Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Scott Bessent
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Cinq Music Group
    Talk:Citadel LLC
    Talk:Clover Health
    Talk:CoStar Group
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Sonalde Desai
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Hannover Re
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Labcorp
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moody's Analytics
    Talk:Moody's Corporation
    Talk:Moody's Ratings
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:Pallywood
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Research Corporation
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Julie Sweet
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Vista Equity Partners
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    European Commision IP range

    [edit]
    Closed per OP's request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It looks like several IPs of the European Commission, 158.169.40.*, as well as a user who got blocked, EuroComIreland, have been doing a mix of blatant bureaucratese/attempted SEO, but also quite a few small edits that look quite legitimate. The effect on European Commission Representation in Ireland (prior to the cleanup that I did a few minutes ago) is not really going to bother anyone, apart from just looking silly, but the talk page comments on eIDAS are a lot more serious, since this sort of comment gives the impression that it's objective and could influence the discussion on a topic of high sociopolitical importance.

    If someone has the time to investigate further and clean up, that would be useful. I only did a very superficial quick check. Boud (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The only directly related archived discussion I could find is

    Boud (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I seem to remember some templates for putting on IP ranges of bodies like the EC or national parliaments, though for an IP range, there's no point adding that on all the individual IP pages - this would need some technically more efficient solution, which I vaguely seem to remember having seen, along the lines of This IP address belongs to ... and may be in conflict of interest when editing pages related to ... . Boud (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the prior discussion on their talk pages?
    EuroComIreland last edited in 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this case doesn't literally follow the criteria as listed - i.e. it's not a case of failed to resolve the issue. But since it's primarily a range of related IPs (EuroComIreland's user page was deleted as advertising), I thought it would be useful to point out in case someone is interested in investigating (and discussing with the user(s)) more systematically. I don't see a COI-IP-range Noticeboard. If there's a more relevant place to discuss I'd be happy to shift the discussion there.
    I found the needed template: {{Shared IP gov|[[European Commission]]}} , so if someone wants to consider this case as not needing any action from COIN, feel free to close it. Boud (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User VanjaOkay20

    [edit]
    User blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    VanjaOkay20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) didn't declared, that she is working for annabelle.ch (see de:user:VanjaOkay20) - this is agains terms of use ("Paid Contributions Without Disclosure"). She got blocked in dewiki for spamming annabelle.ch into articles and she does it here in enwiki too. --Mary Joanna (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mary Joanna: There is no notice of our CoI policy, nor our paid editing policy, on VanjaOkay20's talk page. Please read and follow the guidance at the head of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added the relevant notices to the user's talk page and reverted the spam edits. It would seem that the user was blocked 2 days ago on German Wikipedia as a spam only account. Personally I think it would also be desirable if they were also to be blocked from English Wikipedia, as spamming links to articles on their employer's website seems to be their sole activity on either German or English Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To give some further background, the user had been warned several times on German Wikipedia that continually adding links to articles on their employer's website was problematic, which eventually led to a site block after the warnings were repeatedly ignored. The user's position is probably best summed up by the following comment (translated from the German by Google Translate) which they posted 2 days ago on the German version of this noticeboard:
    “unfortunately I don’t understand the problem. My account is verified and I link - transparently identified as an employee of the magazine - with factual additions to neutral journalistic articles from the Swiss magazine Annabelle. To supplement articles with useful, interesting and previously unknown facts. I don't understand what's bad about that - you'd think that's what Wikipedia is for, right?”
    Well, they say they don't understand, but they had been repeatedly warned... Axad12 (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked here as well. I'd recommend keeping an eye out for other additions in the event the site they're linking needs to be blacklisted. Star Mississippi 13:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Clare Dimyon

    [edit]

    Oma-Clare is quite obviously the subject of the article (check her X account) and is continuously making edits to it despite being warned not to. She obviously has good intentions, but overall, just is making the article a mess. Unfortunately, I'm involved, and I'm not even sure how I initially stumbled across this article as I have absolutely no interest in this person. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The opening line, which has now been changed by Oma-Clare as being inaccurate. My intial reaction was to restore it since it was sourced. However, the source doesn't make this claim, either. So, what do we change it to? I have no idea what she's known for. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jauerback: You informed Oma-Clare of our CoI policy after rasing the matter hare. That is the wrong way to do it. Please read the guidance at the top of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't. I just accidentally placed that message before it. Check the timestamps. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I've fixed the ordering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment at WP:HELPDESK confirms that Oma-Clare is Clare Dimyon. There's really nothing to discuss here. She confirmed the COI herself. She isn't trying to hide it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the issue is that the COI user needs to be suggesting edits on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly, as per recent responses at the helpdesk. To be honest, the helpdesk comment linked above seemed to me to contain a rather vitriolic personal attack in relation to a user who was apparently just making policy based reversions, or am I missing something? Axad12 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then put a warning about assuming good faith on her talk page. I've just warned her about disruptive COI editing leading to a block.
    She's the subject of an article and she clearly feels attacked when her badly-sourced versions are reverted, so understandably she lashed out. I've seen this happen often when a subject gets involved in editing an article, and it often ends badly. The COI editor ends up being blocked, then responds angrily on their talk page while refusing to listen to advice or read any links given, then the talk page access is revoked. We'll see how it plays out in this case. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done so, as the post in question was clearly well beyond the bounds of civil discourse. Unfortunately it seems to be fairly standard these days for activists to seek to demonise those who disagree with them, but that is the opposite of how things are supposed to operate here.
    The user would be best advised to work within the relevant policies and guidelines and to collaborate with others.
    Unfortunately the user is instead doubling down on their accusations, here [1], so I have advised them to take their concerns (on content) to the article talk page. Axad12 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, she's also complaining on her X account. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the most relevant issue to all of this is the one recently raised by Melcous (by adding to tag to the article), i.e. is the subject actually notable? Axad12 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article creator might be relying on the MBE to meet WP:ANYBIO ("well-known and significant award or honor"), although a search on Wikipedia talk:Notability indicates that MBE isn't inherently notable. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She has an MBE, and is the subject of press coverage separate to that, so seems to be notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the subject of COI, also worth noting that the user has made a number of edits (2024, 2021 and 2020) to the article for Godfrey Meynell (which the following edit [2] indicates was the user's grandfather). The added material is all entirely unsourced (as in fairness is most of the article).
    There is also an amount of inserting the user's name into other articles (e.g. here [3] and here [4]) and a general lack of sourcing. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ek Main Aur Ek Two

    [edit]
    Ramdattabuvaji blocked indef. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor is solely interested in writing about Paritosh Painter and his works, but doesn't take heed of the multiple COI notices, speedy deletions, ... on their user talk page. This has been going on for months, and disruption continued today Fram (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You can add Ek Main Aur Ek Two - Hindi comedy play to the above list. Fram (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramdattabuvaji has been registered since 2018 and has only edited pages related to Paritosh Painter, which strongly suggests a COI. I would recommend that they be blocked if they continue their COI editing, as this appears to be a SPA and not WP:HTBAE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Persistent COI user was blocked yesterday by Star Mississippi. With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all! Fram (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Howard Maibach

    [edit]

    This editor is a single-purpose account who has twice added a lengthy list of books to the article on the dermatologist Howard Maibach. I have asked him on his Talk page whether he is, or is connected to Maibach. Sungodtemple has asked him twice whether he is Maibach. He hasn't answered either of us. Would be grateful if anyone else can have a look, and perhaps be more successful than I have been at communicating with this editor. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the material and instructed the user to comment on whether or not they have a COI, either here or on their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just some further background on the timeline here:
    user:Dermatotoxicologist first added the list of books on the 28/Aug.
    Tacyarg asked the user about COI on 31/Aug (and received no response).
    Derma(etc) was then asked for clarification on possible COI on 11/Sept by user:Sungodtemple who then removed the list of books.
    Dema(etc) responded to Sungodtemple without making any comment on the COI issue.
    Sungodtemple then pointed out the removal, gave the reason for removal, and asked once again about COI (again receiving no response).
    Then four weeks later Derma(etc) returned to the article to add the list again – presumably working on the assumption that no one was watching.
    The only reasonable conclusion, I would suggest, is that the user does have an undeclared conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Dermatotoxicologist is not responding and continue to edit the said BLP, it seems clear they are not WP:HTBAE but are instead engaging in COI editing, which is discouraged. Their username also suggests they may be the subject themselves or closely connected to them. @Dermatotoxicologist: Please understand that you may face a block if you don’t respond soon. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    COI editing is discouraged, but author bibliography might be ok on the ground of WP:NOTPRICE #6. I'm saying might, because I don't know if different expectations apply for a biography for someone who is notable an author or someone notable for something else, but also happens to author stuff on the side. Not saying that this person meets WP:ANYBIO as I haven't done any search yet. I deal with promotional editing all the time involving companies such as record label articles showing each artist, or each release. Graywalls (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Torrevieja

    [edit]
    Moved elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I just wanted to check whether we can use Valencian exonyms (see Corpus Toponímic Valencià) in the Spanish-speaking regions of the Valencian Community. I think we could since Valencian is official in the whole Valencian territory, and the same happens with Spanish in the Valencian-speaking regions of the Valencian Community (i.e. we use both forms despite official local denominations, see Benissa in Valencian and Benisa in Spanish). What's the recommendation by admins and Wikipedia? — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 00:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a query for WP:HELPDESK rather than the conflict of interest noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK no problem, I'll move the conversation there then, thank you — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 08:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Darko Šarović is an autobiographical article

    [edit]
    Stale. Further discussion should take pace on the article talk page (where, to date, the issue has not been raised). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Darko Šarović appears to have been written by the subject himself. Article contains extremely nitty gritty details about own profile, like things he did when he was 4 years old, without citations. So many inflated claims such as he is the fifth fastest Serb etc, again without citations. Not a notable person for Wikipedia.88.207.11.225 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Much of the content was either written by Perfect Introvert (talk · contribs), who has been inactive for several years, and from various IP addresses. Generally, we don't block IP addresses which are no longer engaging in WP:DE, and blocking or even warning Perfect Introvert doesn’t seem warranted either especially since the account is stale. One can address the issues of WP:OR and If one believe the BLP fails to meet WP:N, it may be appropriate to take it to AFD - but to me, the athlete appears to be WP:N. I don’t think any admin action is necessary at this time. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RaviEditor and Umar Saif

    [edit]

    This account RaviEditor was registered in April this year and is a SPA that only edits the Umar Saif's BLP, primarily adding PROMO content and removing well-sourced information they dislike. This clearly indicates a COI in their editing. I warned them multiple times, but there has been no response. Instead, they are engaging in edit warring. I suggest they should be blocked to encourage a response at the very least. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I filed the report, the editor has started contributing to other articles, seemingly to create the impression they're not a SPA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Longterm Academic boosterm user:Richardatlarge

    [edit]

    This appears to be covert self advert account that has been going for over a decade whose apparent purpose is to increase the academic prominence of one Richard Degrandpre. This self promoting activity became quite obvious after their declined draft in July 2024. Someone warned them about COI back in July, however given the long term pattern, its likely they might come back. Also, that didn't address the rather covert self-promo. It only addressed the suspeted autobiography writing. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very concerning, although I would note that at the very beginning this account was not covert... [5], for their first month on wiki in 2007 they were open about their identity. Based on a good faith reading of that I would characterize these promotional efforts as more overt than covert, that does not however excuse them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say it was covert, because they continued promotional editing after they've made their user page less conspicuous and making others have to go through the user page edit history. Graywalls (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that while its interesting to try and get in their head it really doesn't matter... This is a bright line violation either way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And before this, something like this about the same author was being done by a publisher agent: Special:Diff/104146851 Graywalls (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the user seems to have been engaged in an amount of self-citation over the years, and is currently engaged in trying to get a self-authored article about himself into Wikipedia (albeit not very successfully). Upon returning to Wikipedia after a 3 year hiatus to start work on his own article he appears to have commenced work by removing certain info [6] from his user page which would otherwise have connected him to the subject of the article.
    I also noticed the following thread [7] which the user initiated, and where he very animatedly appears to try to get (previously removed) negative allegations installed on the article for another author. Given that the user seems to be an effective WP:SPA on himself and matters that he is related to, I couldn't help but wonder if there was some form of link.
    It seems to be the only issue on Wikipedia that he is animated about, and appears to be both arbitrary and to correspond with the second time his autobiographical article was declined. So, what do we have here, WP:RGW, WP:COI, WP:POINT or something else?
    It seems to me like a most unusual post for an editor to have posted on Wikipedia and I do wonder if it should either be revdelled or the user be warned not to use Wikipedia in this way again?
    The material that the user is animated about was added to the relevant article twice by two IP addresses, here [8] and here [9]. It seems that only 2 IP users and one registered user have any interest in this issue, so what is going on? Axad12 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:NOTHERE is the bets fit. They're not here to build an encyclopedia, but to increase his prominence in the academia in the hope of scholars coming to articles, seeing their work cited, then cite those works in other scholarly work. Graywalls (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I removed a further instance of self-citing here [10]. I also noted that one of the user's books was one of only seven 'Books & Journals' listed at the end of the article for prominent UK politician Michael Gove. Not sure which user added it there but it was clearly tangential (or irrelevant?) to the subject matter so I removed it. Possibly an instance of self-citing, possibly not, but removed either way [11].
    In fairness to the user, he does seem to have disappeared since being told in July that he wasn't notable and that autobiography was suspected.
    Re: the other material mentioned in my earlier post. I will ask the owner of the talk page if they will delete it. The issues referred to have previously been deleted twice from the article concerned, presumably on the basis that they are poorly sourced, potentially defamatory and non-BLP compliant. That being the case, they probably shouldn't be sitting on someone's talk page either. Axad12 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Faisal Mahmud Faizee

    [edit]
    Justice FAISAL MAHMUD FAIZEE blocked indef. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    New SPA has been white-washing the article which is clearly about themself. Numerous warnings have been issued including a final warning and the article has bee Draftified by Wikishovel. I have posted an extended warning about COI on their talk page but everything has been ignored.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Justice FAISAL MAHMUD FAIZEE is persistently removing sourced content, which disrupts the editing process, I recommend a temporary block. This would enable another editor to take over the control of the BLP for the time being. PS. If they are indeed the subject themselves, as their username suggests, it's quite ironic that a high court judge would be engaging in such editing behavior and violating our P&Gs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User now indefinitely blocked by Star Mississippi. Axad12 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the Braveheart of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh" now that is some over the top promotion! COI or not there are some clear issues here Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Metalworker14

    [edit]

    I've definitively determined there's a strong COI between the editor and the band Symphony of Heaven and personally identifying private evidence has been emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. It isn't hard to find it, but we can't directly post such information. I am opening the case here, because I suspect further promotional activity such as promoting bands, record labels or sources cited within the articles the editor created. The user is a prolific creator of articles about Christian Metal and Metal bands, albums and record labels. Suspicion was triggered when Metalworker14 uploaded an image into Symphony of Heaven through Commons, stating that they were the copyright holder only for me to find that it's a downsized version of the black and white photo right above "biography" from the band's official website. The band's website is copyrighted and does not identify the author of the photo, and the photo that was on Commons did not have VRT verification. The user has previously been notified about uploading an image from the band's Facebook. In the process of investigating copyright matters, I browsed the band's website and came upon "For managemental concerns: Return to Dust Promotions" at contact section of the page. When I went to seek information on that company, the search result suggests COI with the extensively cited source "The Metal Onslaught Magazine is extensively cited in Symphony of Heaven as well as other articles created by the same author. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I cannot comment on whether there is a COI issue with the article you flagged without seeing the off-wiki evidence you found, I would like to add that this website themetalonslaught.com is not a RS at all, yet Metalworker14 has excessively used it across many articles which raises serious suspicions that they may have a COI with the magazine. I strongly suggest they stop using this source entirely unless they receive approval at WP:RSN. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib:, I believe that there is COI with the Magazine and the inserting party, actually. I just had to be really careful to not go foul of WP:OUTING but if you spend a few minutes Googling, it should become clear. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Off-wiki evidence does suggest that they have a COI with both Symphony of Heaven and Ascending King. And according to our P&Gs, Metalworker14 is required to declare their COI either on their user page or on the tps of the relevant articles, which they have yet to do so I strongly urge them to do so as soon as possible. Also, I recommend they refrain from directly editing these articles but if they continue to ignore these warnings, a temporary block may be necessary to get their attention. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Symphony of Heaven is one thing, but the bigger issue is the extensive use of sources they're closely related to that are not WP:RS trying to bolster the notability of non-notable bands, albums and recording companies. If you spent more than a minute or two searching with the research skills held by quite a few Wiki editors, that should become obvious. All I can say is that it's highly plausible and convincing that Metalworker14 has vested interest to promote certain authors and certain magazines, production and promotion companies. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is absolutely correct. The user has created over 150 articles and the frequency with which certain sources and authors are used would be considered industrial grade spam if those references were being added to pre-existing articles.
    The fact that the user created the articles themselves and used these non WP:RS compliant sources to support notability makes the matter worse rather than better.
    To be honest, the sheer number of links makes me wonder if Search engine optimization was a factor here. Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a large part of what music promoters do. Outside evidence suggests involvement of suspected COI editor partaking in the promotion business. Perhaps themetalonslaught needs to be suggested for Mediawiki blacklisting. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so. There is no place on Wikipedia for this sort of activity. Axad12 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a membership overlap between Symphony of Heaven, Timoratus, Ascending King, The Thlipsis, Mystic Winter. Also a member from those bands having COI with these sources cited by the user in question here
    Metal Onslaught Magazine, Life of Defiance Podcast.
    Other COI possibilities are Return to Dust Promotions and Battlefrost Productions Graywalls (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12:, were you able to locate the source referring to these? Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, A couple of days ago I had a look at the references for every 6th article that the user had created (as listed on their user page). I saw enough to appreciate that, as per your earlier comments, there was a recurring reliance on a rather small number of particular sources and authors. On that basis I was inclined to agree with your estimation that the user was involved in promotion and that there was certainly a clear and transparent conflict of interest in relationship to a particular individual.
    However, I must admit that I do not recall specific sources at this point in time as I seem to have been quite busy on this noticeboard in the intervening two days and this thread had rather slipped from my mind. Axad12 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Gilbertson (climber)

    [edit]

    User User:KnowledgeIsPower9281 has a likely conflict of interest with Eric Gilbertson (climber). The majority of that article's references constitute links to the subject's personal blog. In addition, KnowledgeIsPower9281 is engaged in taking original research presented in said blog that is being used as a reference on multiple articles. This includes ones they created (see examples here and here) and existing articles such as Mount Rainier where a discussion on the talk page regarding these edits is ongoing.

    KnowledgeIsPower9281 has received notes reminding them the need to disclose COI here and here, both of which were ignored. Their use of original research is disruptive and they are by far the primary author of Eric Gilbertson (climber), which I nominated for AfD last week. I am bringing up the COI notice here because of disruptive edits elsewhere. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ Cane, First, since you’ve already nominated the BLP for deletion, I don’t understand the logic behind filing this COI/N report. Second, which blog are you referring to that is being used as a reference in multiple articles? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response @Saqib. If there is a better place to handle the original research edits, please let me know. The blog is referenced as Country Highpoints. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DJ Cane, I agree that countryhighpoints.com is not a RS, but a WP:SPS and KnowledgeIsPower9281 appears to be aware of this concern, as reflected on the article's tp, yet they continue to cite it across multiple pages, including on this BLP which is concerning. In light of this, I would suggest that an admin step in and issue a warning to KnowledgeIsPower9281 to cease citing this WP:SPS going forward.
    As for the issues with the BLP, since the article is already at AFD, it may be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion. If the BLP is kept, I recommend initiating a discussion on the article's talk page to try to resolve the WP:OR concerns there and incase if that approach doesn’t lead to a resolution, you can revisit the issue here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at edit history of Eric's article, the timing of edits suggest some kind of off-wiki coordination with another editor named Keithgilbertson (talk · contribs) which has all of two edits under their account. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is mentioned in my conflict of interest declaration. It appeared that Eric's father independently uploaded a picture of Eric on the summit of K2 in 2022. I was not contacted by him, but thanked him for the contribution and fixed the formatting of the file. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all, I have declared the COI. I believe Gilbertson's achievements are notable in the climbing world, so if other editors rewrite the page in a more encyclopedic tone, decrease the reliance on the subject's blog, and use some of the reliable sources Gilbertson has done interview with (mentioned on talk page), could the article still be salvaged? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KnowledgeIsPower9281, Thank you for declaring your COI. Whether the BLP is kept or not will be decided at the AFD, so I suggest you wait for the outcome there. If the BLP is kept, I recommend avoiding direct edits to the article and instead, please use the BLP's talk page to propose any changes. In the meantime, as I mentioned above, please refrain from using countryhighpoints.com as a source in articles. I’ve noticed that it has been repeatedly cited across multiple articles by you. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to surveys he's done on mountain peaks and highpoints is Peakbagger sufficient as a source? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Peakbagger has been used as a source extensively, but things written directly by him don't meet the guideline. If his survey leads to Peakbagger updating their updating the elevation info section, this seems fine to me for minor mountains. Major mountains like Mount Rainier should not have this information presented in the infobox but can have it discussed in the body because in instances like Mount Rainier there remains a large body of official reporting, which should be favored over Peakbagger. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've abated a bunch of original research that's not directly supportable by the Peakbagger sources. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @KnowledgeIsPower9281:, what is the nature of your relationship with various corporate sponsored events, if any? I am seeing you've started multiple sports related events, only citing the event owner/sponsors. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Graywalls, see my response in my user talk page. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite denial, it seems like the Gilbertsons are kept in loop somehow. Keithgilbertson (talk · contribs) somehow joined while edits were actively taking place, and now Eric Gilbertson is involved in Eric Gilbertson (talk · contribs) on this topic. I'm quite persuaded that there's some level of coordination taking place outside of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Graywalls, as stated in my conflict of interest disclosure which I hope you have read, Keithgilbertson independently uploaded the K2 photo. As my COI disclosure states, Eric and I have discussed his measurements. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. The timing suggests though, they have been kept in the loop about Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (arbitrary break)
    [edit]

    Be sure to check out Talk:Mount_Rainier#Name_of_Mt._Rainier. Graywalls (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And again Special:Diff/1251612282 here. I have been tracking articles that contain the reference "countryhighpoints.com" and removing them; as I do with many bloggy/questionable sources identified to be widely scattered. Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite the warnings above, @KnowledgeIsPower9281: continues to add clearly unreliable sources, suggesting a potential WP:IDHT issue. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib, As I have previously stated on other talk pages, I will comply with WP policy and will stop using Peakbagger and countryhighpoints.com as sources. As I have told Graywalls, countryhighpoints.com and Peakbagger have been used as sources on WP long before I started editing, so I am not solely responsible for their usage on WP and it should be forgiven that, until very recently, I considered them (especially Peakbagger) as sound to use (i.e: Uzbekistan article). Of course, I now know better and will listen to the community on this as per WP:IDHT so as not to disrupt WP articles. However, please don't act as though I haven't been collaborative and cooperative with other editors as I have listened to what they had to say and adjusted my editing accordingly. I will of course refrain from editing anything major until a consensus, agreement, or compromise is reached between editors. Also, you should know that I have acknowledged that for Gilbertson's survey to be included on WP, multiple reliable secondary sources must be cited for its inclusion. Thank you. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only major edit I did on Rainier's height was changing the height to 14,410 which was an undisputed edit as the NPS & USGS use that value. While I added the survey back with secondary sources, other editors removed it (until a consensus is reached) which I did not object to. A footnote explains the 14,410 and 14,411 values, and mentions the 2024 survey, while the height of the mountain section explains only the former two currently. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief note to say that the creation of an account for Eric Gilbertson since this thread began and that account's contributions at the Mount Rainier talk page appear to be as textbook an example of WP:MEATPUPPETRY as could be imagined. That Gilbertson went directly to that page to make effectively the same argument as his own Wiki-biographer demonstrates obvious off-wiki co-ordination.
    The activity is clearly solely motivated by spamming links to a blog and generally promoting Gilbertson. Axad12 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as described in my conflict of interest disclosure, my talking with Eric of course has influence on my opinion. With that said, please do not assume my motivations for editing Wikipedia which are to improve the accuracy of the site and are in good faith. If you need more information, read through my user talk page and the Rainier talk page. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even past behaviors such as submitting Eric Gilbertson (climber) for creation and getting declined twice in AfC, then pushing it through on their own into mainspace followed by repeated insertions of countryhighpoints.com and Gilbertson stat containing peakbagger.com source is strongly indicative of more COI beyond casually having acquainted and started talking Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal was not to promote Gilbertson, it was to promote correct and factual information that he uncovered which I now know currently does not fall under WP policy for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I have agreed to not edit until a consensus is made, and have agreed to not use country highpoints or peakbagger as a source anymore. Also, I am better learning WP policy through this entire ordeal. Respectfully, Graywalls, I would appreciate it if you back off a little as I am no longer editing in the way you have mentioned and the conflict of interest describes everything. As a highpointer myself who has talked with him casually of course I consider his findings to be important, but through this experience know that WP policy requires his findings to have more substantial secondary coverage. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12:, Another thing I've noticed are novel names like Sare Firasu Hill for which there's no reliable source for and can only find user generated bloggy websites that even use that name. Credible sources like https://www.worldatlas.com/about only shows the highest point in Gambia as "unnamed". There are several places created by the same editor like this and those aren't even appropriate as a re-direct when name/location relationship can not be established in credible sources. Those are mainly based on Countryhighpoints.com or Gilbertson name containing Peakbagger.com. It degrades the information to noise ratio and removing those things start to become time consuming. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This all looks like very bad faith disruptive editing.
    Better if the various meatpuppets stick to editing their blog.
    They could even put a bio of Gilbertson there. Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that it is bad faith editing. I think it represents a long-duration of unnoticed and uncorrected poor editing that the editor has indicated they will correct. There seems to be a small movement to come down extremely hard against this user which I strongly disagree with.
    That it has created a tedious problem for other editors to clean up is not lost on me. @KnowledgeIsPower9281 could and should involve themself in the cleanup. I think we should assume good faith that they will improve their practices going forward and keep to their commitment regarding sourcing. If significant problems continue after these exchanges then we can point back to this and other current discussions as evidence of knowledge. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article has been declined twice at AfC and the COI creator installs the article into mainspace themselves, I would say that is a bad faith act. Axad12 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was a bad faith act. I don't think all of them were, though. I am content with the level of change the editor has indicated. If it holds, no problem remains beyond cleaning up the mess. If it doesn't hold, it won't be hard to handle the problem. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but for my money that single bad faith act is at the very centre of this COI editor's activity. However, ultimately the articles will be deleted and the edits will be reverted, so the good or bad faith of it all is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't take any initiative to pickup the mess they've deposited even after acknowledging countryhighpoints.com fails to meet sourcing standards. In fact, there's been a few instance where they re-added Gilbertson blog after removal and they were the one who added it in the first place. The re-addition happened after the COI discussion was already in progress. AGF doesn't expect us to indefinitely assume so. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls, I re-added it because I had a misconception of Peakbagger being a reliable source under WP policy and I accidentally added the blog back in there when reverting an edit. It's clear now what is reliable and what is not reliable on WP and I have adjusted my actions accordingly, and will not add anything from a blog (unless the information discussed has substantial secondary coverage and is cleared by other editors). As DJ Cane has said, there is no need to beat a dead horse on this subject. The edits will be reverted (I think most of them have at this point) and we can move on with our lives. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    https://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1275281 I just found this off-wiki discussion about this that was started on Thu Oct 17, 2024 14:09 (UTC) Snippet says "Wikipedia Editors Removing Peakbagger and ... Wikipedia editors are actively purging all pages of elevations taken from Peakbagger or from my dGPS surveys." Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The original post in that off-wiki discussion has now been deleted. Interesting to see, however, that one of the later contributors to that discussion felt that user:KnowledgeIsPower9281 may be a sockpuppet account of Eric Gilbertson, a suggestion that has already been made at Eric Gilbertson's Wikipedia talkpage. Let us hope that no further new editors arrive on Wikipedia to carry out the same agenda, or that thread will look a lot like off-wiki canvassing (if indeed it was not already that, hard to tell when the original post has been deleted).
    I note that in Eric Gilbertson's recent post [12] at Mount Rainer he said The article is now more accurate and complies with the wishes of the park. and I advise using NGVD29 for all elevations to be consistent with the park’s wishes.
    So, not only does user:KnowledgeIsPower9281 have a COI in relation to Eric Gilbertson, but Eric Gilbertson has an undeclared CoI in relation to reflecting the wishes of Mount Rainer National Park.
    So, does KnowledgeIsPower also have an undeclared CoI in relation to Mount Rainier National Park, since the editing agenda of the two accounts is indistinguishable and there has been clear off-wiki coordination between the two.
    Also worth noting that both users seem to have almost simultaneously announced that they have given up trying to install Gilbertson-related material on Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I have given up, it's that I will only add material pertaining to Eric and his surveys if it has secondary independent coverage. Given my COI, I will consult with other editors before adding it. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the umpteenth time, as my conflict of interest disclosure states, I am not Eric Gilbertson. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't suggest that you were Eric Gilbertson. I simply observed that suggestions to that effect had been made both on- and off- Wiki, presumably due to the extent to which your editing agenda matches Gilbertson's. Axad12 (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no conflict of interest with Mount Rainier National Park as I have not been in contact with any park official. The 14410 value is "officially recognized" by the government as it is mentioned on the Rainier NP and USGS websites. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so Gilbertson was editing to reflect the wishes of Mount Rainier National Park and you were editing to raise awareness of Gilbertson's work. I'm glad to hear that it was only a matter of the purest coincidence that those two very different editing agendas seemed to align so very closely at the Mount Rainier talk page between the 16th and 18th October. Thank you for the clarification. Axad12 (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was editing to improve the accuracy of the encyclopedia as his work reflected the most accurate information on country highpoints. Now I know that WP policy does not allow blogs or peakbagger so coverage on Eric can only be through reliable secondary sources. May I ask what the outcome of this conflict of interest discussion will be? I think it's time to wrap it up and move on with our lives. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Castro

    [edit]

    User Eigilvesti, who has been editing the article "Rick Castro" since 2020, has just stated on his talk page that he is the subject of the article, Rick Castro. I have in the past tried to deal with the promotionalism and poor sourcing in the article, but wearied of it and slacked off. I'm posting links to WP:COI and WP:RS to the user talk page. I would appreciate other eyes on the article. Donald Albury 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eigilvesti (or better said, Rick Castro) has been editing their own BLP since 2007 and has been given enough warnings by now, but if they still won’t stop writing their AUTOBIO, I honestly don’t know what will make them stop. I must note that the BLP is in poor shape, with significant issues of WP:OR and PROMO content and it’s evident that Rick Castro is using Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, which violates our P&Gs. While I don’t wish to sound overly harsh, but I believe it may be time for Eigilvesti to be temporarily blocked to give them the opportunity to reconsider their approach. A temporary block could help reinforce that they do not own the BLP and should refrain from editing it directly going forward. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this reeks of over policing. all my sources are verified and factual. this is the history of my art. nothing is make up, created, fake or slanderous. Eigilvesti (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eigilvesti, I don’t want you to get blocked, but it’s important to respect our P&Gs, especially regarding AUTOBIO, which is not allowed - even if you're citing RS. You’ve been editing here since 2007, but continuing to insert PROMO content is wasting others' time. Even if you're a SPA but as long as you comply with the P&Gs, you’re welcome to continue editing and proposing changes on the BLP talk page. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. I do my best to comply.. I guess I will not post for awhile, since this all makes me nervous. Wikipedia is important to me and I don't want to abuse it. could you please restore my most recent post? all the sources are publications and posting by the book shops and venues in question. thank you for your time. Eigilvesti (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the sources you have offered have not been compliant with our guidelines. Beyond that, being verifiable from reliable sources is a requirement, but not a guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia. Content that the community regards as "promotional" is subject to removal regardless of the reliability of sources supporting it. Donald Albury 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the article here is problematic on a number of counts, which is presumably the result of long term conflict of interest editing...
    I've removed an amount of unsourced material from the article, including a long section on Critical Assessment which was entirely unsourced. The article was tagged for needing extra citations 5 years ago so the subject/COI editor has had abundant opportunity to locate and add these. I would encourage Eigilvesti to track down relevant WP:RS citations where possible and present them at the article talk page via a COI edit request (details of the process can be found here: WP:COI).
    I'll leave it to others to address the original research, promo and reliable sourcing issues. There are also some issues around overall tone. However, I must say that the article in its current form seems to me to be very poor indeed. It is essentially just a long list of disembodied sentences listing lots of things the subject has done. Some of these sentences are linked together to form paragraphs but it can't be avoided that it basically says: 'Rick Castro did this. Castro did that. Rick did the other' ad nauseum without any sense in which the reader is learning anything about the subject except being exposed to a list of exhibitions and awards.
    The overall impression is that most of the article is WP:UNDUE coverage and just an indiscriminate collection of facts. For example, the article is peppered with facts like the subject attending book signings, receiving grants, etc., none of which is encyclopaedic information. Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The critical assessment you have removed are from transcripts by art historian Edward Lucie Smith and publisher Mark Harvey. They were not posted by me. This is the bases of my artwork since the beginning. Now that this has been removed there is nothing to give readers an idea of what my photography is about. If you go to the page of art photographer, Joel-Peter Witkin- (whom I worked for throughout the 80s, and is a source) it has similar verifications of criticism, actually Witkin has less sources than my page. If one is not allowed to add to the bio, then it becomes a list of events. This all reeks of prejudicial hypocrisy. Eigilvesti (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eigilvesti, Did someone tell you that you're not the owner of your article? If you have concerns about someone removing or adding something, please raise them on the article's talk page, not here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in an earlier post, I would encourage Eigilvesti to track down relevant WP:RS citations where possible and present them at the article talk page via a COI edit request (details of the process can be found here: WP:COI). Material in Wikipedia articles must be reliably sourced, according to WP:V and WP:RS. Material that is not properly sourced can be removed. If WP:RS sources are presented at the article talk page the removed material may be reinstated, in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
    Eigilvesti, I have just spent the last 30-45 minutes going through your article making various minor changes to reflect the general Wikipedia Manual of Style, to remove some elements of trivia and promotionalism, adding wikilinks, etc.
    The reason that I did that was not because I am a prejudiced hypocrite, as per you comment above, but because (despite having no interest in you) I care about standards on Wikipedia and because your many years of conflict of interest editing had left the article in a poor state.
    If you had declared your conflict of interest some years ago, when you were asked to do so, then the article would have had more eyes on it and the various COI edits would have been scrutinised for suitability, wording, references, etc., etc. at the times that they were made. Because that didn't happen, the article needed scrutiny now in relation to a lot of past edits.
    As it stands there are still a fair amount of issues with the remaining text but I will leaves those for others to deal with.
    I'd also advise you to refrain from making entirely groundless personal attacks against people who volunteer their time to clear up the years of mess created by undeclared COI editors such as yourself. If anyone is being hypocritical here it is the person who created the mess and now apparently objects to the tidy up in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some further thoughts which may be of assistance to you...
    The removed Critical Assessment section, apart from being unsourced, was also written in the style of an essay (rather than an encyclopaedia article) and appeared to contain much original research which I assume would be very difficult or impossible to source.
    Even simple statements like the following would need to be adequately sourced: In including humor in his work, Castro confounds the Baroque—which focuses on simple, strong, dramatic expression—in favor of Mannerism, and he avoids the self-conscious, overcharged, unnaturally detailed, jarring elements of Mannerism. But if no one can be found to have said anything resembling that in print then it is just a user's own opinion and is thus, unfortunately, inadmissable.
    To work on a revised section on Critical Assessment I'd suggest that you start off by gathering as much material as you can that other people have written about your work, and then write something (from a neutral point of view) that you know can be adequately sourced throughout.
    If, on the other hand, you were to start with the removed section and try to add sources all the way through it then I expect that may be a frustrating task.
    Hopefully these notes are of assistance, Axad12 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alison Creagh

    [edit]

    Hawkeye7 created an article about the President of the Australian Paralympic Committee and nominated it for DYK. They dispute having a COI here, despite Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Serendipity, e.g. "media representative, with accreditation supplied by Paralympics Australia" and "Support from Paralympics Australia did not end in Australia. In Paris, they had set up headquarters at a site near the Paralympic Village known as "Our Mob", which contained meeting rooms, a TV studio, dining room and a McCafé concession (McDonald's being one of their sponsors). Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies." Fram (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hawkeye7: Writing a BLP about someone who sponsored your trip to the 2024 Paralympics to enhance Wikipedia content is one thing, but nominating their BLP for DYK seems a bit excessive and might not reflect well on you as an editor. I get that Fram has valid concerns, but I also see that you declined any involvement of paid editing, so to help ease the tension, I’d suggest you consider withdrawing your DYK nom. If someone else finds it interesting, they can always nominate it later! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Paralympics Australia did not sponsor my trip to Paris; it provided my media accreditation and assistance and support for our activities. I have never been involved in paid editing; this allegation is false and baseless. The article cannot be re-nominated later. WP:DYKRULES: At the time of nomination, an article must be considered new, which means it was created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to good article status in the seven days preceding a nomination. Nor can I withdraw it, for that is the prerogative of the reviewer and prep area builder. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, for the clarity, I didn’t allege you were involved in paid editing.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was Fram. All I have done is carry out my role as Wikimedian in Residence, writing articles to expand our coverage of Australian paralympians, coaches and administrators, and Australians at the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7, here are some quotes from your Signpost article:
    Media accreditation meant that I had access to the media tribunes at the venues and could attend any game even when the event was sold out (as was usually the case). [...]. It meant that we could use the buses of the [...] the Olympic transport system. It meant we had access to the resources of the Main Press Centre (MPC) and the Venue Media Centres (VMCs) [...] It meant that my photographer [...] had access to the Nikon store at the Stade de France, where she was able to get some of her equipment repaired and borrow some very expensive equipment for the duration of the games to supplement the gear she had brought with her from Australia – all for free. (My emphasis on 'all for free').
    And Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies (presumably also for free).
    And Getting from one venue to another involved a trip on the Paris Metro using the Navigo cards issued to us as part of our media kit. Each day we criss-crossed the city on the Metro as we moved from one venue to the next.
    This all sounds like quite a trip. Adding up the financial benefits of this package, what would be the approximate equivalent cash value? Would, say, USD500-1,000 cover it? And what about cost of flights, accommodation, etc?
    The idea that there was no financial conflict of interest seems to be quite baseless. There is no meaningful difference between being paid for doing something and being given a large amount of expensive benefits for free.
    The project to create large numbers of articles on Australian paralympians has been going in since 2011. During that time you have created many such articles and, based on your Signpost article, attended multiple competitions, possibly under similar terms to those described above. That being the case, what do you estimate to be the total value of benefits received over that period from Paralympics Australia or other organisations?
    You deny conflict of interest and paid editing, so I think it would be useful to have a financial figure here to allow other editors to estimate to what extent that was (or was not) the case.
    Please note that WP:PAID states: Paid contributions on Wikipedia involve editing any page in exchange for compensation, including money or other incentives. (Again, my emphasis on other incentives).
    If an editor is in receipt of lucrative fringe benefits for the duration of a trip where they are researching future potential articles in relation to those who provided those fringe benefits then under the definition above the editor is being paid. However, regardless of that fact, the existence of COI seems quite clear. Axad12 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefits listed were all used to produce articles and images for Wikipedia. There was no personal use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That cannot possibly be true because the articles that were produced could as easily have been produced while sitting at home in front of a television and/or the internet. The images were taken by someone else so that is irrelevant.
    As far as I can see it was just an expensive free holiday which had no bearing on the creation of article text.
    The only possible exception would be the creation of the article on Alison Creagh, the president of the organisation who paid for the free holiday while you were an undisclosed paid editor... which leads us back to the obvious conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. Being present is a vital part. The difference between what can be done when one is present and absent is stark. A lot of material was gathered which could be obtained in no other way. And I was not editing in exchange for anything. That was not my motivation at all. My concern was to expand the coverage of disability sports, particularly women's sports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is nonsensical to claim that it is necessary to witness an event to be able to write an article on it. Articles are based on material in published sources, not what someone saw with their own eyes or info received directly from discussion with a subject. Axad12 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also would you care to share the details of the situation underlying the arbitration finding of 2011 where it was established (by a vote of 10 to 0) that 10) Hawkeye7 has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to LauraHale and should not be taking administrative actions on LauraHale, or at the behest of LauraHale. If I recall correctly, LauraHale was an editor who was also involved in producing large numbers of sports-based articles and had some specific relationship to netball. To what extent do the details there resemble the situation above (except in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest)? Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief update here... There is a marked similarity between the Australian Paralympic related activities of Hawkeye7 and those of the now dormant and WP:VANISHED user LauraHale. Both users seem to have created industrial volumes of Australian paralympic articles which were then swiftly nominated for good article status and inclusion in "Did You Know". Presumably this is some kind of joint endeavour, in which some form of conflict of interest was first demonstrated many years ago. Axad12 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I collaborated with LauraHale on Wikipedia:GLAM/History of the Paralympic movement in Australia in 2011–2012. This was a joint endeavour with multiple editors, not just us. She would research subjects and create an article in something like point form, and when I got home from work I would edit them into a readable and usable form. My practice with all articles I work on and not just Paralympic ones is to send them to DYK or GA on completion in order to get another pair of eyes to review them and correct spelling errors etc. Collaboration with LauraHale ended years ago, and I have not worked with her since. She vanished after a campaign of harassment by Fram. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago. Axad12 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you said something does not make it a fact. It was not demonstrated years ago. It never happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, just to be completely clear...
    Are you denying that you used admin tools inappropriately to assist another user with whom you had a conflict of interest on Australian Paralympics articles? That seems to have been passed by a 10 to 0 majority at arbitration and isn't just "something that I said". Here is the evidence [13].
    Or are you denying the existence of some other form of conflict of interest in relation to the creation of Australian Paralympics articles?
    I had only stated the former of those two things, but there is the interesting question of why the admin tools were used inappropriately. It has previously been suggested elsewhere on Wikipedia (and with some plausibility) that it was because of payments being received (by LauraHale and/or yourself). That is relevant to the discussion here as it indicates the long-running nature of the undisclosed paid situation. Axad12 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never used the admin tools on Paralympics articles. The racepacket case refers to events before I became involved with the Paralympics project. This was over ten years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so back in 2011 you were sanctioned for abuse of admin tools (in relation to your conflict of interest re: LauraHale), but then presumably later in that year (as per your comment upthread) you began working on the large scale paid creation of articles on Australian Paralympians (with LauraHale). My apologies for getting the dates slightly wrong. Axad12 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The interesting point here is that LauraHale was certainly being paid for the creation and editing of Australian Paralympics articles from 2011 to 2012, that is proven here [14] where the work next to LauraHale’s name is indicated at being done at a rate of $100 per hour.
    If I understand correctly, LauraHale was a Wikipedian in Residence at around that time, with (presumably) a declared conflict of interest – it’s hard to tell because her account was WP:VANISHED. You, however, were not a Wikipedian in Residence at that time.
    Very helpfully you’ve added above that LauraHale would research subjects and create an article in something like point form, and when I got home from work I would edit them into a readable and usable form.
    So, are we to assume here that LauraHale was being paid $100 an hour to create […] article[s] in something like point form, but that you were being paid nothing at all to edit them into a readable and usable form. Is that really at all plausible? And this is in relation to two editors who were found by ArbCom earlier that year to have some form of unknown conflict of interest between them. Axad12 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: I believe that is an aspersion against Fram per ArbCom's findings during WP:FRAM. Also, viewing DYK and GA nominations as a means to get a copyedit is at best oldfashioned, and ignores the publicity aspect; wasn't DYK exposure a HOPAU metric back then? In the present, it seems to me that the fuss over HOPAU-sponsored editing in the past, when you were collaborating on it with Laura Hale, should have indicated it was important to scrupulously disclose all articles related to HOPAU sponsorship going forward. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you may believe in the healing powers of wax fruit does not make it a fact. I may be oldfashioned but what I have said is a statement of fact. There was no fuss over HOPAU sponsorship. Ever. HOPAU articles are all categorised as such. And the majority of articles I have sent to DYK, GA and FA have been related to military history; I routinely send any article I work on along for review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I try to ignore the tired "attack the messenger" approach. They even accused me of making personal attacks against David Eppstein at the linked DYK discussion, despite me not commenting on Eppstein or their edits at all. Meanwhile, Hakweye7 still can't seem to admit to the basic fact of having an obvious COI here. One would think that after their Arbcom experience, they would be more scrupulous or careful now, but as they apparently deny that that Arbcom finding of fact ever happened, I guess this is to be expected. I hope they read and comply with all the Wikimedian in Residence rules, e.g. they "are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there" (WP:WIRCOI) and "there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution." (emphasis in original). Fram (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding the likes of Mary Major serves on the board at the International Rootbeer Chugging Society, and citing the society itself or her own website is quite common promotional articles. The fictional IRCS is likely authoritative and reliable that Mary Major is on their board, but I have to say that's probably undue inclusion. I'll leave it up to others to weigh in on this re-addition Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing the subject's board memberships is routine in biographical articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems very odd that a user would go on at great length in Signpost about the generosity of their patron, but not take the entirely reasonable precaution of making a simple CoI declaration on their user page re: all the generosity they have received. It is clearly concerning that instead of doing so the user is opposing unconflicted users' edits on the article they recently created on the president of the organisation providing the generosity. Axad12 (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because WP:PAID clearly states except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Such grants have never counted as paid editing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but WP:PAID also states that Wikipedians in residence who are paid must disclose which organization (GLAM or similar) pays them. Is there some mention of that fact somewhere on your very busy user page, or on the articles where you made the edits, or are you just another undisclosed paid editor? Axad12 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Wikipedian in Residence, but I am not paid for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely it would be more correct to say that you haven't made the necessary declaration in relation to being a Wikipedian in Residence but that you have stated that you've been in receipt of benefits which are, under the definition in WP:PAID, equivalent to being a paid editor.
    However, the lack of the required declaration means that you were (and still are) an undisclosed paid editor, pure and simple. You cannot possibly claim an exemption under a status that you hadn't disclosed in the appropriate fashion. Axad12 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was not paid, I did not realise that such a declaration was required. No payments were received. I apologise for not putting a declaration on my user page. I did not realise that was a requirement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't directly related to the user discussed here, but I had a look at Paralympics Australia. Wow. The article looks as if it's company controlled social media profile and edited as if it was intended to be another social media platform to regurgitate contents from organization's own information. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • My practice with all articles I work on and not just Paralympic ones is to send them to DYK or GA on completion in order to get another pair of eyes to review them and correct spelling errors etc. Seriously? Using DYK as a spellchecker is ridiculous, If you don't feel capable of writing an article without a second set of eyes, you should give up the autopatrolled permission that was granted to you as a courtesy like ten minutes after your desysop, as opposed to abusing DYK. That's of course assuming that really is the only reason... Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have written over 100 featured articles. How many are you claiming to have written? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As soon as a user resorts to high score-ism, claiming that only those with an equivalent high score can scrutinise them, it's a clear sign that they are busted.
      (See also: Greg Henderson (another undisclosed paid editor), Doug whatever-his-surname-was, etc. etc.)
      This isn't about your high score. It's about your undisclosed paid editor status. Axad12 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that is resolved then. I was not an undisclosed paid editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yes you were... because you hadn't disclosed that you had received benefits or other incentives in relation to work undertaken. That is perfectly straightforward. No money has to change hands for someone to be WP:PAID, as already indicated at some length above (and presumably accepted by you as you have now apologised above for not having made the necessary declaration for an editor in that situation). Axad12 (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You presume incorrectly. I have not accepted that. I was not paid or compensated in any way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, well in that case you have still failed to disclose that you received benefits from a third party in relation to whom you created articles. So you are the definition of an undisclosed paid editor. Axad12 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In relation to issues on whether or not you received some kind of payment for much earlier work on Australian Paralympics articles, I would urge you to respond to concerns raised in my earlier post here [15]. It would appear to be a topic of some importance that the matters raised there are resolved. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was not paid anything at all! I have always been an unpaid volunteer editor. Is that really so unusual? For the last ten years I have normally spent an hour a day working on some Wikipedia article or other, or performing administrative tasks for the Military History Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies but hopefully you will appreciate that it is simply not plausible that one individual was being paid $100 per hour and the other was being paid nothing at all, both for essentially the same work, while in collaboration on specific articles, and when a conflict of interest was noted between the 2 editors earlier that year. Axad12 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did write about it on the Signpost after the 2012 and 2016 Paralympics... I am not sure what you mean by "received benefits". Let me explain how it works. I apply for media accreditation for myself and other Wikimedians on the team from our National Committee (NOC) as a free-lance journalist writing for WMF or Wikimedia Australia (WMAU). The OCOG wants a single point of contact so that is me. I have to get WMAU to sign off on it. The NOCs have only have a certain number of accreditations to give out. Sometimes the IOC or the OCOG also wants WMF or WMAU to sign various undertakings. If your application is successful, they send you an id card, which is also your visa for that country. Now you are a journalist with the same standing as those from any other "non-rights" organisation! But it is all on your own dime unless you can get a grant from WMF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so when you said that the General Manager of Communications [at Paralympics Australia], gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies, presumably that is over and above what you mentioned directly above. So, we have (at the very least) free tickets being gifted and we have presumably other forms of generous [...] support, so what did that consist of? Axad12 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have written over 100 featured articles. How many are you claiming to have written? This sort of contradicts your earlier statement that your primary reason for submitting articles to DYK is because you need help proofreading. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 06:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite so.
      When editors obsessed with high score-ism refer all their new articles to GA and DYK it isn't to do with proofreading. It is to do with metrics of some nature (either on-wiki or off-wiki metrics). Anyone with any doubt on that has only to look at Hawkeye7's user page, here [16] and look at the lines of stars, crosses and question marks on display (over a whole page of them!).
      Those are not all there in the name of proofreading. Axad12 (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      JSS: that's not completely fair to Hawkeye7's statement, which indicated the desire both for getting another pair of eyes and correcting errors. I definitely use the various DYK, GA, FA processes for that as well, as a second reader may spot small issues with neutrality if there are any. And even editors with a strong grasp of writing make occasional mistakes, which is compatible with the AP perm. Axad12, are you referring to the press pass as a free ticket? I don't think that's how it works, as you'd still need to buy tickets to an event even with a press pass? Possibly the id card as a visa means that some money was saved there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is some background in relation to paid editing in relation to LauraHale, paralympics articles and Hawkeye7.

    Prior to the 2011-2 Australian Paralympics project, LauraHale (contributions history: [17]) was a 2-year WP:SPA in relation to the subject of netball and made thousands of edits on that subject, creating many rather obscure articles (Netball in Vanuatu, etc).

    Then in mid 2011 her netball-related activity stopped and she became an SPA in relation to Australian Paralympians, an activity for which it has already been established above that at least from 2011-2 she was paid $100 per hour.

    Hawkeye7 has said that they collaborated very closely with LauraHale on the 2011-2 Paralympics work, but rather implausibly denies having received any payment, despite the fact that Hawkeye7 was sanctioned for abuse of admin tools around that time in relation to LauraHale, a user to whom Hawkeye7 had some form of established conflict of interest according to ArbCom.

    Fast forward to 2018 and the details of a further Paralympics Australia project from 2015 onwards can be found in a post here [18]. The project’s aims and activity continue those of the 2011-2 project. LauraHale and Hawkeye7 continued to produce large numbers of Australian Paralympian articles during the 2015-8 period and LauraHale can be demonstrated to have been a member of the project. Hawkeye7 cannot be demonstrated to have been a member of the project but their output of articles in that topic area strongly suggests that they were involved. It is clearly plausible that this was also paid activity of some kind.

    LauraHale's activity on Wikipedia ended in mid 2019. Hawkeye7 continues to be associated with Paralympics Australia and continues to create and edit articles in that subject area. It seems to me that it is highly implausible that Hawkeye7 was not remunerated in some way for the work in 2011-2 and plausible that payment for such work may have continued over much of the last 12 years. Axad12 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like you have no evidence for the paid editing accusations. Do you think it's appropriate to make these kinds of WP:ASPERSIONs? Wouldn't it make more sense and also create less friction to stick to COI accusations? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, when it comes to COI/UPE we do not require outright proof, and indeed it is virtually never produced in such discussions. Demanding outright proof of COI/UPE activity would generally speaking be unreasonable (as inevitably it would require some degree of outing). Similarly, consistent denials by a COI/UPE user are irrelevant as they are commonly encountered from COI/UPE users (see, for example, three different threads lower down on this noticeboard). The issue is thus simply whether there is a plausible pattern of COI/UPE activity, which in this case clearly there is over an extended period of time.
    User A was being paid $100 per hour to create new articles. User B was working in collaboration with User A and was actually doing half of the work. Clearly it is virtually impossible that User A was not reimbursing User B in some way, as User A’s $100 per hour was dependent to some degree on User B edit[ing the articles] into a readable and usable form. That is all the more the case when Arbcom had previously determined that there was some kind of off-wiki contact between these users. The same pattern of editing then continues for some years. Sorry, but that is enough information for there to be serious concerns than User B was a paid editor.
    Also, I do not consider discussing the plausibility of UPE in the context of a COIN discussion to be casting aspersions. That sort of discussion is the purpose of this noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that LauraHale would pay me a brass razoo is beyond incredible; it is completely fantastic. Never happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it is the notion that you were not compensated in some way which stretches credibility.
    I think it would be useful if you were to clarify the nature of the conflict of interest between yourself and LauraHale. Evidently it relates to something off-wiki, as pretty much all CoI inevitably must.
    Earlier that year you had abused admin tools in some way in her favour, which was highly inappropriate (putting it mildly). That was evidently an extreme course of action which would not have been undertaken on the basis of a passing acquaintance.
    Whatever the nature of the relationship which led you to abuse those tools, it was evidently a type of relationship in which it would have been entirely natural if, later that year, one party was to have compensated the other for work undertaken on their behalf, especially if the other party was being well-remunerated for her part in that work. Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this years old LauraHale stuff have to do with Alison Creagh? Is it possible we are off topic? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It relates to the length of time that the user may have been involved in UPE. The topic of this thread is COI in relation to Hawkeye7, so that is entirely on topic.
    If a thread is started about COI in relation to one user and one article, it is absolutely standard practice for any further COI-related information to be introduced and discussed so that the scale of any issues can be established.
    Similar practice is found on, say, ANI. Axad12 (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    J1477 (talk · contribs)

    [edit]
    J1477 was blocked; no further action needed. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I really didn’t want to bring this up at COI/N if the editor would just honestly acknowledge their COI, but they’ve refused to do so and continue to deny it, when asked repeatedly. And their denial doesn’t make any sense to me, so I’m filing this complaint for the record. They repeatedly created BLPs for Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin. Rafey Kazi is the CEO of the U.S.-based firm COBAIT, and as per her linkedin profile, Laura is a Digital Marketing Strategist there. They also created a bio for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who is Laura’s father, according to her own website. As per linkedin profile, Laura previously worked for Dnet, and J1477 created a page for Dnet (A Social Enterprise) that was later deleted. She also worked for BRAC, and similarly J1477 created Targeting Ultra Poor Program - The Graduation Approach, an article related to BRAC which tagged as advertisement since April 2023. And given Laura also worked for IBCS-PRIMAX Software (Bangladesh) Limited, one should also take a look at this. So overall, this editor has been trying to promote Laura or the organizations she is or was connected to since they joined Wikipedia. They previously uploaded several images related to InfoLady, an NGO run by Laura.
    My aim isn’t necessarily to get J1477 blocked, but I’d like an admin to intervene and address the situation, as our efforts seem to be in vain. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to Saqib’s Comment:
    1. "I really didn’t want to bring this up at COI/N if the editor would just honestly acknowledge their COI, but they’ve refused to do so and continue to deny it when asked repeatedly." I regret not addressing this directly earlier. My initial reluctance to acknowledge a conflict of interest (COI) stemmed from my belief that my contributions were made in good faith, without the intention of promoting anyone that I am related to or anyone paying me. However, I now realize that the connections between the subjects I’ve written about do give the appearance of a COI. For that, I apologize, and I am now willing to admit to having a COI due to the connections between the individuals I wrote about.
    2. "They repeatedly created BLPs for Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin. Rafey Kazi is the CEO of the U.S.-based firm COBAIT, and as per her LinkedIn profile, Laura is a Digital Marketing Strategist there." The articles on Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin emerged from my initial interest in Mohiuddin Ahmed. He indeed is a notable figure due to his historical significance as a freedom fighter during Bangladesh’s war of independence. While researching Mohiuddin Ahmed, I came across Laura Mohiuddin, who is his daughter and worked in social entrepreneurship. I found her involvement with Infolady and IT fascinating, and as I followed her career, I came across Rafey Kazi, leading to an article on him. One thing led to another, and that is how I became involved with these related subjects.
    3. "They also created a bio for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who is Laura’s father, according to her own website." Yes, I began by writing the article on Mohiuddin Ahmed because of his importance as a freedom fighter and diplomat. His contributions to Bangladesh’s history are significant, and I believed he deserved recognition on Wikipedia. My intention was to document his notable achievements, not to promote personal connections.
    4. "As per her LinkedIn profile, Laura previously worked for Dnet, and J1477 created a page for Dnet (A Social Enterprise) that was later deleted." My interest in Dnet came from learning about Laura Mohiuddin’s work in social entrepreneurship and her involvement with Dnet. I found her contributions to this organization noteworthy and believed that both Laura Mohiuddin and Dnet were worth documenting. While the article on Dnet was deleted, I created it with the belief that it met Wikipedia’s notability standards. You may want to research Dnet's award winning programs.
    5. "She also worked for BRAC, and similarly J1477 created Targeting Ultra Poor Program - The Graduation Approach, an article related to BRAC which tagged as advertisement since April 2023." I wrote the article on the Targeting Ultra Poor Program because it is an award-winning program, and I found the initiative to be an impactful part of BRAC’s work. While I understand that the article has been tagged as promotional, my intent was to present the Graduation Approach in a neutral manner.
    6. "My aim isn’t necessarily to get J1477 blocked, but I’d like an admin to intervene and address the situation, as our efforts seem to be in vain." I appreciate that your aim is not to have me blocked, and I acknowledge that the connections between the subjects I’ve written about do make it appear as though there is a conflict of interest. While I initially didn’t believe there was a COI, I now understand that my editing patterns—writing about people connected through family or professional associations—may give that impression.
    My Clarification:
    I have written articles on Bangladeshi personalities and organizations outside of those connected to Laura Mohiuddin. For example, I contributed an article on BASIS (Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services), which was eventually deleted and later recreated by another user, suggesting it was indeed notable. Additionally, I have written articles that have since been deleted or are no longer showing up, likely because they were created long before 2017.
    However, since the connections and links between these individuals and organizations are raising concerns and the perception of a COI is growing, I feel that I have no other choice but to admit to a COI. I recognize that my failure to acknowledge this earlier has caused frustration, and for that, I apologize.
    Moving forward, I will no longer edit articles where I may seem to have a COI. I remain committed to contributing positively to Wikipedia and am happy to work with the community to ensure the articles I’ve worked on meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and notability. J1477 (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    J1477, First, I kindly ask that you refrain from posting such long statements, repeatedly. Second, your response wasn’t very helpful; while you now admit there’s a COI but you’re still not being transparent and honest about it. I want to clarify that having a COI isn’t forbidden as long as you are transparent about it. You still have the opportunity to honestly declare your COI. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief note to say that I find the user's explanation above entirely unconvincing. If what they are saying is true then they would actually have no COI (being interested in a subject is not a COI), and all they have admitted is that their editing pattern could give rise to the perception of a COI.
    However, it seems perfectly obvious that they have a very real COI which they refuse to declare.
    As Saqib said above, this editor has been trying to promote Laura, people close to Laura, or companies related to Laura, for years. The only reasonable conclusions are that it is undeclared paid editing or the subject editing about themselves and those close to them. Axad12 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Time line of events:
    2012: AfC declined for user's article on IBCS-Primax Software [19]
    2015: Speedy deletion of user's articles on Dnet [20], Infolady Social Entrepreneurship programme [21], Aponjon [22] and Bangladesh Association of Software [23]
    Dec 2020: User created article on Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat), father of Laura Mohiuddin. Article is currently nominated for deletion here [24]
    User page deleted as unambiguous advertising and using userpage as a webhost [25].
    March 2021 Speedy deletion of user's article on Rafey Kazi as unambiguous advertising. [26]
    Nov 2021: AfD deletion of user's article on Laura Mohiuddin on notability grounds. [27]
    Userpage subsequently deleted again under U5 (i.e. not a webhost), presumably for hosting the same material?
    Feb 2022: Speedy deletion of Laura Mohiuddin under G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) [28]. User's comments include I demand that the page be restored and This is absurd, ridiculous and disrespectful! […] Are you allowing racism come into play here?.
    User then recreates the article again the following day, deleted again under G4.[29]
    User is asked what their relationship is to Laura Mohiuddin, no response. [30]
    Userpage again deleted under criteria U5, presumably for once again hosting the same material.[31]
    April 2022: Speedy deletion of Over 50s Cricket World Cup (presumably there is some relation to Rafey Kazi) [32]
    October 2022: Edits reverted and warned for adding links to Cobait.com (where Kazi and Mohiuddin work) [33]
    October 2024: Current activity re: the recreated article for Rafey Kazi being nominated for AfD, various denials of COI, as per comments and links above.
    I should note that this isn't the entirety of the user's activity on Wikipedia, but it is the majority of it. Of the other material, it is entirely plausible that some form of as yet undetected COI also exists. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, shows no sign of admitting their obvious COIs, and more worryingly seems to believe that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. The behaviour above is clearly endemic and will surely continue until the user is prevented from promoting themselves and other people and companies that they have links to. Axad12 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I mention that they repeatedly created an article on Infolady Social Entrepreneurship Programme, which is a charity run by Laura per this. @Axad12: you've got an e-mail! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disclosing stock investment?

    [edit]

    This is a general question, not about a specific user or article. WP:PE mentions "being an … investor" as an example of a financial COI. Does this mean that people who own small stakes (well under 1%) of publicly traded companies need to disclose their holdings on their talk page? I haven’t seen this discussed on this noticeboard before, and I tend to avoid writing about companies in which I own any stock, but I am not sure if small stock holdings are considered a COI. White 720 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuzzy line. I think even a 0.1% stake in a publicly traded company would be enough to keep most of us awake at night worrying about fluctuations in the share price, unless it's also less than 0.1% of your personal assets. Would your assertion that your small holding was not a COI pass the MANDY test? Safer to use the WP:ERW to keep the article's integrity intact, and your own integrity too. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, thanks for your response. For certain megacap companies, a 0.1% stake would be worth over $1 billion; a more realistic stake for an individual investor would be closer to 0.000001%. White 720 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to remember Dennis Brown encountered this a while back. No idea what, if any, result emerged. SerialNumber54129 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was some split in the community on this, and there is no clear consensus, although one or two admin will go rogue and try to block anyone they can in these cases. I personally am not going to divulge my stock holdings, regardless of size, out of principle. My edits can be examined by anyone and are clearly not for financial gain, so it isn't anyone's business. Common sense says that if you own a substantial amount of a stock (my personal opinion means it is ~10% of your net worth, or you get ~10% of your income from it) then there is a clear COI, and should act as you would with any COI. It isn't about the dollar amount, the COI is about the influence it might have on your editing. If you do edit solely to benefit yourself, expect to get blocked; it doesn't matter how much you own. We can't verify your holdings, we can only judge your edits and most people have enough common sense to know a COI when they see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio

    [edit]

    A new editor has made three quality edited connected articles: Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio, and constantly removes all UPE/COI tags from them. I strongly suspect that this editor is connected with these subjects and they are all promotional to the work of Mark Kotter. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Damjana12 (talk · contribs) has created a total of three articles here, all related to Mark Kotter, which strongly suggests a COI. I recommend that Damjana12 declare this COI if they haven’t already. However, based on their tp, it appears they have repeatedly refused to disclose it when asked. I also found that Damjana12 has reversed the draftification of these articles to bypass the AFC route and has consistently removed the COI/UPE tags, which they should refrain from doing in the future. I’m sure that it’s not Mark himself writing these articles, but likely someone connected to him, such as an employee or a paid editor. For example, this Babraham Institute based IP 193.34.186.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently edited the bios for both Mark and Bit.bio and given Bit.bio is also headquartered at the Babraham Institute, it wouldn’t be surprising if Damjana12 is an employee from Bit.bio. Just my 2cents! Anyway, we’ll get to the bottom of this soon! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Saqib. I saw this partolling a while back and tagged it. I suspect that the skill-level of the editing strongly hints to a UPE (i.e. beyond the editing level of an employee trying to get their company on WP). thanks again for your attention. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aszx5000, You might be right but the reason I mentioned it could be an employee of Bit.bio is that Damjana12 also created an article Spondyloarthritis (SpA) (redirected) that a typical paid editor usually wouldn’t be able to create because they aren't not an expert on the topic. You see my point, right? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, but when you patrol a lot of B-rated articles, you come across the tradecraft of advanced UPEs (i.e. who make very high quality articles), and one of their actions is to take a make a cut-out of an existing Wikipedia unrelated technical article (or import one from another WP-language) which they do in a single edit to create a more diverse editing history. Regardless, all things are possible and I have - unfortunately - seen all permutations :) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The UPE has returned and removed all COI tags (again, for the third time now). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User just needs to be blocked surely? Axad12 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to say that off-wiki evidence indicates very clearly that the user has an obvious conflict of interest in relation to these subjects.
    Therefore it is reasonable to assume that talkpage statements such as the following are false:
    I chose to create the page on Mark after I watched this series on BBC where he is performing the operation
    I have not receive any payment for creating pages
    I have not made money by making any of my contributions on Wikipedia
    The user may not have been specifically paid for their edits, but they are certainly an undisclosed paid editor with a strong conflict of interest in relation to bit.bio and Mark Kotter.
    It never ceases to amaze me that users don't just admit their conflict of interest, make the relevant disclosure and follow the COI edit process, rather than making constant misrepresentations, wasting volunteers' time and taking themselves to the brink of an indefinite block. This is all the more the case when they provide details that make the reality clear in about 5 seconds to anyone wanting to investigate further. Axad12 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Amberton University‎

    [edit]
    BLOCKED
    WatsonCrafted was blocked. No further action required! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WatsonCrafted has disclosed in an edit that they work for Amberton University‎. They were then warned that they need to abide by our conflict-of-interest policies and expectations, including WP:PAID. Today, they added a tremendous amount of detailed, unsourced, and promotional material to their employer's article. Unless they can communicate to us that they understand our policies and assure us that they will begin abiding by them, I'm afraid that a stronger warning and perhaps a block of some kind may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ElKevbo, First, please replace the username Kovcszaln6 with WatsonCrafted (talk · contribs). You mentioned the wrong editor. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I want to clarify that I do not work for Amberton University, nor am I being paid for my contributions. I'm just a local resident who was doing some research on various colleges and noticed that Amberton's page seemed quite bare in comparison. I thought I could help by adding more information based on what I found publicly available.
    I understand Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policies and certainly didn’t mean to come across as promotional. I apologize if any of the content seemed that way—I will review it carefully to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. I’m happy to make corrections or remove anything that doesn’t meet the standards.
    Thanks again, and I appreciate your guidance! WatsonCrafted (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WatsonCrafted, Thanks for responding! You mentioned that you don’t work for this university, but why does your edit says otherwise?

    Also, I don’t think every COI editor needs to be reported immediately. In this case, WatsonCrafted just started editing the university page today and I haven’t seen any discussion or correspondence on their tp or the university's tp, which should happen first before considering a report here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have overlooked the large warning at the very top of their User Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The material was so promotional, and written to directly address the reader as 'you', that I felt there must surely be some copyvio in there (although Google suggests not). It looks to me like very obvious advertising copy and not something that a passer by would just come up with.
    I was wondering why the user would have stated that they worked for the school and then said that they didn't work for the school. Surprisingly it turns out that "Watson Crafted" is the name of a marketing and communications company located not a million miles from the university.
    So that explains that then... Axad12 (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked indefinitely by Cabayi for advertising, promotion and username violation. Axad12 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Akif Tanzeel and Punjab Colleges

    [edit]

    Akif Tanzeel (talk · contribs) has been on WP since 2012 and focuses on editing articles related to Punjab Colleges such as University of Central Punjab, Mian Amer Mahmood, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah University. They have declared COI on their user page that they are an employee of Punjab Colleges. But recently, they have been attempting to whitewash and censor well-sourced critical information from the Punjab Colleges article which is WP:DE. I don’t think they will stop removing it, so I suggest they should be blocked. Clearly WP:NOTHERE! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have page-blocked Akif Tanzeel indefinitely from Punjab Colleges. Saqib, I have removed the part of your post above that was outing. Thank you for reporting, but please be careful not to publish information that the user has not themselves provided on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    PCHS-NJROTC

    [edit]

    I am self-reporting based on a threat by User:Horse Eye's Back to report this edit. I am alumnus of Liberty University (as stated on my user page) and acknowledge the possibility of bias. That said, I am not a paid employee if Liberty University or even a current student or applicant to the university. He also has opined about my username (I already have submitted a request to change it as I wanted to do that anyway; I think my username may have been grandfathered from a time when the rules were not as strict, but that's neither here nor there as I am changing it) and editing of my alma mater high school's article, which to date has not generated any concern by any other member of the community (even the trolls haven't complained about that!). I wish no misdeed to the other user, but I think the (s)he has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COIEDIT, however I desire an independent opinion to settle this matter and be done with it. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 18:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be unnecessarily aggressive and is what I wanted to avoid by going to you directly about the issue (and I'm glad that I got through to you on your username being a clear bright line violation these days). So be it though, I will be reviewing your copious edits to Liberty University, Port Charlotte High School, etc (I have not yet done a comb through your edit history, I've just seen what is clearly and obviously in front of my face). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COI is pretty open-ended, but I don't think being a graduate makes someone have a COI, unless they actually work for the school. However, you still need to be neutral in your edits. I have not read through them, so I am not providing an opinion on that. TFD (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. I strive to be neutral with all edits, and fully disclose anything that might be a COI. I have been contributing to the Port Charlotte High School article since 2008 and it was assessed as a good article as a result of my improvements, something that would not have happened if my contributions to the article were outside of policy. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sort of ancient history is why I wanted to avoid digging, I understand that it may have been different in 2008 but today an account named PCHS-NJROTC controlled by an active member of the PCHS-NJROTC making promotional edits to Port Charlotte High School especially concerning its NJROTC wouldn't be kosher. I don't think you should be sanctioned over ancient history though, thats just silly. You don't ever seem to have stopped making those edits though, this one here is from 4 January 2024 [34] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Replacing the award trophies image (that I had uploaded and lated removed but someone else readded) with an illustration demonstrating something in action is hardly promotional. I would say, if anything, the trophies were promotional, that's why I had taken it out of the article. We could take COI to the point of ridiculousness and say that no one American can edit the United States article for example, but no one in their right mind is going to get behind that idea. Years ago I was probably a little less neutral, but I was also a minor with a lot less experience with the encyclopedia, and somehow still a reviewer felt that my contributions were worthy of good article status. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that your most recent edit was not promotional because it removed promotional content which you added? I'm having a hard time following this (largely why I didn't want to open something here yet) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't intend to do it, you should not have threatened to do it, period. Threatening to escalate something you have no intentions of escalating is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I was trying very nicely, from personal experience on this encyclopedia, that you were out of line and I was taking your commentary abrasively, but you didn't listen. So now we are here. It's okay, I have thick skin (you have to in order to work with middle schoolers). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seems to represent my comment which was "The edit you made at Liberty University[35] I might actually bring to COIN, it seems like you added undue background which skews the paragraph in the University's favor. That is exactly the sort of edit that we don't want to be made." and you do not have a thick skin[36]. You are apparently extremely quick to anger and overreaction, which is why you blasted me on my talk page and opened this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have never seen me angry. Maybe just slightly annoyed, but not angry. If I was angry I would step away from the computer to prevent myself from saying something I would later regret. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I appreciate your restraint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Drop the username argument, please. WP:USERNAME#Exceptions indicates that there's nothing particularly wrong with the use of the old username, and it's been changed anyway. As far as COI goes, it's pretty well established that attending a school, or being a rank-and-file member of an organization, does not bring up COI issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we are on this topic, I have never worked for Charlotte County Public Schools, however I do work for Sarasota County Schools, though not in any capacity that would amount to paid editing if I edit an article about one of our schools (I don't work in public relations or administration). I am curious if there would be any issue in creating an article about North Port High, something I kind of started work on years ago in my user space before I was an employee. One of the things I intend to include in the article is a scandal that received significant attention (which should help bring the school to meet GNG), so I can't see how the contribution could be seen as promotional in any way. I had intended to do this under WP:BOLD because I can't see any policy violation with this, since I'm already at COIN I'm interested in the community's opinion. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COIEDIT says "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Politely, I am not asking you, I am asking people more experience than either one of us. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am less experienced than either of you, but I concur with Horse Eye's Back. It is a simple matter of published policy and any editor with even a passing knowledge of COI issues would offer the same advice. Axad12 (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not true that your edits to your alma matter have "not generated any concern by any other member of the community" as this edit [37] was reverted and then you whittled it down to this [38] when challenged on the talk page you responded "Good job updating that. I think they literally restarted that right after I wrote the section, likely to avoid being seen as anti-LGBT. (I kinda wish I wouldn't have written the section... Although I never laughed at any of them as that would be mean, I was one of the students that was against the club, and that position hasn't changed. But just so this doesn't go into an off-topic mess as to why, I don't hate anybody, I'm not afraid of anybody, and I certainly do NOT advocate being cruel to anybody. I'm part of the religious right (specifically, I am an Independent Baptist), a group misunderstood by much of the outside world, increasingly so thanks to idiotic groups like Westboro)."[39] which while commendable for its openness seems to open a whole can of worms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to have been followed with more "By the way, I know this is off-topic but I'm almost certain Fred Phelps is in hell, and those losers have no business calling themselves "baptist." People may believe what they wish, but I believe he is there alongside Hitler and a lot of Ku Klux Klan members, miserably burning for eternity." At Independent Baptist PCHS scrubbed controversial content[40] and then bludgeoned the resulting talk page discussion Talk:Independent Baptist#WP:3O request: WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK issue on sex scandals Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am not understanding is why you are continuing to beat the WP:DEADHORSE (no pun intended) when two people have already said there appears to be no COI. I think you are confusing COI and bias. Everybody has bias, and people are unlikely to contribute to articles (other than to revert vandalism) about subjects they have no opinions on. Also, "strongly discouraged" =/= "don't do it or we will block you," so even if I were a paid editor, for example, it wouldn't be an actionable offense in itself as long as I complied with the required disclosures per WP:PAID. It would just be a really bad idea (I've been offered money twice to edit articles about subjects other than those in question here, I declined it both times). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this your church that you added three pictures[41][42][43] and then a sermon [44] from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It used to be, so? I've never been a paid member of staff there, it just seemed like something relevant to the article and an improvement of the encyclopedia. The images have since been replaced with better quality ones, and that's okay. If any of that was some flavor of promotion, I'm horrible at it because no one ever showed up at that tiny little church saying "hey, I'm here because I saw a picture of your church on Wikipedia." Sometimes in life I see things that I think would be useful to the Wikimedia Commons (and sometimes Wikipedia) and I take pictures. Sometimes I have an association with it, sometimes I don't. I took a picture of Venice High School long before I was a district employee, for example. I took a picture of a Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services inspector at a gas pump in another example. As a Wikipedian, I have seen where COI has truly been a problem. I've seen violations of WP:ELNO for example, where people have tried to promote companies and organizations (somebody from RationalWiki's Board of Directors was doing that). That's the kind of stuff you need to watch for if you want to be a benefit to the encyclopedia. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you do not feel that promoting your pastor is a COI concern? I just don't see how the pictures or the sermon are due there, they seem to be there because of their relationship with you not their importance to the topic at hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am saying is I don't understand how it is promotional. It was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons (and then subsequently added to the Independent Baptist article) because I thought it was of educational value, as a demonstration of Independent Baptist beliefs, not to draw followers or anything of the like. Do you see any kind of a URL that says "hey, follow us for more awesome stuff like this!"? That's what promotion looks like. I had rights to the video because I helped (with no pay or anything) with some of the computer stuff, and there was no formal agreement over copyrights or the like and the pastor was okay with me uploading it to Wikimedia and releasing under a copyleft license. If I wanted to promote the church on the Commons or Wikipedia, I would have uploaded every sermon I helped with, that particular one I thought was useful. Now I will ask, do you think every image uploaded to the Commons or to Wikipedia are uploaded by people with no connection at all (paid or unpaid) to the subject? All I can say is I am not using Wikipedia to promote anything, and no one else is taking your side on this so I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is clearly using wikipedia to promote your church/pastor... It given them coverage, visability, and authority that otherwise would not be theirs, that is promotion... And when you do it for your associated organizations, friends, or acquaintances thats a COI issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)I am backing away from this discussion per WP:BLUDGEON. If someone else has any questions for me, I will respond, but we're not continuing this endless back and forth. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I agree with Horse Eye's Back. Just because something is not an overt form of promotion (equivalent, say, to an advert) doesn't mean that it isn't promotion. COI editors will sometimes try to change (or remove) just a single word in an article, and sometimes that can be promotion.
    Promotion is a subtle art, as anyone working in PR would tell you. Ditto for anyone who deals with handling COI edit requests on Wikipedia (where at least 20% of requests are solely promotional and a much higher proportion are promotional in intent to some degree).
    If the bar for promotion where where you have placed it, this encyclopaedia would be completely discredited as an adman's paradise.
    I'd also advise you against wikilawyering on the exact meaning of 'strongly discouraged'. 'Strongly discouraged' should be interpreted something along the lines of as follows: 'In most cases, other than very basic minor factual edits, COI editors should not edit articles directly. And if they do, non-conflicted editors are at liberty to revert all such edits on sight - which should certainly leave the COI editor feeling strongly discouraged'. Axad12 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1252029344"