everything I think might be relevant—and then working with any editors who'll want to remove chaff—I've never encountered anybody claiming to be the actual biographee and requesting edits for their personal reasons. I know that this is an area of concern within the project, and any assistance for this new situation would be appreciated. I've not edited the article since the IP made their claims, and I've already added {{connected contributor}} to the talk page. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This is arguably something more appropriate for WP:BLPN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Given nobody apparently disagrees with you here, I've done just that. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Washington University of Science and Technology

This editor is an employee of this university but continues to make unsourced, promotional edits to the article e.g., [38] [39], [40]. I have engaged with the editor in their User Talk page to no avail; assistance from other editors would be appreciated. ElKevbo (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kazi.bari: If you aren't able to recognize your edits like these as being promotional and contrary to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, then you should not be directly editing this article at all. Please limit your involvement with this article to making edit requests on the article's talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Article from searchenginejournal.com

"Okay, so Wikipedia doesn’t help SEO via inbound or outbound links, and its guidelines expressly prohibit the creation of entries for marketing. What’s a search engine optimizer to do? Just because you can’t use some of the more popular SEO tactics with Wikipedia doesn’t mean the online encyclopedia can’t help you improve your search engine rankings."

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Russia Foundation

This user is evidently an institutional/organizational account (which is already an issue) that is dedicated to editing its own page (a clear COI). They have not responded to repeated and escalating notices on their talk page over the past year (could be a WP:CANTHEARYOU issue, but not likely). They now appear to be about to launch a major edit of their own page, so I figured it was time to bring this to the attention of this noticeboard. They have previously assigned interns to edit the page under other usernames, which are now inactive (see Jdorschusrf, USRF Chief, and US Russia Foundation). —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Charles B. Hensley

Page has been extensively promotionally edited by this user. While they haven't been active for over two years, the article is in need of serious cleanup. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I have done my best to cleanup the page, thanks for bringing this to wider notice. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Eclary444 and Wjpool at Joe R. Pool

Eclary444 has declared a COI at Talk:Joe R. Pool, disclosing herself at Pool's granddaughter. In her malformed COI disclosure, she also declares herself to be WJ Pool's daughter. Many of the sources she has relied on while editing at Joe R. Pool have been listed as "Pool family archives. Wesley J. Pool, custodian" (see this version). Today, user Wjpool has come along with the same edits using the same sources (and no declaration of COI). One can safely assume that Wjpool is the Wesley J. Pool of whom Eclary444 spoke -- her father and Joe R. Pool's son. I have warned both users that, due to their conflict of interest, they should stop editing the article, to no avail. The edits at the article are problematic as, in some case, they are copying the text of articles which they hold in their archives verbatim into Wikipedia, in violation of WP:COPYVIO. Further, the edits the article make excessive points out of trivial facts (spinning the sponsorship of one minor piece of legislation into several paragraphs, for example.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the son (Wesley J. Pool) of Joe R. Pool. Wjpool (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wjpool: And therefore, should stop editing at Joe R. Pool. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I think we can consider this matter closed for now. Both users have stopped editing the article, and Wjpool has made several edit requests at the article's talk page, as is appropriate in this case. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a few hours after I made this note, Wjpool returned to actively editing the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Heidi Durham

This very constructive editor seems to work for the Labor Archives of Washington, a unit of the Special Collections of the University of Washington Libraries. I see no evidence that they have revealed this fact, or understand that this is problematic, in seven years of activity. Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I left a note at WT:GLAM. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Quireboys

User made changes with the edit summary "These changes are made with legal consent and under supervision of the legal owners of “The Quireboys” trademark. Any further edits to this page must be questioned and cross references against current legal proceedings". I reverted and added a CoI notice on the user's Talk page. User's response includes "I am correcting these in conjunction with the owners of the title name of this page. I hope this will be approved as any misinformation will count as deformation of character on behalf of the current members of “The Quireboys”". Tacyarg (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are some serious WP:OWN issues. Sadly, this isn't the first time I've seen such behavior. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there any resolution forthcoming? I understand your COI concerns. These should have been raised with the previous edit which was clearly written by someone with a COI. Returning the page to its original content would be a satisfactory outcome. I understand that no one owns the content on this site, I would further like to understand the policy regarding incorrect information and opinion based untruths which can come across as fact. Sammyjay0958 (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Sammyjay0958 If you work for or are a paid representative of the band, the Terms of Use require that to be formally declared, see WP:PAID. If you have an unpaid conflict of interest, that should be declared as well, see WP:COI. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject. If those sources are not accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors on the article talk page, in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). If the sources are accurately summarized, but those sources are in error, you will need to speak to them to have them issue corrections, or offer your own sources with more current information. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Permission of the subject is not needed to edit the article. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I would further note that the edit summary These changes are made with legal consent and under supervision of the legal owners of “The Quireboys” trademark. Any further edits to this page must be questioned and cross references against current legal proceedings is dangerously close to a legal threat. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Sammyjay0958:, please disclose every account used by the band members and its public relations team that have ever ever made edits to Wikipedia with regard to The Quireboys. Graywalls (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there's more arranged editing by the subject's representative going on here. I added Blackwater123 (talk · contribs), because it appears to be a purpose specific account making only edits to The Quireboys over a few years. Also a pattern of IP edits, and users with Word### formatting. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Liberland

The Liberland article, concerning a putative 'micronation' claimed to exist in uninhabited territory on the border between Croatia and Serbia, has in the past been the subject of promotional editing, either unsourced or based on questionable primary sources. The object of such editing seems self-evident - to promote the 'micronation' and its founders, by giving a misleading impression as to its legal status. In May this year, a new single-purpose contributor registered, User:Michalptacnik, who's first edit was to add a series of names for individuals in the 'organizational structure' section of the infobox. [41] Given the poor sourcing, this was reverted, but User:Michalptacnik has now returned, to restore the disputed content, [42] and make other edits. It should be noted that amongst the individuals named (citing a Liberland website) is one Michal Ptáčník, the supposed 'Minister of Justice' of this zero-population 'micronation'. It should also be noted that after I came across a comment by User:Michalptacnik, 'I work for Liberland and am authorized to make changes in the Wiki to reflect the current situation', [43] I informed him of our guidelines regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and in particular of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure policy. [44] Given that User:Michalptacnik has made no declaration under the disclosure policy, and seems intent on carrying on promoting both his supposed 'micronation' and himself, contrary to said guidelines and policies (amongst others: i.e. WP:NPOV, WP:RS) it seemed appropriate to bring this to the attention of other contributors here, who will no doubt have suggestions as to how best to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbana Osmani

Username of the editor matches the subject of the article. Liliana (UwU) 03:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, As it says at the top of the page, this page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue. Arbana Osmani7 has made one edit, which you have reverted, so the next step should be to explain COI to them, possibly by using Template:Uw-coi. If that fails you can start a discussion here. TSventon (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Vinayak Sasikumar

These users with almost similar usernames, which in turn similar to the article name, are contributing to the mentioned article only. I suspect these accounts belong to the person which the article is about. Sneha996 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_191&oldid=1109658473"