Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:David Adjaye Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:EMarketer Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Masdar Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:Overseas Development Institute Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Poster House Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Quarter Pounder Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Diana Senechal Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Versapay Talk:Romesh Wadhwani Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Wheely Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

Hundreds of RNA motif pages

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.

---

• Drum RNA motif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• over 200 other pages (all created by user)
• Zashaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif it was noticed that there are many similar articles created by the same user. The user provides enough information on their user page to confirm that they are part of the group that published the article that is the sole reference. The user's contributions to this (and the other pages I'm about to mention) were long enough ago that it is not an issue of continued user behavior, but rather a big cleanup problem.

Turns out there are over 200 pages with a title that includes RNA motif that were created by this user and rely solely on several research papers published by this group. All the pages that rely on a single paper present the issue in WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that there isn't confirmation that the finding is confirmed or significant, so all the pages at the least need review to see whether they should be deleted, and perhaps should all be presumptively deleted.

However, none of the participants in the discussion up to now (including myself) have enough expertise in the field to ask for all the pages to be deleted without review. Someone who is conversant in the field may be able to confirm my suspicion that these 200+ pages represent findings from an individual lab and are either not significant or WP:TOOSOON without confirmatory work by other investigators.

In short, I'm looking for help in sorting this all out.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 04:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this discussion on my talk page, rsjaffe. As I understand it, you have two related concerns. First, these RNA motifs appear to be based only on primary literature, and not secondary literature. Secondly, they indeed derive from my own research, and so there appears to be a conflict of interest in my writing Wikipedia articles on them.

What is perhaps not made sufficiently clear in these articles is that the relevant RNAs were included in the Rfam Database. Rfam (see the citations in the Wikipedia article) is a database of different types of RNAs with a conserved structure, and its content undergoes significant curation by expert bioinformaticians, both in deciding which RNAs merit inclusion and what data about those RNAs to provide. It also provides data necessary for further scientific analysis of the RNAs.

With regard to the apparent lack of secondary source: The Rfam Database seems to me to qualify as a secondary source, since it is essentially a hand-curated encyclopedia of structured RNAs that meet Rfam's criteria (as I understand it, essentially that there is evidence of biologically relevant structure and function and that the data are meaningful). Therefore, I believe these Wikipedia pages are supported by a secondary source. You can confirm their inclusion in Rfam for yourself by looking for Rfam's information box in the relevant pages, introduced with the {{Infobox rfam ...}} tag in the markup. All data in this info box comes from the Rfam database. Beside the term "Rfam" is the accession for the given RNA and a link to its entry in Rfam. For example, on the Drum RNA motif page, you can click on the accession RF02958 (lower, right part of the page). Such links should be provided for all RNA articles I have added to Wikipedia.

With regard to the apparent conflict of interest: The Rfam Database is maintained by a group at the European Bioinformatics Institute and this group was previously located at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. I have never had any affliation with either of these institutions, nor do I have any power to make Rfam incorporate specific RNAs into their database. Indeed some of the RNAs I have published were not included in the Rfam Database, and these RNAs do not have corresponding Wikipedia articles. Thus, I did not really decide to put these RNAs into Wikipedia, rather the Rfam group did. I just did the work to create the Wikipedia article in many cases.

In terms of resolving this issue, perhaps it would be helpful to have an "External links" section in the affected articles that explicitly links to Rfam, although I'm not sure how to practically do this with hundreds of articles.

I have alerted the Rfam team to this page, in case they want to weigh in. I will also link to my text here from the Articles for Deletion entry for the Drum RNA motif page, since I see that the same issues are being discussed there.

Zashaw (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are methods to edit large numbers of articles to emplace similar edits, so that’s not an impossible task if that would resolve the issue with lack of secondary references. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment As the current head of Rfam, I would like to voice my support for keeping the articles authored by Zasha Weinberg (Zashaw). These articles accompany the entries in the Rfam database of RNA families that capture the data reported in the scientific literature and create computational models to enable identification of these RNAs in any sequence. Rfam staff include trained bioinformaticians and RNA biologists who carefully review all entries and provide additional verification that these RNAs are important (Rfam is not affiliated with Zasha Weinberg or his institution). For example, a Wikipedia article about the Drum RNA is part of the Rfam entry RF02958 and includes an infobox showing metadata from Rfam. Many RNAs discovered by Zasha Weinberg have been later shown to serve important functions, so it is important to have Wikipedia entries that describe what these RNAs are. Having scientists like Zasha Weinberg provide starting points for Wikipedia entries about different RNAs is valuable because these pages are then edited and expanded by the community. In fact, Rfam pioneered the integration with Wikipedia over a decade ago (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3013711/), and we found that connecting the scientists and the community through Wikipedia has been very successful. Antonipetrov (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a significant COI issue here. Yes, Zashaw could mention Rfam on their userpage to be clearer that there's a connection to it, but the actual work they're doing isn't particularly affected by their professional connection to the topic (and the self-cite is probably reasonable in this instance given the topic. The discussion of notability of the articles is a separate (and much broader) issue, so I'll add more at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Drum_RNA_motif which I think is the main location for that discussion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As someone involved in the beginning of rfam/pfam, I would also like to voice my strong support for keeping these articles! Magnus Manske (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Help wanted We're continuing to discuss whether Drum RNA motif should be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif, and I suspect the outcome of the discussion there should inform what happens here next. I came to the COI notice board for help, as I realized that we needed a lot more scrutiny of this issue, as it affects hundreds of pages, and this noticeboard seemed to be the most relevant (though not a perfect fit to the issue at hand). I invite administrators and other knowledgeable people to review the deletion discussion and weigh in if appropriate. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Magnus Manske: Any chance you could take a look at this, having been involved in the early bioinformatics integrations? It's pretty clear that these articles don't meet our current notability standards and to me, the solution could be that there is an Rfam wiki where reseachers such as Zashaw can write about them, and then if they then become notable, we can copy from that wiki to here in the future. If a Wikipedia article existed, then that would take priority over the Rfam wiki i.e. there would only ever be one version of an article. Is this something that might be feasible for you Antonipetrov? I admittedly have no experience in WP:TRANSWIKI but I am sure someone does. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I am afraid that I do not agree with the point that these articles do not meet the notability standards. These entries describe RNA genes that are found in many different organisms, including human pathogens. Even if we do not yet know all of their functions, these RNA have evolved over a long time and do play important roles that will eventually be revealed. The Rfam team works on a wide range of RNAs, including viral RNAs and RNA motifs found in Coronaviruses. Several years ago one could have argued that those entries and the corresponding Wiki articles were not important enough, which would have been misguided as recently these RNAs turned out to be rather notable. Many of the pages that are being discussed here have been improved over the years by Wikipedians who are not necessarily scientists but who wanted to contribute to a valuable resource. Relegating this important information to a separate wiki would create a barrier between the public and the scientific endeavour. Antonipetrov (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Antonipetrov: They unequivocally do not meet the general notability guideline at present if they are only discussed in a single publication and that is the only yardstick of notability relevant here. From a random selection of pages created by Zashaw, I can't see anything to support "Many of the pages that are being discussed here have been improved over the years by Wikipedians": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
      • @Smartse: The first example that immediately comes to mind is Fluoride riboswitch. The page was started as crcB RNA motif and many years later this RNA was shown to act as fluoride riboswitch. I can look up other examples like this if it helps. I do appreciate the need to weed out irrelevant articles that do not serve any purpose except to promote the author(s). Zashaw's case could not be further from this - if anything, it is a great example of collaboration and open science. Rfam database serves as a second publication supporting these pages because we publish bi-annual updates in the Nucleic Acids Research (since 2002!) and we could have easily included a table listing all of these RNAs and new information discovered about them by our team at Rfam. We did not do it because it would be redundant with Rfam itself and it never occurred to us that the notability of this work would be questioned but we could have satisfied the formal criteria with ease. Antonipetrov (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
        • @Antonipetrov: Thanks for the example. When it was created that article had only a single journal article reference like most of the articles under discussion and assuming that was all that existed, did not meet GNG. When this and the corresponding article in Science was published, it became notable. Now there are hundreds of articles mentioning it. Wikipedia isn't into cataloging things which might become notable at some point in the future - if it did then every person and business would merit an article as they might one day become Bill Gates / Google etc. Personally I don't see that COI is much of an issue here, as you are all clearly trying to benefit the project rather than yourselves, but that doesn't change the fact that this content doesn't belong here. SmartSE (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
          • @Smartse: I am afraid that I do not agree with the analogies between RNA genes and people, movies, or other items that may or may not become notable. The genes - be it RNA or protein - exist in the living beings around us. They are notable regardless of the number of scientific papers about them. Importantly, we are not talking about every single gene - we are talking about a high-quality, manually curated subset of RNA genes that have been discovered by Zashaw and then manually reviewed by me (Antonipetrov), my team, or our predecessors at Rfam, who are all trained biologists. Our review is not superficial. We perform a lot of quality control steps and analyses, and in some cases we change the data submitted to us by Zashaw. As a result we produce entries in the Rfam database that are linked to the corresponding Wikipedia entries and are represented by the Rfam infoboxes. I am not sure I understand why all this work does not qualify as a secondary source, and I continue to express my support for keeping these Wikipedia entries. Antonipetrov (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• This is notable basic biology. There seems to be some misplaced concern that there are too many articles, being added indiscriminately. I think the situation is, rather, the very rapid progress in molecular biology that makes identifying significant structures much more feasible. Most of them are being discussed further, and if we start having discussions over each of them, by the time the discussions and the likely appeals and subsidiarty dscussions are finished, there will be sources. Some areas in science move faster than AfD and other WP processes . DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Request to close this issue Discussion concluded on nomination for deletion as No consensus with recommendation to open RfC to resolve the issue.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  No need for an RfC. I do not see any issue whatsoever. Actually, this is excellent work by a number of contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Rp2006

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rp2006 has made an edit to an article that includes a reference to a source with which I believe Rp2006 has a WP:COI relationship. The content in question was initially added by an editor other than Rp2006, later removed by a second editor, and reinstated by Rp2006. I believe that Rp2006 should disclose their relationship to the source per WP:COI, but Rp2006 does not believe a disclosure is required because the edit was a revert and not adding the source in the first instance. I don't believe the fact that it was a revert relieves Rp2006's obligations under WP:COI, and that if anything, a COI is even more relevant when it comes to reinstating removed content than adding it in the first instance. Must Rp2006 disclose any COI relationship they have with an edit, if that edit is a revert? Levivich 00:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is complicated by the fact that making references to the COI Rp2006 has with certain publishers/magazines/companies is hard to do without outing, even when the COI exists, unless he comes forward and properly discloses the COI both in his user page and in relevant articles (per WP:DCOI). Note the user page is not obligatory, but it would be helpful in discussions to know how another editor might be affiliated with a subject. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is missing in this statement is the timeline. @Levivich is making it sound like this all happened within minutes of the revert. The article in question was added on Feb 7, 2019. And then about twenty changes were made to the page over the next couple years. Then an editor on November 24, 2021 decided to make massive changes to the article that would require a lot of time to go though, and much discussion on the talk page. Then on November 25, 2021 Rp2006 reverts those changes. There were over 10K characters removed from the article and reverting those changes are just a revert. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sgerbic (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The last edit is not a 10K character revert, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if it were, I don't think it matters if the COI content is reinstated on its own or as part of a larger revert (both are the situation here, as there were multiple edits). Levivich 01:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You take responsibility for any edit you make, even if it's "just a revert." Maybe if the entire topic area wasn't a minefield of connected editors adding each other as sources it wouldn't be so easy to accidentally step on a land mine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do you get that SFR (if I'm allowed to call you that) who says that "editors are adding each other as sources"? Sgerbic (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty common knowledge that members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and writers for SI use each other as sources for articles. I believe that's actually one of the actions you promote, per your own writing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is a member of CSI? I'm not clear on that, does that mean they have a magazine subscription? Sgerbic (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean something like A columnist for Skeptical Inquirer... and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry adding CSI and SI sources as cites, and training others to do the same. Can we not play this game? If enough people are doing that eventually one of them is going to revert and restore a source they wrote and cross the COI line. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. If you make an edit that in some way involves a source that you have a COI with, then you must disclose that COI. The nature of the edit is irrelevant to this, and it should not be relevant - I feel there is a bigger picture that I am missing to this discussion, so I can't comment on the details, but it isn't hard to imagine situations where someone with a COI prefers the former version of a page due to it aligning with their COI, and thus reverts to that version. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The bigger picture is a shitshow, I'll save you some life expectancy and recommend you don't get involved too much, BilledMammal. If interested, however, you can find the relevant thread in ANI under section "Outing attempt". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I you are sharing links ACS - why not give @BilledMammalBilledmammal the link to the multi-day drama on ANI that got you banned from there? Remember that nightmare where you started outing people? Oh and the thread of you trying to rile people up to work against other editors? Sgerbic (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not responding to what I see as irrelevant to the current discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is obvious at all. Here is a close analogy (as I see it) to the situation as it is CLAIMED to have happened. BTW, I think the issue is a SELFPUB one, not COI. Steven King is a WP editor. Has been for years. Has thousands of edits on all sorts of articles. His WP ID is not his name as he does not want to be outed due to harassment and stalking concerns. He has an interest in, watches and edits tons of Scary as Shit fiction pages... that's what he likes to work on (Not his own books mind you). On one page he is watching, someone(else) - he gets a notice via WP email - added one of HIS own books as a citation (in an appropriate way). Cool. But does King need to now slap a SELFPUB disclaimer on the page? I don't think anyone would say so. But years later, a newish editor (who seems to not understand COI issues) comes in and makes a mess of the page (in his opinion and other editors) by deleting what she sees as COI issues (and they do not) all over the place, including deleting the King citation. So, King reverts the edit restoring the page to its long-standing form. You are telling me King now needs to declare a SELFPUB on that page? Worse - doing so he must by definition out himself? Really? Rp2006 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have a COI you must disclose it. I am sure admins can help you by email to find a way to do so without outing yourself. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You, as usual, missed the entire point. The scenario where King must claim a SELFPUB situation in that case seems outrageous. Saying it is COI seems even nuttier. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then the other editors who thought it was a problem could have reverted, and just like that, there is no issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually other editors did revert the same set of changes, so it seemed clear consensus to not let the changes stand -- as I recall. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why not continue to allow them to revert? Clearly if there were multiple editors reverting a single editor your own edits were unnecessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about King. The point still stands. COIs must be disclosed, and the easiest way to do so is in the Talk page of articles. See Talk:Eindhoven University of Technology for an example of me disclosing my coi in an easy, straightforward way. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If an editor removes a cite to King, and King reverts that editor thereby reinstating the cite to King, then King must disclose the COI, in my view. Levivich 01:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SELFPUB may apply (though probably not to King), but unless I have misunderstood this situation, you are thinking of SELFCITE? As I understand it, SELFCITE is a form of COI.

As for King, he should note a COI if he wants to make the reversal - and if he doesn't want to mention a COI, he should leave the revert for another editor to do. This is true in general, but particularly true in this example where other editors holding Kings position exist and so it is unreasonable to expect that the edit will go unnoticed by non-COI editors. This is because correcting what are seen as mistakes by a COI editor - regardless of whether the editor is correct about them being a mistake - does and should fall under COI guidelines. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A COI is a COI. While WP:COIADVICE does have a section on unambiguous uncontroversial edits, it is very very clear that what has been going on the specific article page is controversial though I recognise that the editors involved may not be able to recognise it. Paraphrasing and expanding upon what I said earlier at ANI, if the author of the source requests an editor to read a source they have written, it is a COI. If that same editor edits that page, to include or restore that source if it is removed by another editor where that edit was made in good faith, it is a COI.

In this situation, if Rp2006 is the author of the source, they must disclose it and self revert. As it is a content dispute, Rp2006 should then recuse themself from that discussion, and allow a consensus to form between the other editors at that article's talk page. If Rp2006 is not the author of that source, then I do not understand why this issue has now spanned multiple noticeboards and user talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why the edit over which there is a COI concern is not diffed here? That edit contains a link to an article on an external website which contains a number of statements evincing an approach to Wikipedia editing that I think is problematic from a COI point of view. The external article also mentions GSoW, which is lead by Sgerbic. I think editors here should read that article, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to link it here? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure either and that's the reason why I didn't include it in the OP :-) Levivich 02:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Because of outing concerns that have essentially been Streisand'd to hell and back at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly if the relevant section in the article talk page would've been collapsed and the discussion continued this whole fiasco could've been avoided. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Well, we have a pretty heated argument very quickly. But why isn't the noticeboard informed of what article we are talking about? What is the source that generates the alleged COI? What are the diffs that demonstrate the allegations? --SVTCobra 04:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SVTCobra, affected pages are Skeptical_Inquirer and Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry (SCI) and all related pages. The article in question here is Sharon_A._Hill.

Also Sgerbic you have an even more obvious COI with respect to SCI. You also need to declare your COI for all matters related with SCI. Mvbaron (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Sgerbic and Rp2006 you both have added your own names and/or citations to your own works at the above mentioned pages. (if anyone want's the diffs, I'm happy to supply them but seeing that WP:OUTING concerns are so prominent here, I won't do it now) Regardless, this is clearly WP:COI editing and you both need to declare your COI either at your user page or the talk page. And you both should only propose edit requests for your COI pages and not make substantial edits yourself. All this discussion above is utterly pointless and a distraction at best, you have a COI and you need to declare it and you should not add content about yourself directly. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have NEVER added content about myself and am not happy that anyone glibly says I have. Sgerbic (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit appears to qualify (see "skepticism" section). Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Special:Diff/746026432. Now that I look, your group is doing a ton of COI editing. Your name appears on 64 mainspace articles [6], and I think all of them were added by you or members of your group. Huh, this is bigger than I thought. Levivich 18:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

During the enormous ANI thread a month ago this came up, written by Sgerbic, This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[7] I don't understand how this wasn't cause for immediate sanctions. Any other COI editing of this style, on this scale, would be shut down almost immediately. Imagine if it were another publication organizing off wiki to improve their exposure? After all, Wikipedia is the perfect venue! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this an issue that might need to be dealt with by arbcom? If it is hundreds of COI violations over multiple years as a modus operandi perhaps it goes above just community discussion in a noticeboard. I don't know how these things are handled, and I'd rather give the affected editors the benefit of the doubt, so I'm just asking.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom is for issues that cannot be dealt with by the community. If this ends up being ongoing, then maybe, but otherwise it is better if it is handled by other means. - Bilby (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My concern would be with avoiding outing editors who haven't disclosed their COI onwiki but have talked about their edits (or have been talked about) offwiki, like in the rp case, and do have a coi. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

After reading everything to do with this, both from the current event and the one a couple of months ago, I'm somewhat in favour of an investigation here as implied by Levivich if there's the likelihood of this circular COI editing occurring across a great many articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That is clearly unacceptable, and an unambiguous COI; they have explicitly expressed WP:NOTHERE goals (promotional activity in article writing). At the very least, they should be banned from directly using that particular source; if they want to use it, they should do it only through an edit request. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes you have (I said I had diffs): [8] and I am baffled that you say you didn't. Mvbaron (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Straight question. @Rp2006: Would you be willing to disclose whether any of your personal works are (or have been) cited in any page on which you have performed a revert over the last 30 days? I have no power to compel you to do so, and you are free to decline. JBchrch talk 00:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Can we establish who the bad guys are? Very dodgy claims of COI too. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Godwin's law strikes again. Very civil and constructive. Adding content quoting and citing yourself is pretty dodgy, but providing diffs of it and expressing concern is less so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Harold Mcmillan reference was removed so I'll just say that this looks like a Lynch mob attacking some of the very best editors on the project. Usual suspects, dear me. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Lynch mob is much more civil. We've moved from political violence to race based violence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It is slightly more civil, perhaps. But the mob should perhaps aim at tendentious or disruptive editors instead of some of our best. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I searched Wikipedia (all namespaces) for "roxy the dog" "lynch mob"; there's quite a few hits and it's some interesting reading. Levivich 15:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a strong counterpoint to diffs of a person adding content about themselves and citing their own work. I wonder if there are any policies about that type of editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's so funny SFR. Did you find any that they added directly, or only to repair the article. Did you know that I have re-added exactly the same diffs as RP. Am I a GSoW member? Do I have a potential COI? Levivich, you'd better tell your check user colleagues about a "tell" for Roxy socks. I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years, shocking. Another "tell" is that I often use the same word twice or more in any one post to a talk page. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you review the thread? There are three diffs of Sgerbic adding information about herself, as well as citing herself. The RP situation is a bit hairier because no one is sharing the obvious diffs due to outing concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic's user page would seem to meet disclosure requirements. And while I would personally agree that Sgerbic should use talk pages rather than writing about herself and/or citing herself, our policies don't actually forbid this. If you start an RFC to get that changed I would probably support, but that's not how things are right now. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

They do forbid using Wikipedia for promotion, which she has said she does. Also, I believe the articles also need to be tagged with a COI notice. It would be easier to get together a list of pages that need a COI tag if she hadn't said she'd never made such edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no requirement that articles be tagged with a COI notice - not that I'm familiar with, anyway. Please link it if I'm mistaken. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Article should be tagged with connected contributor, COI should be disclosed via edit summary, or the COI userbox listing articles they have a COI in regards to and have edited. I don't see any of those disclosures made. The articles don't have to be tagged if the COI edits are disclosed another way, but it's better for readers who will never see a user page to know that an article has been greatly edited by someone with a COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's for places where there's a COI with the topic of the article overall, for example Talk:Susan Gerbic. We typically do not hold self-citers to that standard. Given the ongoing problems we've been having with academic spam, I would probably support efforts to change that too, but the Wikipedia community seems to give much more leeway to self citation for whatever reason. - MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is not just self citing, as noted above it's adding your name to an article you already have a COI with. Or doing a massive promotional expansion [9] to an article you have a clear-cut COI with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure is required, but it is also required to abide by Wikipedia's policy, which includes not engaging in promotion. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case, per this article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our WP:COI guideline is entirely toothless, it only recommends, and strongly encourages disclosure. Anyone with a COI (who is not paid) might as well ignore it completely. Ollie and Roxy correctly hint at that above, but I wonder how much the actual consensus regarding this is. --Mvbaron (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how much the actual consensus regarding this is ← I think it depends, and editors need to step back a bit and consider the aims of Wikipedia as a whole before being too keen to don their Witchfinder General hats. If somebody with a COI comes here promoting (say) their diet pills, then obviously that is A Bad Thing that the community will have little tolerance for. But "promotion" of high-quality knowledge is not bad, and even encouraged in a project like (say) WP:COCHRANE whereby editors, and even Cochrane members are encouraged to add Cochrane Collaboration sources to Wikipedia. Granted, this is not entirely without controversy, but there seems to be a lot of black and white thinking in this thread which does not appreciate the history of how Wikipedia actually works. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, if you agree with something it's ok to organize off-wiki to promote it. Editing to draw attention to a magazine you write for, and citing yourself in it can be fine as long as it matches the house POV. Then it's acceptable to ignore the policies and guidelines. Especially if you're using it to add negative information to BLPs. That's the best. Also, we should make sure to attack any editors who express concern about the COI editing by calling them Nazis or witch hunters. That really elevates the dialog. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It is in this area of cognitive dissonance that any number of edit-a-thons, student editing assignments and WP:GLAM efforts exist. MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, one gets the feeling that if some famous gallery made images of its fine art collection publicly available, and a gallery employee had the temerity to add those images to relevant articles, some editors here would be screaming COI and going on a revert spree. Ultimately the aim for everyone is to improve and maintain Wikipedia and, with various shades of COI, sometimes that's not quite so simple as some are suggesting. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be screaming COI if that museum employee said This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. All of these shades of grey arguments fall apart when an editor says they're doing it for promotional purposes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

But you'd be okay if they weren't saying that? I was responding to the suggestion that COI needed to be an absolute rule with teeth. It ain't that simple. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If the situation were different I would have to look at the totality of the situation. Were they still people shoehorning negative information from primary sourced "stings," covered no where but the magazine they have a COI with into BLPs? Do you get still get attacked as a a supporter of Fringe for removing an obvious blpvio? The reason this is such an issue is there is a wide breadth of other issues with the editing, all tied together by the COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish this article also expands on how they go about creating pages for Skeptic organizations, whose members and leaders they meet at conferences. I wouldn't call that a COI necessarily but part of the editing philosophy we should be aware of. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, at least on editor in question did not disclose their COI (rp2006), and all of them are making substantive changes to articles about their COI-topic. Even if it's only strongly encouraged to not edit their COI-topic directly and not forbidden, this noticeboard should at least tell them to do so - otherwise we might as well get rid of the strong language in COI all-together.

And remember that this thread only exists because of a poor discussion on a poor and badly-sourced article connected to the COI topic: Sharon_A._Hill. Mvbaron (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE and the rest of WP:COI has pretty clear rules about how to do this. I don't care if it was the late Stephen Hawking citing his own work, he still would need to disclose it. There is no "high quality" exemption to COI disclosure requirements. (And everyone suggesting I'm engaged in a witch hunt, a lynch mob, or a Nazi purge, should reflect on whether they care about people misusing Wikipedia for self promotion or not.) Levivich 16:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

break

• Speaking of diffs, what do people think about a COIN subpage to collect diffs? Levivich 15:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's asking for a repeat of the outing problem that kicked this discussion off. I think the private evidence / arbcom case route is the only remedy if there is truly a problem worth addressing here. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  How can it be outing to collect diffs of Sgerbic adding content about herself to articles? She edits under her real name. Or outing to collect diffs of Rp2006 doing the same? Or the many other accounts who are obviously students doing the same? It's only outing if we link a username to a real name, which isn't necessary to evidence COI editing. For example, Rp2006 is affiliated with Gerbic and GSoW, etc., and that's evidenced by diffs and such. I don't need to write his real name on-wiki to link to his edits. Levivich 15:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• My own reaction to all this is "meh". I'm not hugely familiar with the "GSoW" content but from what I've seen of some of it, yes, there are some issues with it be overly self-regarding and self-referential. On the other hand, the one article I'm aware of which was targeted as being predicted a WP:SNOW deletion for its apparently obvious GSoW-derived problems, got an AfD which backfired spectacularly, despite the "COI sources" apparently tainting it. Probably the best way to sort this out is to raise any issue(s) at the affected articles.

Given that Wikipedia has high-profile content under attack from corporations, political movements and even Nation States it's not high on my worry list that some articles are too harsh on fraudsters or too glowing about scienists, but if Wikipedia editors do feel this is a priority I think, given the outing risks, it is an issue that the community cannot handle and they would need to work towards an arbcom case. I'm not sure further discussion here will lead anywhere good. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've never participated in an arbcom case, how can editors work together when making one? Would email discussions be a way to avoid outing on-wiki but gathering the relevant diffs+outside links? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably the best way to sort this out is to raise any issue(s) at the affected articles is not realistic because there are over 100 affected articles (based on my very quick perusal following Sgerbic's claim above to have "never" edited about herself). I'm not going to go through all of this by myself just to send an email to arbcom. Such an inquiry is better off being done collaboratively, transparently, and on-wiki. Levivich 17:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Especially when the editing has been done in this manner over many, many years and the editors are immensely defensive of their edits (and their interpretation of COI) doing it article by article would be an inordinate amount of work and time. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

So if the proposed change(s) are going to impact "hundreds" of articles that will necessarily take a lot of "work and time". Or ... what? Are you proposing to delete "obvious" problem articles like you tried with Taner Edis. Or find some way to edit content without "work and time"? This is not making much sense. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

One discussion about 100 articles would take less time than 100 discussions about individual articles. Levivich 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking in hypotheticals, if there is a widespread COI issue spanning dozens or hundreds of articles, at some point discussions on the individual article level will be required. What form those discussions will take will depend on the content of the article. In theory a lot of that can happen in parallel, one editor will not need to copy-edit all of the articles with issues. But the broadstrokes COI issues need to be resolved first before individual article level discussions are warranted.

As has been demonstrated at the Sharon A. Hill article, there is a resistance to change that may or may not be warranted. There have been oblique references to consensus building that clearly did not happen in the article's talk page, or in the article's edit history. On the ANI thread Rp2006 said A glance showed me they at least some of the long list of edits partially involved removing material due to misconstrued COI issues, which were already argued over elsewhere.) Where did that discussion occur? Because it clearly wasn't on the article's talk page. While I don't have the competency in that topic area to definitively state if there is or is not a problem in my opinion with the previously proposed edits, on a surface level it does appear concerning that the response to a detailed and clear summary of a WP:BRD change was silence, followed by status quo stonewalling. If that behaviour is replicated across multiple articles, any attempt at making progress in this issue would be next to impossible. That issue needs to be resolved first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer, I'd really like answers to two questions that came from this sorry story at ANI: (1) If you self-cite, how can you declare your conflict of interest without self-outing (given that the work you are citing inevitably contains your name); i.e. which takes precedence, COI or Outing? My personal view is that it is far better never, ever, to self-cite. (2) If you don't actually write the self-citation, but someone removes a citation to you, and you revert the removal, do you have the same COI that you'd have had if you added the citation yourself? Elemimele (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you choose to self-cite, you're essentially self outing unless you're published under a pseudonym. I agree, it's better not to self cite. If you revert a removal of your source that someone else removed, I'd say you have the same COI as adding it yourself, as you're deciding that the work should be cited over someone's objection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

1) If you chose to self-cite, then you're choosing to self-out. I don't think there's any way to separate that while maintaining a conflict of interest policy.

2) Short answer, yes. Longer answer, WP:COIADVICE applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:COIE might provide further guidance as well, Elemimele. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks, all, and especially A._C._Santacruz, that sets my mind at rest. I had been worrying that an accusation of COI could be interpreted as a deliberate outing, when basically you're saying "I think you're citing/writing-about yourself" but I'm seeing now it isn't: if the accusation is true, the person had already self-outed, if it's false, then the editor hasn't been outed. Elemimele (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add, it's somewhat easy to avoid this entirely if you're capable of self policing. If you know you have a COI with an article, perhaps the best thing you can do is to avoid it entirely. That way there is no risk of self-outing, because you're not making that link. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As for 1): WP:OUTING prohibits editor A from outing editor B. But if editor A has any form of COI, they generally have to self-out, and that is not prohibited by the policy. A common form of "self-out" is performed by editors who work for a corporation and add an edit request to an article's talk page, which often begin with "Hi I'm Billy and I work for Big Corp Ltd. I would like to suggest the following edits to this article...". JBchrch talk 04:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

An idea

I was doing some meditation and realized that both editors' conduct and article content need to be addressed. The arbcom idea looks promising for the former, but we'd still be left with potentially hundreds of articles within the skeptic topic are that are filled with coi edits, selfcites, and issues of neutrality or undue content. Thus, I had the idea of seeing if we could make some kind of task force with the help of people over at the skepticism/biographies/science wps to comb through the articles in the skeptic purview and make note of those with issues. Like that we can know just how many need fixing and maybe get more hands on deck to fix them (since it seems like it will take quite a bit of human hours). What are your thoughts? My original idea was to just track it myself by making a subpage of my user page but uh I have a history of misunderstanding what is and is not allowed or benefitial to be done within user subpages. Is this a good idea? Is there some kind of precedent for these kinds of efforts? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"people over at the skepticism/biographies/science wps to comb through the articles in the skeptic purview" ← it would take editors who thought this was a good use of their time. But when (for example) sci/med editors are grappling with articles getting tens of thousands of daily views on COVID, the task of "combing through" backwater articles about ghosthunters, etc. might not seem like a priority - especially if there was a suspicion that they were being asked to do somebody else's work fishing for evidence in aid of a campaign against GSoW. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Who said it was for evidence? Additionally, not everyone in sci/med wants to only and exclusively deal w COVID and no one would be forcing anyone to help, so I don't see your point. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Combing through" and "making note" of what's combed, is evidence gathering is it not? Wikipedia is a volunteer effort so one can't just "make" a task force on command; my point is there's likely to be limited volunteer enthusiasm for a grinding forensic investigation in service of an obscure agenda. Even potentially very serious issues in the Project which need investigation don't get attention, as it happens—and it's not clear there's any kind of serious issue here at all. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I of course understand task force is not something a regular volunteer can do (WPs have task forces organized by their coordinators etc.), it's just the term closes to what I mean. If I hadn't clarified it before, I think the process of fixing those articles should be done after any ArbCom action, not before. I think it's more important not to shake the boat too much and increase the activity in the topic significantly as that would make the ArbCom thing possibly more complicated than it needs to be. I also assume that there will be limited enthusiasm for what I proposed (especially from neutral and quality editors; we need to be careful not to attract the type of agenda-pushing pseudoscience-believer that will misunderstand this cleanup effort as an opportunity to vandalize). However, as editors affiliated with the two editors discussed who have a COI have edited 1300+ articles and have 53+ million views, I think it is somewhat clear that there is an issue that needs to be tackled. I don't necessarily think it's the most serious or pressing of issues, but I think having some organized way to tackle it would be beneficial. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

After watching from afar, let me briefly chime in to say I don't think this sort of approach is warranted. I will put my cards on the table: in many ways I am sympathetic to the goals of the so-called "GSoW," but I think just from evidence presented here it is clear that they have danced along the COI line and occasionally jumped across with both feet. I think that material should, ideally, be reviewed by independent editors as to its level of appropriateness, but I am not seeing major substantive issues. This is not vandalism, even if running afoul of policy. As such, while I think some sort of global decision-making is necessary, once had, I do not believe it necessary to take the kind of regimented approach suggested here. Wikipedia is ever-evolving, and thus, always imperfect. This bit of imperfection is one I see being ironed out in the normal course. As ever, if consensus decides otherwise, I'll not quibble. Happy holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would second this view as also someone who is aware of GSoW's existence, but not a participant or member.

Akin to "if a tree falls in the forest", I would ask... if a user makes a COI edit, but it was a good edit, why would we revert or record it? As SC has said, this isn't intended to gather evidence, so what would be the point? surely there are bad examples of edits which need to be reverted out there, but they should be bad edits independent of any COI issues. So they should be fixed independent of any needs here... The implication is that there are many many bad edits which need reverted. But I have yet to see any actual evidence of this as a large scale phenomenon. Many of Rp's supposed COI edits are of high quality from my perusal. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds more like an argument about why we don't need COIN. From what you are saying, editing with a COI isn't a problem. Bad edits are a problem. Therefore, we don't need to worry about COI and the relevant guidelines and policies are unnecessary. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This thread has moved somewhat beyond the scope of initial COI report, unfortunately. As I've said before, I think there may be overlapping but related issues affecting skeptic-related articles, and not all need invoke a COI nor affiliation with GSoW. In theory, the existence of relatively promotional articles showcasing the subject from an overly enthusiastic point of view could be the result of an avid fan—completely independent of GSoW, the subject, or any sources—combined with a relative reluctance or indifference of WikiProject Skepticism editors or other sympathetic Wikipedians to apply WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB etc. to subjects they agree with or view positively (in short, skeptics should apply skepticism to the null hypothesis of "Wikipedia articles are free from editorial bias" or "positive/popular subjects are given equal scrutiny for tone, balance, and BLP-compliance as negative or controversial subjects"). Addressing article content is easier and more straightforward than hunting down clues and sussing out COI or off-wiki affiliations, and less likely to alienate users. I think compiling a list of articles that seem to be in most of need of attention as A.C. Santacruz is proposing—regardless of who created or edited them—and inviting feedback from a broad swath of interested and disinterested editors (e.g. WikiProject Biography, Peer review, WikiProject Skepticism), would be beneficial, even if not everyone considers it the highest priority. People edit Wikipedia in many different ways: some primarily create article content, some primarily revert content and save their paragraphs for talk pages, some gnome here and there fixing grammar or whatever, some engage in formal review and assessment. None are inherently worse or a bigger waste of time than others. Of course, if COI or GSoW editing is found to be unduly promotional (be it of a source, article subject, or idea) then warnings and other corrective (not necessarily punitive) actions should be taken, as correcting a systematic problem is more effective in the long run. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do you think the list should be compiled if there is consensus it should be, Animalparty. I'd volunteer to do so as a sub-page of my user page but I'm not sure that's really the best way to do so. I also think before starting the list there should be significant discussion as to the criteria to include an article in the list. This could be done by creating a blank sub-page of my user page (or a more appropriate venue) and having a discussion in its talk page, rather than discussing a matter outside of COIN within COIN. A good division would also be "Articles needing to be checked for issues" and "Articles in need of attention/improvement/clean-up". This is because I would, based on the discussion above and in articles written by Sgerbic as to the editing methods of GSoW, consider all articles citing Skeptical Inquirer (and maybe other CSI sites) as possibly, if maybe unlikely, having issues. Thus, it would be nice to be able to track which articles have been already checked to see if there might or might not be possible issues and then have a separate list on which articles that were confirmed to have issues have been fixed. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that tracking which articles might be affected is somewhat difficult, as over 1,200 use Skeptical Inquirer as a source but there are other publications to which at least SGerbic has a COI with (e.g. JREF and GWUP) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Now what?

Speaking with my funct hat on, I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise (or, I suppose, someone offwiki is lying when they take credit for Rp2006's edits). So...now what? It's pretty clear from the above discussion that there is a larger problem than just this one editor. I can block them, but that is a large hammer to use, and that doesn't help with these other "GSoW" folks. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think most of the issues are in article content and fancruft so I support the idea I proposed above. I'm not entirely sure if blocking (outside maybe a skeptic BLP topic ban maybe?) would be the best solution for this (knowing how strongly Sgerbic argues for using wiki as a way of promoting SI content through backwards editing, we might end up causing a persistent sockpuppet/alt account issue). It all depends on how Rp2006 and Sgerbic act right now. I'm sure more experienced editors have better recommendations on what to do now, though. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Because of the number of editors that could be involved, I'd like to see some sort of community sanctions set up, where upon if reasonable evidence is provided an administrator can apply a topic ban covering the COI. I'd hate to see us lose all of the good edits in the topic area, so narrow topic bans along the lines of a ban on making edits using sources related to, or about people related to the committee for skeptical inquiry, or skeptical inquirer. That would allow them to continue to be active in the topic area, while preventing COI editing. This would have to be contingent on them admitting the COI and following best practices for disclosure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we would also need to add writing about activities or people connected to GSOW - that should be obvious, but my primary concern has been things like GSOW members writing on BLPs about off-wiki GSOW sting operations against living people while using sources written by GSOW members, or creating articles about members and active supporters. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that is they are very unlikely to self identify. It's a tough situation. For the time being, how do we normally handle undeclared COI editing, where the editors involved have misrepresented their edits? Maybe we should stop treating these editors as special just because some agree with their POV? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a topic-ban for Rp2006 and Sgerbic if they refuse to properly disclose their COIs. I don't see why they are unblockable. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that topic bans are hard to hand out - they need either community consensus, ArbCom, or to be in a DS area (and have all the boxes ticked). For the last one I feel that tbanning someone from "skepticism" would be a stretch of the scope of the Pseudoscience DS. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Given this is based on private evidence, and given that this extends beyond the identified editors, perhaps the best option is to go to ArbCom? Although I believe we need to strengthen our COI provisions and the remedies allowed under them so that we address situations like this more readily. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the pseudoscience DS could be amended to also include skepticism as well as a result of the arbcom case. Of course, I have no experience with Arbcom so I don't know how realistic that is. On one hand, it seems to only be one organized group violating COI (and whatever the backwards editing system is) within skepticism, but on the other they have over 100 million views on articles they've edited so I'm not sure what size the hammer needs to be at this point (if you'll excuse the metaphor).Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: It is probably worth noting here that there was a very long VPP thread about the GSoW a couple months ago. There was also a huge-ass AN/I thread in which closer Wugapodes said that "ANI could handle these things, the thread has grown beyond the point where a viable solution will be found" and recommended an ArbCom case request. In my opinion, both discussions had a lot of fairly major issues brought up. In particular, the AN/I thread encountered some strong resistance to the suggestion that GSoW could have engaged in off-wiki canvassing (because nobody could come up with a list of editors (because GSoW refused to disclose a list of their members (because nobody could show that they'd engaged in canvassing (because nobody had a list of their members)))). This development, if true, would certainly seem to change the situation. jp×g 05:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There was also this RSN discussion from November. jp×g 05:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: it's a good question. I'd agree with what SFR is calling for as a bare minimum, a topic ban potentially covering the entirety of sceptical inquiry, broadly construed for RP2006. That said, this has somewhat strengthened my concern that there is a much wider COI involving multiple GSoW editors in this topic area. How do we resolve that? We don't know who those editors are, Sgerbic wants to keep them as an anonymous off-wiki group/project for whatever reason, can we even proceed to an arb-com case against potentially multiple anonymous editors? While the current COI honour system works well in an good faith environment, the situation with RP2006 at the very least stretches that concept to its very limits. Especially as RP has been asked if they had a COI, they said no, but you've received evidence to the contrary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also one potential shortcoming with the current guidance at WP:COICOIN. The final paragraph mentions contacting the arbitration committee via email, with a dedicated address listed for paid COIs. At this point, it's unclear at least to me as to whether the COIs we are discussion are paid or unpaid. However more generally, if there is an unpaid COI, who do you contact? Arb-com at the paid-en-wp address? Arb-com at their normal address? Or someone else entirely? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, paid-en-wp goes to the checkusers (I'm one of the few who staffs it). I'm of the opinion that offwiki evidence of both paid and unpaid COI can go there if blocks are needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How would it normally be handled if a COI editor was discovered, and had mislead other editors about their COI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I started this thread because Rp2006 and Sgerbic denied (1) that they had a COI and/or (2) that they had to disclose any COI and/or (3) that they had made any edits in violation of WP:COI. To answer the question, "Now what?", I'd like to know in the first instance whether they still deny any of 1-3 and if not, how they plan on handling things going forward (e.g., disclosure, avoiding topics, something else?). Levivich 22:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think an additional question is how willing they are to collaborate with us in terms of other editors in their network who have made edits in violation of WP:COI (e.g. other GSoW members published in SI, what editors are part of GSoW). We are dealing with many unknown unknowns (similar to what JPxG commented on above) that they would be helpful in solving. As I raised previously in Sgerbic's page, much of this should be done through email with paid-en-wp or other, maybe more suitable emails to go about this without outing anyone on-wiki and reducing the amount of time that needs to be spent on this issue. I couldn't care less to know who exactly is in GSoW, but the fact that not even functionaries know is a problem in my opinion, and a big obstacle right now to solving the problem at hand. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that paid-en-wp has been emailed with what I believe is evidence that Nederlandse Leeuw also has a COI with SI, and that Rp2006 has a COI with pensar.org. Whether they think it is credible evidence or not I'll leave up to them. Notifying Nederlandse Leeuw of this discussion now. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Another outing attempt by Satacruz! When will this end? (And BTW, what does Pensar have to do with anything?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp2006 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Pensar.org is published by the Center for Inquiry, a parent company of Skeptical Inquirer. Since the thread was originally about Skeptical Inquirer, mentioning a sister publication is relevant. Again, if I actually outed anyone please tell me what information was shared and I will both edit the statement and ask oversight to revdel the relevant diffs. However, stating someone has a COI is not outing. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Such emails are for confidential information so the point of posting that here is ... what? A bit of gentle outing maybe? And am I to understand the witch-hunting has now migrated to a coordinated email effort (ironically) judging from the push back[10] on your Talk page? Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Next person that calls this a witch hunt (or lynch mob or similar) gets a trip to a noticeboard courtesy of me. Levivich 13:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

They asked for advice on how to put together an Arbcom case, and used email because some of the information could be sensitive. I have never brought a case to Arbcom but I thought I should take initiative to move the Skeptical Inquirer issue along, as I don't expect Sgerbic or Rp2006 to willfully disclose their COIs. Therefore I was wondering if you'd help me with writing/creating the case. Then, a list of editor's they had emailed paid-en-wiki about, with no real names or links to articles. <irony>It's weird how people can get when there's possible off-wiki coordination.</irony> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors don't get to go on a witch hunt by policing the language about what they're doing (though "lynch mob" is an off-colour term to be avoided). Looks like the first Nederlandse Leeuw has heard about their COI is a ping here informing them them that paid-en-wp has been emailed with "evidence" about them. Did nobody even ask - friendly like - if they have a COI? Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the oversight there, I should have contacted them on their talk page. Asking on their talk page would not have affected me emailing paid-en-wp, though, as as far as I know there's nothing wrong with emailing them with evidence whether you contact the user or not. Additionally, they are still free to disclose their COI now and that shouldn't really affect anything procedure-wise as far as I am aware. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So right at the top of this page, where it says "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" [my emphasis]. That counts for nothing? Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A google search of "Michael Steinkellner skeptic" shows a possible COI of User:Michael Steinkellner with GWUP. He is inactive, but worth noting here as well as he is one of the major editors of that page. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody know what to call a load of people attacking apparantly innocent people, for unspecified reasons, without incurring the ire of fringe sympathetic people on wikipedia? I have some ideas. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be offended at your implication that I'm "fringe sympathetic" if I wasn't using my crystals to center my energy right now. Even still, I might have to put on my magnetic copper bracelet to keep my chi in balance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was implying that some of the admins involved, they know who they are, are fringe sympathetic. They've had it pointed out to them in the past. As for yourself, if you feel the cap fits, then OK. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please excuse Roxy, their ISFJ nature leads them to act in this way. Just AGF and keep moving. Or, alternatively, keep talking. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with stop signs, but I can't resist making a joke. It's a failing on my part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh god I adore how you mentioned "this time with feeling". Fantastic, very funny! Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, I do not know how to explain to you any more than I already have that a COI is quite a straight-forward and serious subject. Additionally, please stop assuming I am "fringe sympathetic". That is a baseless accusation and strongly against my personal beliefs. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been tarnished by some early missteps, and goodwill is understandably at a bit of an ebb. paid-en-wp has been brought in, I suggest that we let them do their work, and/or an arbcom case be requested if it proves to be necessary. Rather than flaming each other, can we please just let this discussion fade gently into the archives? MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: respectfully, the first post in this subsection is from an arb-com functionary, who as they've said above has access to the paid-en-wp inbox, asking for community feedback based on evidence they have received. It may be that a full arb-com case is needed for this, in which case yes this discussion should end. But I don't know if we've reached that point yet? Letting it fade gently into the archives at this point runs the risk of no action being taken against one or more editors who have both a confirmed COI and have misled others about it. Some action needs to be taken here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

COI misunderstanding

There seems to be a misunderstanding in many of the posts above about COI. We hear about

• "action being taken against one or more editors who have both a confirmed COI and have misled others about it"
• "a COI is quite a straight-forward and serious subject"
• "If you have a COI you must disclose it"

To be clear: there is nothing wrong with having a COI; in fact COIs are a positive sign that one is actually doing something in life — the best way to avoid them is to sit in the basement all day doing nothing. There is absolutely no requirement in general to declare COIs on Wikipedia.

There is only an issue when editing activity intersects with a COI. This is strongly discouraged by WP:COI, but not prohibited by policy, except N.B. in the case where it is WP:PAID editing disclosure in necessary under the ToU. Editors are not going to get arbcom blocked just for "having a COI" or even for unpaid COI editing. In the case of GSoW, as the previous megathread at ANI[11] attests, there is no community consensus about which kinds of editing even constitute a COI. In order to show a COI problem it is necessary to show bad edits. The purpose of have WP:PAGs around COIs is to prevent damage to the (running of the) encyclopedia, not to police who people are in real life. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So, again, it's okay to edit with a COI, add information about yourself to articles, add citations to your own works, or greatly expand the article on your employer. As long as a group of editors agree with your position then this editing is A-OK. However, if people don't agree with the position that your COI editing takes you'll be blocked immediately as WP:NOTHERE or as a promotional account. Bonus points if the editors who agree with your position use Nazi euphemisms or witch hunt analogies against the people pointing out your clear COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If the COI is for the content you are editing then no, it's not "okay", it's against the grain of a guideline, and against-the-grain editing is a good way to get the community cross with you, leading to sanctions. But COI on Wikipedia is more complicated than is sometimes appreciated - as has been said before the WMF has partnerships with some organisations who will "enhance" Wikipedia with their organisation's scholarly/scientific content. So in a sense the content does matter - adding great quality stuff can be fine because in such a case the editor interest and the interest of Wikipedia is not in conflict but aligned, in bringing great high-quality knowledge to the world. But adding stuff touting your pyramid scheme, consultancy business or fake cancer cure ... not so much. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot! It's especially okay to lie about having that COI or your editing history as long as your opinion is in the majority. What the heart doesn't grieve the eye doesn't see, as we say in my hometown, or in other words, who cares about your relationship to the subjects you write about affecting article content and consensus about them as long as I think you're anti-fringe. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Never a good idea to accuse people of lying. Unless you can read their mind. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See Sgerbic lying above about not citing herself. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It must be nice to have a perfect memory. Anyway, Sgerbic's userpage counts as a disclosure, and (much to the consternation of some of the COIN regulars) self-citation is not really against policy, and as far as I can tell neither is being mistaken (or lying, if you want to use emotionally loaded language). We can (and have) say 'please stop' but that's really all that policy supports. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, "lying" connotes intent. It's a personal attack. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will apologize if I mistake others' intent. I have difficulties understanding subtext and/or nuance in personal comments and the like, and I take everything face value. Intent or not, after being shown she was mistaken one would expect her to engage in good faith and apologize. Instead, she (as far as I understand it) stopped interacting with this thread or help us understand the situation better. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Unfounded accusations of lying are a personal attack yes. But when you have proof that editors have not told the truth, as is the case with two editors involved in this discussion, what do you call it if not lying? Do we follow Westminster rules, and instead call it misleading of the noticeboards? Or do we need another euphemism? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I'm stealing that phrase hope you dont mind. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an archaic word one could reintroduce: "mistake". Useful links here: WP:AGF and Hanlon's razor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also here Rp2006 says he has never discussed WP with Hill although the article that started this whole mess says Hill thanked him for an edit on her page. I would not accuse people of lying if they didn't actually do so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Does the article say Hill thanked RP2006? Does it say RP2006 is the author? Just read it and don't see that. Again... a blatent outing attempt on your part. And BTW, thanking someone is not proof there was a discussion beforehand. Maybe Hill monitors her own page, saw the change, and made an assumption as to who did it and fired off an email. No "discussion of Wikipedia edits at all." This needs to stop. Rp2006 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Being part of GSoW does not constitute a COI (I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is nothing wrong with people collaborating). The problem (as I understand it) is that several of the major players in GSoW seem to be directly affiliated with Skeptical Inquirer and GSoW appears to be encouraging its editors to extensively cite SI and related publications in a way that goes beyond "here's a good source" and into "cite our publication for us". We also have what appear to be cases of editors engaging in SELFCITE, which puts us in a difficult position since it's hard to call people out on that without breaching OUTING. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is that "cite our publication for us" may be controversial, but the community has not decided it's a bad thing for certain publications. The Cochrane Wikipedia Partnership has explicit instructions telling (in some cases Cochrane-affiliated) editors to find Cochrane publications and to add them to Wikipedia. Now, I'm not saying SI is on the same level as Cochrane reviews (it's not a periodical I read) - merely pointing out that adding sources of high quality from affiliated persons in something the WMF has actively encouraged. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't even care about the GSoW thing. It can be ignored, because it doesn't really matter. People keep saying "look for bad edits," well there are people who are publicly fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, writers for Skeptical Inquirer, or writers for their other publications, who are editing about and inserting cites to those same organizations and publications. Often they're using primary sources, i.e. a write-up of a "sting" that was done, which has no coverage in secondary sources, to insert huge swathes of negative content and quotes into BLP articles. The BLP issues are originally what got some of these pages on my watchlist.

Imagine someone was working for a small, but reasonably reliable food magazine. That person went around conducting "sting" operations at restaurants, then their colleagues added the negative information from those "sting" operations to the article of every restaurant "stung."

Imagine creating an article, with a severe BLP violation in the lead, and then adding negative content sourced to the group you have a COI with? This isn't "sure, there some COI, but look at all the science that's being added!!" It's using sources you're connected to to promote an organization and attack other people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is the correct way to pursue it: identify/fix the problems and alert the community to any editor(s) who have a pattern of creating such problems. This, rather than trying to reconstruct membership lists of GSoW or engaging in quasi-outing through Google searches about peoples' real life. On Wikipedia, bad editing is a real problem whereas "having a COI" is incidental. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "quasi-outing"? From my experience in this noticeboard if an editor uses their full name mentioning a search of that name is a valid way to indicate a COI, see threads below: Sennheiser and Engineers India. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The policy is that "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information". That includes work affiliations. Arbcom typically has taken a harder line on this that what might go down at COIN. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not posted anyone's personal information as far as I am aware, Alexbrn. Of course, if the consensus is I have and I misunderstood how to go about making references to searches I'm glad to reword what I wrote and ask oversight revdel the relevant edits. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey there ACS - why haven't you mentioned that other talk page you have ventured to? Drawing another editor into the drama. Who is next? When will you stop trying to root people out? Sgerbic (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your question, Sgerbic? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You spend so much time on editors talk pages that you can't remember the message you left on January 2nd? It just got lost in the flood of messages? I just went to archive my talk page, I rarely need to do that because I receive so few messages, I'm not that type of editor, I spend most of my time here ... editing articles. As I cleaned up my talk page I see that there are five different topics, all are from you. Why are you being so shy about the other editor you are trying to draw into your drama? I'm sure others here would be interested. Sgerbic (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No I don't remember that exact message, it's been a busy holiday season and my ADHD is not good at remembering vague references during busy times. Please link a diff, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrFringilla#COI Sgerbic (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the issue with the message? They still haven't replied. I must have forgotten to email paid-en-wp the evidence I think links MrFringilla to Skeptical Inquirer, thanks for the reminder. Your help is greatly appreciated. If there is anyone else who I've messaged about this topic inquiring on their possible COIs with SI or CFI, please do not hesitate to message me about it as well, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh you have some "evidence" have you? How did you root that out? Sgerbic (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A magician doesn't reveal their tricks to the audience, do they (wiggles fingers in front of me like I'm doing a magic trick). That's for the backstage crew (i.e. paid-en-wp) to know, and then either verify or dispel. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh so you are venturing off Wikipedia to find and out people then? Sgerbic (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And you are accusing them of being a paid editor also. Sgerbic (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I am doing. I am accusing them of having an undisclosed COI. It is a shame that the email to do so is called paid-en-wp rather than coi-en-wp, and I have raised that issue in this thread, which you are welcome to join. Also, I'm curious how you expect people to find out about COIs undisclosed on-wiki through only on-wiki content. Let's just say I'm highly 'skeptical' of any way you suggest doing so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

SO you have just admitted it, you are venturing off Wikipedia to "investigate" editors. I spend very little time on admin threads. Sgerbic (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

More WP:Hounding by Santacruz. I'm almost glad I'm not alone. But then again, I no longer feel special. Rp2006 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen my talk page? I rarely ever get messages to my talk page and they are all from her. Sgerbic (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Now that both of you @Sgerbic and Rp2006: are here, perhaps you could answer the questions posed above by other editors instead of trying to engaging in WP:FORUM discussion with Santacruz? If you need pointers, those by Levivich and ScottishFinnishRadish in the previous subsection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I will answer to someone in authority if needed. Sgerbic (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

While that is of course your prerogative, it is concerning given that the concerns over a widespread COI issue are shared with editors other than Santacruz. If you won't address the community concerns, how about those points raised by GeneralNotability then in their duties as a functionary? Again raised in the previous subsection, though at the head this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. The authority we all need to answer to is called WP:CONSENSUS. With respect to conflicts of interest, that consensus is documented at WP:COI. You're not abiding by that consensus, and worse, you have time in this discussion for back and forth with AC while ignoring the real issues of COI. You should consider answering the outstanding questions above. Levivich 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I for one do not feel obligated to answer any accusatory questions while bad actors like Santacruz who has repeatedly attempted an OUTING are let free to harass people and gather others to her cause. I have been perplexed as to why so many of the article I've written from scratch or expanded from stubs (including some deemed "Good Articles"), or even articles I've just made minor edits in, have been recently edited by one such compadre of Santacruz, @Bilby - in not all cases with improvements. Much is personal opinion. Then I found this page, a list of (all?) my 13K plus edits, being used to go over my work - on topics of all varieties - since 2016 or so. So now I know why it is happening. But how this WP:Hounding is being tolerated, I do not understand. This must be addressed. Rp2006 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rp2006: I would advise you to strike through or remove the personal attacks against Santacruz. They are at the very least inaccurate, as she has only had a single ban, from a single noticeboard.

Also the whataboutism with respect to your editing record, while useful doesn't address at all the issues under discussion. As I said in my reply to Sgerbic, in addition to community questions here, a functionary (GeneralNotability) has received credible evidence of a COI involving yourself. Addressing that would be in order, even if you also chose not to discuss the community concerns. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I believed it was at least twice she was banned, but perhaps was wrong, so I removed that bit. Rp2006 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And it is not whataboutism to point out that Santacruz's effort have led to this unaddressed WP:Hounding action on another editor's part. Rp2006 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Rp2006, I was hoping to tackle this without creating drama out of respect to you. I found serious issues with copyright violations in three articles you had worked on, where text was either directly copied into articles or where there were only very small changes made from the original. I worked to fix these, and used edit summaries that made clear what the issue was. Normally I would then raise this at WP:CCI, but I did not wish to do so if this was only an isolated problem, as that meant it would become a bigger and more public issue, even if the problem was later found to be on only a very small number of articles. So rather than make the issue public, I was looking into your edits using a mini-CCI to find out whether or not it was isolated. As you can see from my comments, I was finding only minor issues outside of the original pages, so at this stage I don't see any need for a formal CCI to be conducted, and do not intend to recommend one. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So now we throw in alleged copyright violations. Your take on what constitutes "serious issues with copyright violations" is just your opinion. If in the tens of thousands of edits I have made I forgot a set of quotes or didn't paraphrase well enough (for you) in a few cases, burn me at the stake. If tens of thousands of edits by anyone were examined by someone looking for problems, do you not think you would find some? This is harassment, plain and simple. Rp2006 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to work this out - it isn't to do with COI, and like many of these cases, it seems you simply were trying too hard to stick to what the original was saying, leading to almost identical wording that creates copyright issues. As a quick example, so you can see where I'm coming from, the source reads: "Shortly after that, she contacted one of the letter’s writers, Jenny Splitter, about possibly making a short documentary about science-based parenting. Splitter then contacted a few other science-based mothers she knew, and thus Science Moms was born." [12] and the text added is "Newell contacted one of the letter’s writers, Jenny Splitter, about possibly making a short documentary about science-based parenting. Then Splitter contacted other science-based mothers she knew, and this chain of events resulted in the production of Science Moms." [13] There are some differences, but the word choice, structure, and bulk of the text is too close to the original. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I should also be clear about the intent. I found a problem that in three articles was significant, but the last thing I wanted to do was "burn you at the stake". So I looked through some of your other edits - as indicated by the page you linked to - to confirm that this was, as you say, just a few cases. Having determined that this does not seem to be an ongoing issue, I intended to drop it there without causing any drama for you, although I haven't yet worked out what the best option is for one of the three original articles. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilby I guess this means we're friends now? This is news to me and I barely interact with you but glad to know I'm making friends with experienced editors :) always good for when I need advice. Hope you've enjoyed the holidays Bilby. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Section with evidence of bad content

Please use this section to add diffs of edits showing the addition of bad content or the removal of good content, with a short quote of relevant text (so we can find it in the diff), and an explanation of why the change is bad. Please use some other section to report diffs where the editor may have had a COI. The aim here is to determine the seriousness of the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to address this on your talk page before you posted this section, unfortunately I've been travelling most of the afternoon and it slipped my mind.

While I'm certainly aware of a few diffs that demonstrate a COI, and I'd need some time tomorrow to collate them in the format you've asked for in a separate subsection. Unfortunately posting them here could/would OUT at least one of the editors involved, and as I believe you're aware of from the discussion here and on other noticeboard/talk pages that is an ongoing concern in this specific set of discussions. It's entirely possible that this specific set of diffs have already been sent to paid-en-wp by Santacruz, however I don't know what it is that has been sent.

As such I'm not sure how any editor here can provide diffs without outing one or more editors, given the nature of the underlying issue. For clarity the sake of clarity, the COI issue that I'm aware of is of at least one editor writing content for at least one organisation about a third party, and then citing that content on-wiki in that third party's Wiki article. The off-wiki content is somehow able to meet the reliable sourcing guidelines, though my unfamiliarity with the subject area as a whole prevents me from understanding how. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I don't find SI reliable (certainly not authoritative) except in WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:OPINION scenarios. They seem to mostly post opinion pieces from what I understand, but do have some vague level of editorial process. I started a relevant thread at RSN some weeks back but am on mobile so hopefully someone can link it below.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This one? BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm on mobile, so digging up diffs is a bit hard right now, so in addition to the edits I outlined in the section above, how about this. Adding a non MEDRS source they have a COI with to a medical article, making sure to provide the author's name and quote then extensively. This appears to be an example of the backwards editing, used to promote the publication and author. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that Radford edit seems like a worthwhile addition to the article. What was the justification for removing it? Rp2006 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Shoehorning a non WP:MEDRS source by someone with no medical training or expertise into the epidemiology section of a disease, while simultaneously promoting a publication they have a COI with? Yeah, seems legit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead says "The cause of anorexia is currently unknown." That seems to leave open commentary ("I found many examples of flawed, misleading, and sometimes completely wrong information and data being copied and widely disseminated among eating disorder organizations and educators without anyone bothering to consult the original research to verify its accuracy...") on the data surrounding the diagnosis by an investigator such as Radford. Rp2006 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

On a pure content level, start with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS. Skeptical Inquirer does not meet MEDRS criteria. SFR also raises the additional COI perspective. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A magazine piece by, to quote our article, an expert on the bad clowns phenomenon obviously doesn't meet the guidelines for medical sourcing laid out at WP:MEDRS. Spicy (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Way to cherry pick one line! I can do that as well: "Benjamin Radford regularly speaks at universities and conferences across the country about his research, and about science and skepticism. Radford's books and investigations have been incorporated into several college and university courses on critical thinking, including at Western Washington University and the University of New Mexico." Rp2006 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The important part is the "magazine" bit, not the "bad clowns " bit. Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies. It's inappropriate to cite a magazine column for biomedical information regardless of whoever's writing it. Spicy (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"...an expert on the bad clowns phenomenon obviously doesn't meet the guidelines..." I guess I just misinterpreted, especially as you took the trouble to highlight that portion and link to the Bad Clowns article. But I still disagree that only MEDRS sources are applicable in this context. A slightly dift analogy: if med folks butcher the data in their study, and non-medical data analyst experts point it out in "a magazine", that seems applicable to be pointed out. Rp2006 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is he a data analyst expert? Any examples of that, or why his opinion on medical studies would be in any way WP:DUE? Have any other sources, perhaps with expertise in a related field, discussed any of this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just stop Follow the direction of this thread and do not discuss each edit. This is for Johnuniq to be able to see the best evidence you have against Rp2006. That's it, nothing more, just list it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgerbic (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• This edit to a BLP would appear to be problematic. It adds significant amounts of criticism in wikivoice sourced solely to what appears to be, based on Sceptical Inquirers editorial policies, an SPS by someone who doesn't appear to meet our definition of a subject matter expert; "In 2020, she was a subject of a sting operation run by Susan Gerbic where, in addition to Northrop's use of standard cold reading techniques, it was also discovered that Northrop's co-host Thomas John was using information acquired from audience Facebook accounts, a technique known as hot reading, during these group sessions." I'm not certain whether User:Noguarde is affiliated with GSoW, but the editing pattern seems to fit. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That is inappropriate and I left a strong warning at User talk:Noguarde. However, the editor is new and I don't think they have previously encountered the pointy end of Wikipedia where the subtleties of editing WP:BLP articles become clear. They are creating what appears to be a good article at User:Noguarde/sandbox. Examining its history shows contributions from Rp2006 and that is enough (along with Rp2006's good edit at Suzane Northrop) to conclude a GSoW connection. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I overlooked that particular issue; thank you for noticing it. I would note that the "new editor" aspect might be more complicated than that; from what I understand of how their off-wiki collaboration works, the editor submitted the content, but others would have approved it, and possibly written it or edited it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• I suppose I should mention the Susan Gerbic article, which had to be extensively rewritten from the original - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• The Thomas John (medium) article has had extensive issues; the same issue regarding its use of a SPS from a non-SME as above, but with the added issue of appearing to misrepresent the New York Times in this diff by User:Rp2006; "in 2019 it was revealed by a New York Times report that a sting operation found John was using information acquired from audience Facebook accounts during group readings", when what it reported, unless I have missed something, was that Susan Gerbic believed that the sting operation found that John was using information acquired from audience Facebook accounts during group readings ("Her thinking is that if John knows even more details than she does, then it’s absolute proof that he’s looked through the Facebook posts.") - at no point does it make a statement in its own voice about whether she is correct. The current version, restored by Rp2006, is slightly better, but still a violation in my opinion. Looking through the history, there are also a number of issues with the article that were added by Rp2006 but have since been removed by other editors. BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  The article does include this line: "One new source of psychic intel is Facebook, which has become a clearinghouse for the kind of insider, personal detail that psychics used to have to really sweat for." While I am not sure it tips the balance in favor of the noted text, it comes close to the NYT itself endorsing the conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'm not sure how many diffs you wanted, so I took a bit of time and got these to start. Some show a clear COI as well as bad editing, some are just bad editing, some are severe BLP problems. I didn't look very hard, or check many articles, so this is a pretty small sample.

[14] - Expands section already sourced to a blog, making sure to link to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, saying As of February 2018 she has published seven articles detailing how she believes Henry's feats are actually accomplished. Then links to seven articles as sources, as if this was discussed in an secondary reliable source. Adds no information, just links to SI and CSI a lot.

[15] - Adds an unrelated video that shouldn't be there per WP:ELNO

[16] - Adds a SPS YouTube video as a source to an article about a BLP.

[17] - Just an advertisement for a podcast. Not providing information and citing, literally saying "Also, this guy did a podcast on it."

[18] - Then just adds two long quotes. 24 words of prose to quote 304 words.

[19] - Creates coatrack article with severe BLPvio in the lead and body. 381 words of "Felony fraud conviction and challenges to veracity" versus around 300 words of everything else. No sourcing to prove there was ever a felony conviction. Incredibly bad sourcing for negative information on a BLP, including Paranormal Herald Magazine, Psychic Review Online and chicago.gopride.com

[20] - Using a primary source of just a name with no indication it's the article subject.

[21] - Adding a SPS blog

[22] - Adds Jezebel for claims about a BLP. WP:JEZEBEL

[23] - Makes a BLP violating heading even worse

[24] - Cites a blog post and a youtube video for "Despite the scientific skeptic consensus that mediumship is a con." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but examining each of those shows none that are bad. I guess I'm used to seeing nationalist and other kinds of POV pushing where the content is actually bad as in wrong or biased. The examples are by one editor over three articles (Tyler Henry, David Paulides, Thomas John (medium)). There is 1 edit from 2017, 3 from 2018, 5 from 2019 and 2 from 2021. Consider the two from August 2021 ([25], [26]). They are consecutive edits at David Paulides which added everything starting from "In August 2021, science communicator Brian Dunning released a Skeptoid episode ..." in this permalink at 20:04, 29 August 2021. The added text is factually correct and formatted well, with references. The refs are not gold-plated RS but are satisfactory per WP:PARITY. The edits perhaps show excessive enthusiasm for promoting a counter-pseudoscience agenda, but that's not "bad", and is, in fact, much better than leaving dubious claims unchallenged. The text added in the two diffs is still in the article more than four months later. The "coatrack article with severe BLPvio" is from November 2018. The reference used for the negativity is still in the article, three years later, with "stealing the security deposits from renters", almost the same as in the original. It's true that an experienced editor would know that the original article was a coatrack published with an excessive muck-to-content ratio. Claims like "Makes a BLP violating heading even worse" exaggerate the situation—that diff is yet another example of an edit from nearly three years ago and is typical for an enthusiast who has not been schooled in how things are done here. The heading was factually correct, it's just over-egged and inappropriate, and now reads "Legal issues" which is the norm. The eleven diffs given show largely historical problems from one editor. The problems concern a lack of understanding about how BLP articles must be phrased, and an excess enthusiasm for exposing charlatans. That's fixable and is far better than, for example, someone using Wikipedia to promote charlatans which would be bad as it would involve promoting known-false ideas. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I see excessive enthusiasm for promoting as WP:NPOV and promotion. You say the Thomas John link is almost the same as the original, which is not quite true, as it's missing the obvious BLPvio. Sure, it was a while ago when the article was created, but all of their edits, including restoring the BLPvio, after having it explained that it was not found in sources, continue. This is adding some more negative information to the lead, after adding another huge chunk to the article, violating WP:DUE, using a source they have a COI with, and using what is essentially a primary source in a BLP. This is all recent. You say you're used to seeing nationalist and other kinds of POV pushing where the content is actually bad as in wrong or biased. If I were an editor from Armenia, and created an article on a person from Azerbaijan with unsupported claims of a felony conviction making up over half of the article, citing sources that aren't suitable for a BLP, would that be the kind of bad editing you normally see? If I then spent years after the creation adding negative information from sting operations sourced to a source I have a COI with to the BLP, would that be bad editing? If, after being informed of a BLP issue that I created, would it be bad editing if I were then to say the other editor was actively supporting Azerbaijan, before restoring the BLP violation? All of that is wrong or biased That's fixable and is far better than, for example, someone using Wikipedia to promote charlatans which would be bad as it would involve promoting known-false ideas. is a straw man, because no one involved is trying to promote known-false ideas. It's not like there's one side removing controversy and criticism and saying "no, actually they are psychic and a medium and talk to the dead" and the other side is valiantly defending the wiki. One side is saying "Maybe we shouldn't call people felons or have editors with a COI use primary sources about sting operations to load down coatrack articles with incredibly undue negative coverage," and the other side is saying, "but I really want to, and they're charlatans, so it's ok."

If this type of editing was done in any other topic area the editors would be, at the very least, topic banned. If a nationalist editor made the same type of edits, they'd be gone. If a religious warrior made the same type of edits, they'd be gone. If an editor with a strong political viewpoint made these type of edits, they'd be gone.

Imagine someone who writes for The American Conservative (fine for facts, use with attribution on WP:RSP) created an article on a democrat that was more than half about a felony conviction that did not exist, then spent years adding articles from their publication to coatrack more and more negative information about stings they ran on that democrat into the article. We'd be fucking up in arms, as we should be, because that is bad editing.

Just because someone is saying they're a psychic on TV doesn't mean our sourcing, BLP and COI policies and guidelines go out the window. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't have worded it better myself. This is the heart of the issue that's being discussed here. No one is unsanctionable, no matter what perspective you have. I'm looking forward to see how the discussion with Levivich and Sgerbic continues below, but SFR's summary here above is really the best way to explain the issue. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I could paraphrase this argument by writing - when this group of people do this thing, there isn't consensus for it and that is bad. But when this other group of people do a slightly different thing, there is consensus for it so it is good. The same sort of reasoning backs analogies about WP:COCHRANE and such. We would need to come to some sort of consensus that anti-fringe editing (or pro-skeptic, or pro-Center for Inquiry, or whatever you want to call it) is a problem before the discretionary sanctions being sought here could happen. I doubt that will happen in this discussion. I'd say start a RFC, but we already have sanctions for "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted.", so it would seem this situation is already covered if you can make your case(s) against individual editors at AE. MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure psychics and mediums don't fall under fringe or pseudoscience, as there's no scientific claim. It's pretty much the Santa example at WP:FRINGE. (To be clear, Santa is real though, and he lives in all of our hearts!) BLP discretionary sanctions could be looked at too, but at this point there would have to be notification, and then stalking of edits, and then taking part in the joy and wonder of AE and Arbcom. There's a reason most of the edits I noted above are from one page, that's where I saw the problem. Every time I look further, I see more problems, but I'm not following editors or delving deep into their history. It also seems that they're not fond of people checking their edits, quietly and respectfully, even when there have been demonstrable copyright issues.

And to be clear, you think that creating a BLP calling someone a felon with no sourcing, then using a source that you have a COI with to add more negative information from sting operations run by the source you have a COI to the BLP, and then reverting the BLPvio back into the BLP after being advised it was a BLPvo while personally attacking the person who removed the BLPvio, has consensus as being good? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm speaking only about attempts to leverage individual cases into some kind of broader community sanctions regime, not the merits of any individual edit. And, to be clear, if your main concern is BLP violations we're at the wrong noticeboard. MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It was discussed in this thread, and has been brought up at ANI. If editing issues involve COI editing, BLP problems, personal attacks, and a bevy of other issues, there's really no one place that fits. I didn't start this thread, but expanding on COI issues involved with editing BLPs seems well within the wheelhouse. I was asked to use this section to add diffs of edits showing the addition of bad content...use some other section to report diffs where the editor may have had a COI. The aim here is to determine the seriousness of the issue. I provided diffs showing addition of bad content, which happens to violate a number of policies and guidelines, then provided more information on why they were bad. Not sure what the issue is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure psychics and mediums don't fall under fringe or pseudoscience, as there's no scientific claim. ROFL! VdSV9•♫ 20:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Section with other discussion

Looking through GSoW affiliated editors in general, identified by editing patterns and editor interactions, I will note that outside of a relatively narrow range of topics - pseudoscience and similar, as well as where they have COI's - they seem to do generally good work and if they avoided those areas I don't think we would have a problem. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If they were taught correctly, they'd be a huge asset. It's not their fault they're doing what they've explicitly been taught to do ("backwards editing", which is, indeed, backwards). All of the students are an asset, we just need to provide them with correct information about how to edit. (I think I'll write a book about it.) Levivich 14:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you do, let me know and I'll backwards edit it into every article I can find. Also, I've noted from the beginning of all of this that there is a lot of good editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting - that would explain some of the more unusual references I have been seeing. Looking at that ScottishFinnishRadish I would agree, though I think the scope would need to be slightly broader; at least pseudoscience BLP's, and I've seen a few edits that make me think the list of organizations they have a COI with needs to be expanded. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[27] That is literally laying out the COI/promotional editing in an easy to digest manner. If it were any other company or group there would be mass blocks over it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's important to contrast that approach with what WP:GLAM does. From WP:GLAM/About: GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote the institution, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public. Unlike GLAM, SI is promoting the institution itself, and not its resources. Levivich 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is opportunistic. I think the calculus is well stated at the head of this very page: "An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia." [my emphasis]. Win/win for the "outside interest" and Wikipedia is okay, but nothing less than that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed that line from the header; it has no basis in WP:COI. Levivich 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

From the top of my head, organizations they might have a COI with are: Center for Inquiry and its publications, James Randi Foundation and its projects (including The Amaz!ng Meeting), European Council of Skeptical Organisations and its member organizations, NZ Skeptics, and Monterey County Skeptics. Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and other Dawkins related organizations are unlikely to have a COI due to their only recent merging with CFI, but shouldn't be dismissed as a possibility. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Note I haven't really looked at their podcasts/youtube videos though so that's another possible source of COIs that I'm unaware of. I don't plan on listening or watching though, as that seems like an excessive waste of time to me. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear about your position, whom exactly are you saying these COI concerns apply to? I am old and sometimes have trouble following the thread of argument. Thanks and cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't discuss particular individuals due to WP:OUTING concerns, sorry Dumuzid. However, there are multiple sources written by Sgerbic referenced in the wiki articles I have linked (or related ones) that either indicate she has written for them, produced content in some shape or form for them, is associated with them or their members (including leaders), and/or has been featured as a speaker/lecturer at events organized by them. I am sorry I cannot go more in detail or mention the other editors whose names I have brought up in this discussion as I must be careful not to out anyone. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I am not seeking any specific names, but I am wondering about the class of people you think should be encompassed? I mean, I am not sure if we're talking about just the two individuals already named in this thread, anyone who identifies as a member of GSoW, or anyone who considers themselves a skeptic? To my mind, you've shown real concerns. But without context, again, just to me, you can sound troublingly broad. Any assistance along those lines would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think people who write for, or are fellows of, the groups and publications they are citing and promoting. That's a general round-about "class." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also include lecturers and speakers at their conferences or events. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there might be a misunderstanding here; I believe Dumuzid is asking which group of editors would have the COI, not which group of people they would have the COI in relation to; I believe the answer is all current members of GSoW, as I can't see a narrower scope being effective due to how widespread the issues are, due to GSoW policies and article priorities.

I will say that if GSoW commits to altering its behaviour - effectively, a voluntary ban from articles and sources they have a COI with - then I believe we can end this process now and simply observe whether they are able to abide, and whether the BLP issues continue even when they aren't acting with a COI. BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that being that you can't really identify members of GSoW, as it's organized and all communication is done off-wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've found that we can, through their editing and interaction patterns. However, it would take a lot of work - and even more to maintain the list, given they appear to be actively recruiting - and so I would prefer to at least try the voluntary option and with any luck avoid needing to do it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the jump that I was afraid of. Can you explain to me the rationale for including all members of the group (however identified) as conflicted? Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Primarily because the issue extends to their editing, but I also because I don't believe the GSoW leadership will stop encouraging their members to edit articles and use sources they have a COI with, which means WP:PROXYING will become relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So, in essence, Editor X, if they claim to be a member of GSoW, should be considered conflicted without any behavioral evidence, basically because they are assumed to be hearing bad advice? I know I am asking a pointed question, but I hope you'll appreciate that it embodies my concern. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe what you are wrote accurately reflects what I wrote, and I believe it would be more suitable if you explained your concerns rather than asking such questions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine. You believe GSoW members should be considered to have a conflict due to what GSoW leadership might be encouraging, correct? Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No; I believe that they have a COI because of their membership in GSoW, with this membership causing a COI because of what I know GSoW leadership encourages, and evidenced by the editing that the members engage in. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And that COI is because they seek to promote a specific viewpoint? Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's because they seek to promote the work of SGerbic, Rp2006, SI, etc., regardless of viewpoint. This isn't really hard to understand: if an author is training new editors to promote the author's work, and those new editors go about adding the author's work to various articles, those new editors are effectively meatpuppets with COI, regardless of who the author is, or what they're writing, or what the viewpoint is. Contrast this with the approach of WP:GLAM/About (explicit about not promoting the institution) or WikiEd (where teachers do not teach students to promote the teacher' work). Levivich 17:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What's hard for me to understand is trying to apply this COI to editors who have NOT "go[ne] about adding the author's work to various articles." Even if they have been exhorted to do so, this is not a problem if they haven't, you know, done so. This is why membership in any sort of group strikes me as a non-sequitur. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Now you're conflating "having a WP:COI" with "violating WP:COI". An editor has a COI vis-a-vis Gerbic if they are a student of Gerbic, or have any other relationsip with Gerbic (friend, colleague, enemy, family, whatever, per WP:COI). But having a COI doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong; having a COI does not violate WP:COI. Even with a COI, they can still edit, as long as they comply with the requirements of WP:COI (e.g., disclosure). Only those people who have a COI and don't comply with WP:COI are violating WP:COI. So far, we know that's SGerbic and Rp2006 and a number of other students who can be identified via contribs history (without WP:OUTING). Levivich 17:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No argument there. But should someone in GSoW, who considers themselves a friend of sgerbic, declare a conflict as to, say James Randi, as has been proposed? Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If they're going to edit about James Randi, then yes, per the first sentence of WP:COI: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships (bold added). Randi is the co-founder of CSI, which is Gerbic's institution (of which she is a fellow), and which publishes SI, where she writes. I'm guessing CSI has paid money to Gerbic at some point, but she has a COI regardless of a financial tie, because of the professional relationship. And her students all have COIs with CSI, too, because Gerbic is teaching them to promote SI ("our publications"). Levivich 17:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's the "teaching" point with which I have an issue. I cannot support this sort of "COI infection" by the kind of loose affiliation we're talking about. Randi created CSI->CSI paid Gerbic->Editor X is friends with Gerbic is simply too attenuated a "relationship" for me. Again, I think real problems have been presented here, but I think the sort of expansive attempt to bring in an unascertained group of editors is quixotic and a net negative. Reasonable minds may certainly differ. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would put it slightly differently; its that they are a member of an organization that seeks to promote SI etc. How the organization goes about getting them to do that isn't particularly relevant beyond establishing that they do. BilledMammal (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Seeking to promote" a publication, or, indeed, anything else, is not a conflict as far as I can tell absent some sort of relationship, but perhaps I am wrong. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We've already established that there is a relation. BilledMammal (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you'll note my post above, that's exactly what I am questioning. Your response, as I understood it, was "the relationship is established by being part of a group seeking to promote SI." Perhaps I have misunderstood. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing CSI pays Gerbic; Gerbic founded and runs an organization with the intent of promoting CSI etc.

Pretend I have a paid COI with Acme Corp. I then create an organization to promote Acme Corp etc, and recruit Levivich to it. Does Levivich have a COI? BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We should use a more concrete example: I was a member of the Nintendo Fun Club, which was started by a Nintendo employee. Do I have a COI with Nintendo? - MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Membership functions too differently for them to be equivalent. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

My issue, I guess, is that you're hanging a lot of your argument on what "membership function" in GSoW looks like, and this link in the chain strikes me as very unconvincing. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Did the Nintendo Fun Club teach you how to edit Wikipedia articles to promote Nintendo? Because if so, then yes, you'd have a COI, due to your relationship with Nintendo (the relationship being that you're a student taught by Nintendo to edit Wikipedia to promote Nintendo). Levivich 18:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, this seems to me to be making several inferential leaps. Let me try it this way: this is your basis for saying all GSoW members need to declare COIs, correct? Dumuzid (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Where are you even getting that idea? I don't even know what a "GSoW member" is. Have I ever even used that phrase? Read what I've been writing, I'm very clear about who has a COI (Gerbic, students of Gerbic taught by Gerbic to promote Gerbic/SI/etc.), and why (for Gerbic, because of the relationship; for the students, because they've been taught by Gerbic to promote Gerbic/SI/etc.). Levivich 19:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize; with several conversational threads, it can be easy to get mixed up. Let me put it this way: I agree with you, to the extent it can be shown that someone was "taught by Gerbic to promote Gerbic/SI/etc." But I don't think showing exhortations to that effect are a sufficient proof. If "here's how to edit Wikipedia" and "here's what I think you should do with it" are separate, then to my mind, it's not a conflict. And I am of course mindful that I am not global consensus. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, this is a fast moving and confusing thread. As for how we know someone was a student and what they were taught, it's certainly a good point. There are some behavior tells that I won't get into on-wiki, but I think a better route is what I'm suggesting SGerbic do down below (namely, ask her to help, because she's really the only one in a position to fix the COI concerns without OUTING or blocking/banning anyone). Levivich 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I'll quit complicating matters. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not accurate. It's not Randi created CSI->CSI paid Gerbic->Editor X is friends with Gerbic, it's Randi created CSI->CSI paid Gerbic->Editor X is someone Gerbic explicitly taught to edit Wikipedia for the purpose of "getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned", as she wrote in an article in SI, which is published by CSI [28]. "Our publication" == the publication of the organization Randi co-founded. That's a big difference from "friends with Gerbic". Levivich 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This still radically undervalues personal autonomy to me; I do not like the idea of categorizing editors based on by whom they were "taught to edit Wikipedia." That caa certainly give rise to a conflict with respect to said teacher, but to say a "teacher" passes on their conflicts just seems plainly wrong, in my opinion. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What you like, and what seems plainly wrong to you, are irrelevant. :-) The language of [[WP:COI] is global consensus. And, again, you keep slipping, like subtly changing what we're talking about. Just like it's not "friend", it's also not "teacher", it's "teacher teaching students to promote teacher". I think you can grasp this very key point: to promote teacher, or to promote school (in the Catholic school example brought up), or to promote publication ("our publications", e.g. SI). Nobody is saying "teacher" passes on their conflicts, teacher creates the COI by teaching students to promote the teacher, the teacher's publication, the teacher's organization, etc. Levivich 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Because they seek to promote a group of organizations and individuals. But please, get to the point. BilledMammal (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is that I hope you have a wonderful day. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

[29] To repeat what I said above I'd like to see some sort of community sanctions set up, where upon if reasonable evidence is provided an administrator can apply a topic ban covering the COI.

This way there would have to be evidence of editing issues, rather than topic banning an off-wiki group with no way of ascertaining the members. No maintaining lists, or tracking people down. If the editing matches the pattern, and reasonably convincing evidence is provided, then a topic ban is applied. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the idea that all members of GSoW automatically have COI with all publications of the Center for Inquiry. There are a lot of analogous citations that we wouldn't have a problem with. For example an IEEE member citing something from one of IEEE's journals, so long as they didn't write the article in question themselves. Or the WP:COCHRANE project mentioned above. Or WP:NIOSH citing CDC reports. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The difference is why they are adding them. The IEEE member is assumedly citing the journal only to enhance Wikipedia; the GSoW member is citing SI to enhance SI. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In every case, you think? Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided, and on the edits I have seen, in enough. BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I prefer not to assume that. - MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to assume it, we know it's true, because we have SGerbic's 2015 article in which she explicitly says she tells students to go about adding links to SI for the purpose of promoting SI. Let me quote it one more time for you: We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. And just one more time, with feeling: We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned. The title of the article is "Learn to Edit Wikipedia like a GSoW Editor-Backwards Editing" [30]. This is not ok, this is called WP:PROMO, and when you teach people to do it, it's WP:MEATPUPPETry. Levivich 17:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't know it's true. I've been told to do all sorts of things during my life, many of them in school, but I don't repeat those behaviors like a robot. Or are we going to assign a COI with the Catholic church to everyone who attended a Catholic school? That'd be basically every editor we have from Ireland. - MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Did the Catholic school teach its students to edit Wikipedia to promote the Catholic church? If so, then yes, the students have a COI. Levivich 19:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion, but it is hard to police that ban without knowing who is a member of GSoW. I'm not sure how saying you're a member of GSoW means you'll be outed (and I have mentioned in the past that I believe Sgerbic should significantly improve its personal security practices training for GSoW members), but functionaries should have access to a membership list for me to really trust GSoW. That way, if there is edit-warring in a related article and the issue is raised at a relevant noticeboard, they can check to see if there are editors who are violating the terms of the ban without needing to out anyone. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedians are opposed to making people register user accounts at all, I doubt you'd ever get the community's support behind keeping a membership list like this. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: There is no "ban" to "police" and no "list of names", and it has not even been established that GSoW members in the round have any kind of COI to "police". This kind of talk takes us right back to the witch-hunting problem. Discussions should be focussed on content, not people. The ANI thread on this was closed saying "Concerns about off-wiki canvasssing or relationships between editors and off-wiki organizations should be addressed through an arbitration case request." So why is it being continually paraded in other venues? Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alexbrn stop referring to what I do as a witch-hunt. I consider that a personal attack. I have already had to ask you to not edit on my talk page, and do not wish to seek an IBAN. You are an incredibly valuable editor in this community. Referring to a COI concern or suggestions on how to address it within COIN as a witch-hunt is below you. The reason why we cannot know what COI GSoW members have is because a) GSoW members have no history of publicly disclosing their COIs (except for Sgerbic) b) GSoW members have been terribly unconstructive until now (Sgerbic I genuinely appreciate you responding to Levivich below. This is the only way I see this thread having any lasting impact.) in regards to discussing potential COIs. I was just saying that I cannot trust who is or isn't a GSoW member as the membership isn't public (this is not a controversial statement) and was just proposing one way to relieve that concern without outing anyone. I'm not saying my concern is one the majority shares, or even one the majority should share (I am inherently less trusting than most people, I'd sure as hell hope people were more trusting than I am).

In response to MrOllie, I personally do not believe IP editors should be allowed to edit but I am perfectly aware that is both a minority opinion and do not seek in any way to convince anyone of my views on the topic. (I'm in this weird state of disliking IP editors but acknowledging it's how most editors make their first edit before joining so it is an invaluable recruitment tool for long-term editors). As I have mentioned numerous times before, I genuinely cannot understand why GSoW cannot be a WikiProject and be transparent. Wikiprojects have membership lists, and if the only reason why GSoW isn't a WikiProject is outing or off-wiki harassment concerns, having some hybrid where there is an on-wiki project but the membership is hidden but available to functionaries seems like a nice way of finding a middle between the two views. That's all I was suggesting. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

They could be a WikiProject, but they don't want to. Wikipedia is written by volunteers, and we don't get to tell volunteers where or how they can socialize with each other. MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your use of the word "socialize" is highly misleading. Nobody is suggesting regulating how anyone socializes, and GSoW is not a social club, AFAIK. And I think you know that by now. Please be more careful about avoiding straw man argumentation; it's part of what's made this discussion so difficult. Levivich 23:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact remains, nobody here has any kind of right or authority to regulate what people do off Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to attempt a translation (MrOllie, by all means, correct me if I am wrong): they apparently don't want to be a WikiProject; no one can force them to be a WikiProject; they cannot be penalized for not becoming a WikiProject. Dumuzid (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel we might be getting side-tracked here (certainly this is a very complex discussion with many different aspects meriting discussion, but this is COIN and we should attempt to stick to discussing COI issues), discussing how to improve Wikipedian's relationship with GSoW and GSoW's relationship with Wikipedia as projects is probably best to discuss elsewhere. I'm certainly happy for that to happen in my user talk if there is no better venue, although I'd suggest doing so at the WP:Skepticism talk page. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd add that nobody is trying to force anyone to become a WikiProject, nor is anyone penalizing anyone for not becoming a WikiProject, nor has anyone said that anyone should be so forced or so penalized. It's, in my opinion, not forthright, to characterize a suggestion as "forcing" or "penalizing". In my view, a forthright response would be one that addressed whether the suggestion was a good suggestion (should they be a WikiProject), whereas a straw man response is one that argues it shouldn't be a requirement (must they be a WikiProject). Arguing that it's not required, when no one is saying it is required, derails the discussion (it moves the discussion from "should" to "must" when "must" isn't even on the table), and characterizing a suggestion as a requirement is, well, straw manning. Levivich 23:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I feel people are misunderstanding my opinions/positions/suggestions/views as much more extreme than they actually are because of this type of wrong characterization of what I say. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a bad idea if they don't want to do it. Dumuzid (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, I interpreted statements such as " they need to set up an on-wiki WikiProject, and have their discussions there." [31] as attempts to force compliance. I'm happy to learn that isn't what is intended. MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That can be discussed at a later point, I'm sure. I suggest we continue the discussion below on the COI and how to address that, so that we can avoid making this thread even more unreadable than it is. Hell, if SVTCobra won't bother reading the whole thing it's way too long. SVT has an impressive patience for COI discussions, if they say it's too long too read it's too damn long! :P Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The facts will likely make no difference to the folks here set on destroying GSoW's work on Wikipedia, but in an effort to set the record straight on something that’s being put forth to demonize Gerbic and add fuel to the fire, but which is dead wrong, I'm going to do so anyway: It is not at all "Randi created CSI->CSI paid Gerbic->Editor X is someone Gerbic explicitly taught to edit Wikipedia..." It is more like this: science and skepticism fan Gerbic wanted to help the cause of “Science and Reason” and realized Wikipedia was the place to do this (to "preach outside the choir"). She started editing Wikipedia with that goal and created GSoW to help other like-minded people do it too. After years of this, as well as doing activism to debunk psychic mediums and try to prevent desperate people being taken advantage by “grief vampires”, she was noticed by the "powers that be" in the skeptical movement. In the USA, that was/is the JREF/CSI. At some point she began writing articles for SI and speaking about her work, all unpaid AFAIK (per the published policy of Skeptical Inquirer: "The Skeptical Inquirer is unable to pay authors, but authors will be mailed several complimentary copies of the published issue." See here). She was eventually (recently) elected CSI fellow – a totally honorary position without compensation -- given to those who make a significant contribution to “the skeptical movement.” She also was noticed by the JREF and her non-profit (set up to support GSoW and her other skeptical outreach work, such as bringing students to skeptical conferences) was awarded a grant to make sure her work continued. That’s the actual sequence AFAIK. And when she encourages “her people” to add Skeptical Inquirer (and other skeptical media) as references to Wiki articles, it is not to promote CSI for the sake of promoting that non-profit. It is to promote what CSI stands for. It is billed as “The magazine of science and reason,” and in the USA it is arguably the primary media outlet of that type. If you want to promote science and reason as Gerbic has done from the beginning of her skeptical activism and before she was even on the radar of CSI, using the material within SI – written by all sorts of skeptical SMEs – is the only reasonable thing to do. Rp2006 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the facts show SGerbic is explicit about teaching people to edit for the purpose of promoting SI, and not for some greater purpose. Let me quote more extensively that 2015 article in SI, "Learn to Edit Wikipedia like a GSoW Editor-Backwards Editing", in which she advocates using "backwards editing" in order to "improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer" (bold added):

Essentially backwards editing means taking an existing citation that you have run across in a noteworthy source, and then adding it to a current Wikipedia article. You may never have heard of the Wikipedia page you are about to edit, which makes this a lot more interesting. This is usually the opposite way a traditional Wikipedia editor would work. Normally an editor will start with a Wikipedia page and look for citations that can be used on it. Backwards editing appeals to editors with limited time. This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications. I call this preaching beyond the choir.

This is what it comes down to and the reason for this article, we have an enormous amount of content in journals, books, lectures, and such, all accessible, and most are citable by Wikipedia standards. They need to be found and used to educate. Getting the scientific skepticism message beyond our choir should be everyone’s goal. Looking at this globally, only a very small percent of the potential readers of SI are even aware of its existence. Every month at my local skeptic meet-up we get a new member who states “I didn’t know that there was a community or podcasts or magazines. I had no idea it was a ‘thing’ until the other day when I found out by accident.” I know that seems hard to believe, but everyone started somewhere, and the majority of people reading this right now probably found SI through a friend or found a mention of it somewhere, often by chance. It is even very possible you discovered SI while reading an article on Wikipedia. We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.

Trying to paint this as anything other than promoting a magazine is untenable. Levivich 19:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, much of what you highlighted actually makes my point, the main idea being that "Getting the scientific skepticism message beyond our choir should be everyone’s goal." As SI articles represent the field, this is here way to do that. And... nice that you ignored the correction to the claim Gerbic is paid. Also my point that she was doing this herself before having any involvement with CSI. Also... "our" in "our podcasts, and our spokespeople" clearly refers to the podcasts and spokespeople (scientists, etc.) of the scientific skeptical movement, not the podcasts (CSI has just one) and spokespeople (CSI has no one with such a title that I'm aware of) of CSI. Rp2006 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So now what Levivich? Besides outing my team which I will not do, or disbanding the GSoW (to conduct only on Wikipedia) what do you want from me? What do you and ACS want? Am I to walk away from editing, would that satisfy you? Would you be happy to go back to the Wikipedia from ten years ago? Should the GSoW stop editing on English Wikipedia? I'm sickened by the tone and anger of these threads that keep getting fueled with drama. Good editors are being called pro-woo which is of course nonsense. Fringe is fine I suppose as the only way to counter it is to use experts writing in R/S and it seems that ACS and her ilk don't think that is R/S, so I guess we throw that out. Throw my body on the pyre, burn me up. How dare I even think that teaching non-editors to edit could work. Hound people to distraction I suppose is the new way. Going out of Wikipedia to look into our real lives is fine, ACS admitted it thousands of words up in this thread and it was ignored, so no problem I guess. Outing people who are only being attacked by the paranormal community, anti-vaxers, tin-foil types no problem, should I just post my address right here to make it easier to find me? Sgerbic (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You could just not edit articles dealing with CSI or SI or the directly affiliated groups, and not use them for sources. No need for immolation or address posting. There's plenty of other editing you've done outside of those narrow topics, and plenty of other sources you've used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That would make you happy SFR? And what about @Levivich he started this whole thread. If Sgerbic never added another Skeptical Inquirer article would that end this? Sgerbic (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this thread was started due to a COI from another user, but since the first ANI oh so long ago (feels like ages!!), that's all I've wanted, and what I've said I wanted. I don't know about everyone else, but I've been pretty clear with my feelings on the topic. I even said that when we had the civil discussion on my talk page. I explained that targeting GSoW was folly, and that single editor behavior should be addressed. I continue to not want to target a whole group, but rather, address what I see as problematic editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you SFR. Let's see what others that are in authority here say. Sgerbic (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bilby I would be very interested in your terms also. Sgerbic (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is asking anyone to out themselves. I speak for no one but myself, and nobody else speaks for me, so don't ask me what another editor wants, ask them. As for what I want, here's what I would like to see happen:

1. Abandon and disavow, publicly, the entire idea of "backwards editing" and the approach you laid out in that 2015 article
   • Backward editing is a poor editing philosophy. It creates non-neutral articles, it creates WP:DUE problems and when the backwards editing is all done backwards from a particular publication, it's indistinguishable from WP:PROMO editing. When it's done backwards from a particular point of view, it's WP:POVPUSHing. When it's done backwards from a particular cause or agenda, it's WP:RGW editing. Basically, backwards editing is always going to lead to policy violations. I have no idea if you agree with that or not, but I'd be happy to have a longer conversation with you elsewhere about this, and about how to properly fight disinformation through "forward editing". (I've decided I really am going to write a book about this that I plan to self-publish later this year. I genuinely thank you for giving me the push I needed, as I believe this whole mess is borne from miscommunication due to a lack of education, and I want to help fix that so it doesn't happen again.)
2. Stop teaching people to take citations from SI (or any other publication with which you have a WP:COI) and add those citations to Wikipedia articles (as you advocate in the 2015 article)
3. Disclose your personal COIs in accordance with WP:COI; that's going to require you to review your own editing history so that you don't make a mistake like the one you made earlier in this conversation when you incorrectly asserted that you've never edited about yourself
4. Ask anyone affiliated with you or GSoW, whether colleagues, students, or otherwise, to also review their own edits and disclose COI. If there is an WP:OUTING concern--if they can't disclose their COI without OUTING--ask them to email (as it says at WP:COI, see WP:COISELF for example, which talks about emailing WP:OTRS) in order to disclose the COI privately or otherwise seek advice about how to handle the COI. (You may want to figure out an email contact other than WP:OTRS, I'm not sure if that's the best email for this particular issue.) I understand you're not responsible for others' actions, but it would be good for you to publicly advocate that others take the appropriate steps, as I'm sure you will do.
5. Going forward, comply with WP:COI. Either don't edit things with which you have a COI at all (if you don't want to disclose), or edit them in the manner that WP:COI requires (which might mean disclosures and talk page posts)
6. Going forward, ask your colleagues/past students/whoever to similarly comply with WP:COI (I understand you're not responsible for others' actions, but it would be good for you to publicly advocate that others take the appropriate steps, as I'm sure you will do.)
7. Going forward, teach your future students about how to comply with WP:COI, in the same manner as WP:GLAM and WikiEd does. Teach them about the judgment call they're going to have to make between being totally anonymous, or editing things with which they have a COI (where they'll have to disclose that COI, which might mean at least some level of self-outing). Teach them how to make those disclosures.
8. Going forward, comply with the usual procedures followed by WikiEd and other Wikipedia training programs (Wiki meetups, edit-a-thons, etc.). That means your students identify themselves as your students and as participating in your training program, when they are making edits as part of one of your training programs. I'm not totally familiar with what the requirements for this are, but I know that there's a standard way that teachers handle it when they're teaching people to edit Wikipedia, and it involves disclosures and notices, so everyone else knows "this edit is made by a student in this class", and they know how to contact the teacher should there be any problems.
9. I still think you should consider moving GSoW from Facebook to Wikipedia and becoming a WikiProject, and having communications on-wiki. Accountability through transparency is the wiki-way, it's how crowdsourced editing works. A lack of disclosing COI is how much "woo" editing (and other POV-pushing) gets done, that's the "black hat" editing; anti-"woo" editing should be "white hat" editing: entirely above-board, a shining beacon setting an example for others, not a shadowy, mysterious organization communicating off-wiki. Levivich 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Levivich - I love that you numbered this. 1. I do not agree that backwards editing is pushing an agenda, I do think that it might appear that way at times, but don't think a blanket ban on adding citations to existing articles is going to fly, how would that even be policed, every editor adds content to an article, from the NYT from Time Magazine that just seems odd to blanket ban that. But I see your point, doing it in mass is scary and will seem like blanket spamming. 2. see above 3. How much more clear can I be with who I am? I am Susan Gerbic my user name says so. My user page says who I am, and there is even a Wikipedia page. How much more obvious can it be? I don't see COI in the same way you do, something that probably will need to be discussed further, but it isn't as clear to me (and others) as it is to you (and others). Just saying "state your COI" is vague and a blanket statement. 4. See above plus you will know that this is a public post and people will be reading and thinking about what you are saying. 5. Again - that is such a blanket statement that it means just about everything. How can I do that, does it apply to schools I've attended, places I've worked, cars I've owned, magazines I subscribe to, that gets pretty broad. As stated with SFR if Sgerbic no longer cited the journal Skeptical Inquirer and did not edit CSI or CFI is that enough to end this drama? 8. How am I going to have students announce they are a part of my training program without them also announcing they are GSoW? You don't seem to be grasping that there are editors reading this right now that are making lists of everyone they think is GSoW, they are doing this for reasons that are not to give them a special welcome to the project, they clearly are planning on making their careers here miserable. Not only the editors who have posted here, but those lurkers, trolls like Tumbledown who just reared his ugly head a few weeks ago and approached ACS, but there are lots of these people who often make my life difficult off Wikipedia would would love to have a list of editors to expand to. We focus on fringe topics as you know, so we get a lot of fringe people looking to cause in real life issues. 9. What I just wrote is the issue here, as I keep trying to make clear, we are on the wikiprojects, we post and edit there also. We edit along side you all all the time, we are just editors like anyone else. I can not stop people from becoming friends and chatting and working on projects off Wikipedia. That isn't manageable and even if we were to try, someone would always move the goal posts to say we are not totally transparent. No one will ever be completely pleased. What I propose is that we stop generalizing GSoW as this "thing" and respond to the edits as are seen on the page we are looking at in the moment and address the issue on the talk page. Pulling in edits made across ten years from hundreds of people (some not even GSoW) is not helpful. In other words, addressing the issue with the edit in the same way that every edit is addressed. Not lumping every person and every edit into a bucket. I look forward to your book Levivich and to working along with you for years to come, I want to work in peace and not have to deal with any more drama from those that profess to be in the science positive world. We have enough division to deal with, we should not be involved in hundreds of thousands of words on an admin thread. Can we at least agree to that? Sgerbic (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: we can certainly agree on that, I'd like nothing more! As to the rest, I'm interested to hear what others think; particularly what their answers are to the very apt question you posed: what do they want to happen here? Levivich 00:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Side point: there is nothing wrong with starting with sourcing and improving Wikipedia articles from those sources. The only two things wrong with what sgerbic wrote about that are "This is usually the opposite way a traditional Wikipedia editor would work" (coming across something in a source you read frequently and updating the article is, I would venture, much more common than picking an article and doing a deep dive), and that it should be used to promote a particular publication. If I read a book about the history of basketball, there's a strong likelihood that I'm going to add bits from that book to various basketball-related articles. And there would be nothing wrong with that. So let's leave this part aside, eh, and stick with the COI stuff.

If I can summarize what I see as the valid points here: nobody should be editing articles about subjects they have a direct connection to, and citations to publications one has a connection to should be done sparingly. Neither of these are absolute requirements, but the strong preference of an awful lot of people, and best practices for editing. The issue is, as soon as any such edit is remotely problematic, there is wikihellfire. Nobody within a particular group should be editing about or on behalf of other members of that group, either. I find the efforts to target GSoW through multiple noticeboards, from multiple angles, to be rather suspect, but there can be little argument with "just follow best practices for COI". Of course, it makes things complicated that some Wikipedians are absolutely insistent about what's absolutely necessarily required for COI when our COI policy doesn't actually require those things, but what I've said is, I think, a widely accepted recommendation. No self-outing is required, and as long as one is not editing articles with which they have a COI, no disclosures are needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of Rhododendrites's summary above. On the topic of backwards editing and so on (which I agree on what Rhododendrites stated), I further believe that the current thread at WP:RSN on Skeptical Inquirer columns will help reduce the possible damage done by backwards/promotional inclusion of SI sources. On the topic of why it is very important for me that others disclose their COI's, I believe it is disingenuous to not tell another editor you are connected to the subject of the article when discussing issues on the talk page as it takes advantage of the other editor assuming you don't (per WP:AGF), in my opinion. Additionally, it might cause issues for the local vs. global consensus flavor of conflict that often arises in wikipedia if a sufficiently large proportion of the editors that have a page watchlisted are connected or trained by someone connected to the subject. For example, I have a COI with TU Eindhoven which I disclose both in the talk page of the article and my userpage. I am not concerned about being outed as my username here is a pseudonym. I don't see how it is so difficult to at least engage in a discussion on how to disclose COIs in the skeptic/pseudoscience/fringe topic. Hell, I'm considerably active in editing incredibly contentious topics within Spain (Carlism and Opus Dei) whose supporters are often highly influential within my home country and often in a violent political extreme. Lemme tell you I understand y'all's concerns about off-wiki harassment or damage by religious fanatics (in my country they control the Judiciary branch, various ministries, and government roles to some extent so I don't play around). But the way to respond to this concern is never to skirt around policy and follow the letter but not the spirit of the COI and outing guidelines. The way to respond to this concern is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst: WP:AGF and following optimal personal security practices on the internet. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Break (extended other discussion (GSOW/Rp2006))

I am not going to pretend that I have read every word of this incredibly long thread, but I find the oft-cited "Learn to Edit Wikipedia like a GSoW Editor-Backwards Editing" article to be incredibly damning. I think the main problem with the viewpoint of Sgerbic and Rp2006 is they seem to be convinced that their brand of skepticism is objective truth and fully inline with the goals of Wikipedia and, by extension, promoting SI and related publications and podcasts is just 'helping' Wikipedia and there's nothing wrong with that. (I know, neither of them have written those words, but that's my interpretation of what they have written). One way or another, the behavior of the nebulous group referred to as GSoW needs to be modified. --SVTCobra 23:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I also think it might be handy for participants in this discussion to read some of the principals from WP:EEML. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Note, (ScottishFinnishRadish feel free to comment otherwise lol) that the link to WP:EEML is not an accusation that GSoW is operating in the exact same way or is equivalent to the EEML case (I'm only noting this due to the the recent supplementary motion at Arbcom). EEML is an important precedent in this area and other editors' increased knowledge of the case will certainly improve the discussion here. If I had to say, Wikipedia is closer to common than napoleonic law. If anyone has any academic analysis of wiki consensus as law, I beg you to send me the link as that is a fascinating thought experiment! Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct, I should have clarified that principals 8 and 9 are reasonably related to this situation. Off wiki coordination has been a problem in the past, and it's not unexpected that some editors are wary of it ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: the purpose of backwards editing is not "promoting SI". Nor is it GSoW's purpose. BTW, the title of the article can be misleading, and I don't know if you realize that in the first paragraph she writes that it is "a Wikipedia editing technique". Backwards editing is just one of the things that are talked about during GSoW training. It isn't the way GSoW operates or something like that. This recent edit I did was a backwards edit. I was reading the book, wondered whether that theory for the origin of the word was on WP, it wasn't, so I added it. It is a way to add information from reliable sources to articles. Skeptical Inquirer is a very reliable source, increasing its exposure in WP (or elsewhere) is increasing the exposure of reliable information, and that is the whole point of it. When information from reliable sources is added to WP articles, that's usually an improvement. It doesn't matter if the editor came by the information by reading a magazine or by doing research and coming across such magazine. Sometimes people do make mistakes and add things they should not, or in ways they should not. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. But you are making this out to be something it isn't. VdSV9•♫ 00:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a "bad edit" IMO, but a great example of exactly what I mean when I say backwards editing causes WP:UNDUE problems. The section Cocktail#Etymology has NPOV problems. It quotes etymologists, but also non-etymologists, without explaining to the reader which is the mainstream view and which are significant minority opinions, and which are just the opinions of mixologists who write books. It gives the reader the wrong impression: that there are multiple competing opinions about the etymology of the word. It also cites DeGroff for DeGroff's opinion, whereas what we want is to cite someone else describing DeGroff's opinion, in order to show that DeGroff's opinion matters, and to allow the secondary source to filter and place in context (is DeGroff's opinion the mainstream view? a fringe view?). This is off-topic, though, so it's all I'll say about it here. Levivich 00:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and have no intention of arguing here whether or not it was a "bad edit". That's not the point. DeGroff being a reliable source on cocktail matters, it is definitively okay to WP:SOURCEMINE his book. And that's basically what "backwards edit" means in Gerbicspeak, pretty much. VdSV9•♫ 02:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm in no way confused about what "backwards editing" means in "Gerbicspeak". I've read her writing :-) Note that WP:SOURCEMINE talks about mining a source for one article. A source about the Manx for an article about the Manx. It doesn't talk about "backwards editing", i.e., mining a source for use in multiple articles. You may want to read WP:SOURCEMINE#A caution on misapplication. DeGross is not a reliable source for the etymology of the word "cocktail" because he's not an etymologist. He's also not the best source for the etymology of the word; his book isn't even academic scholarship (it's a recipe book, entitled "The Craft of the Cocktail Everything You Need to Know to be a Master Bartender, with 500 Recipes"). Etymology should be sourced to scholarship written by etymologists. The etymology of "cocktail" should not be sourced to an expert on cocktails. That's like sourcing the etymology of the word "hammer" to a carpenter. I wouldn't belabor the point except this is an exact illustration of the danger of backwards editing, and by extension, the danger of teaching backwards editing. Levivich 03:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@VdSV9:. When you cite that article and say "backwards editing" is not to promote SI, I think you are being insincere. Just a few sentences later it says This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications. And if you focus just on the words "as well", I think you are missing the point. --SVTCobra 00:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not being insincere. Here is the thing: that article isn't part of GSoW's training. And I'm only quoting it because it has been used as a supposed evidence of misconduct, or of ill intent, or of something. This is the first time I'm seeing that article, as far as I remember, and I've been in GSoW for over five years. It wasn't written for GSoW, it was written for readers of SI as a way to get more people to maybe add good information to Wikipedia. And cherry-picking this one sentence (or other sections) while choosing to ignore the "as well" part, as if it isn't clearly an added benefit (in the sense that it can lead to more people becoming interested in people and publications that publish reliable information), not "the purpose". VdSV9•♫ 02:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@VdSV9:, what are you saying then? You took actual GSoW training from an off-wiki source? But yes, I agree the article is more leaning to recruiting people into GSoW than being written for existing 'members'. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I would not expect anyone to stop doing backwards editing. Like User:Rhododendrites, it's something I do from time to time. I'm reading a book by the archaeologist Alice Roberts and I plan to make some edits based on her book to edit articles I haven't edited. @A. C. Santacruz: - Wikiproject skepticism is probably the place for lists. And of course the project has Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Discussions. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think intent plays into this. if you come across a great article, and think "that would be a wonderful reference, I should see if I can use this", I can't see a problem. But if the intent is specifically to get as many articles as you can from a publication you write for into Wikipedia as references, [32], then it starts to be indistinguishable from spam. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course. But unless I've misinterpreted, a few editors here seem to think it's a bad idea all around. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, while I agree with you that this type of 'backwards editing' is normal, though I've never, ever heard it described as such. I disagree that this is what the article is actually describing. In my opinion, this article describes a way to pretend it is generic 'backwards editing'. What if Alice Robert wrote in her foreword "If you like this book, please add its contents to Wikipedia and cite me"? --SVTCobra 09:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: we already have mechanisms in place to deal with reference spam and I think they are adequate. Obviously Roberts wouldn't write that in her book, and if she ever did I'd be a bit disappointed. But that shouldn't stop anyone from using her book. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The Robert thing was in jest of course, but I am not so sure about our mechanisms. Have all the CounterPunch issues really been resolved? And even if it was left as deprecated, wasn't it used as a source in thousands of articles? --SVTCobra 10:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• This post has ballooned to the point where it has become unreasonable to expect anyone to read the whole thing. However, having sunk in the hours to catch up on discussion since the prior ANI thread of similar proportion, I am going to add some comments as concisely as possible. Don't want to add to the mess.
  1. Leave Guerrilla Skeptics alone. This is like the third thread of such catastrophic size that I shudder to think of the amount of community time wasted on putting all of these people under increasingly fine microscopes. There would have to be severe disruption to justify this. There is not. It's starting to feel like WP:FORUMSHOPPING until somebody finds a means somehow someway to run them out of project. It has become disruptive to the encyclopedia in its own right, and it has to stop. Below this thread, in another section of COIN, you can see SVT lamenting that this discussion has occupied the noticeboard's attention, effectively blocking action on another topic.
  2. GSoW contributions are a net positive to the project. The back and forth in this thread has gotten so convoluted that one could be forgiven for forgetting that the vast majority of contributions produced by known GSoW users are good work. They edit in the fraught areas of fringe theories, pseudoscience, and alternative medicine. It takes a mental toll to work in these areas; it can make you cynical or bitter over time. We have already lost many great editors who once patrolled and expanded these articles. Some snapped, lost their shit and got blocked; some retired after relentless badgering; some, unfortunately, passed away or disappeared without explanation. You can bicker over the occasional lapse in judgment over the course of tens of thousands of contributions, but if you're going to dispute these facts, then I'm going to question the soundness of your argument.
  3. Assessments of COI are exaggerated. This is the COI noticeboard, and I'd love it if we didn't have to discuss tangential topics outside of COI. Unfortunately, we do have to do that, to some extent, because this thread does not exist in a vacuum. The mental gymnastics I see above, trying to extrapolate some kind of third degree generational COI by way of connection to James Randi are untenably flimsy. There are some valid points regarding problematic COI editing, but they are rare and they look unintentional. Affected users should avoid editing pages, sections and bits of prose that are about them or that cite their work without at least first soliciting a second opinion. This isn't a justification to crucify the whole project. Just do better. There are also some valid concerns regarding WP:PROMO vis-a-vis using SI as a source. In short, I don't think they hold up. We wouldn't be having this lovely chat if we had an editor for, say, The Lancet encouraging students to cite the journal on Wikipedia. Now whether or not SI qualifies as an RS is another matter and will be determined at RSN.
  4. Good faith? What's that? Nobody needs to be accusing each other of lying, harassment, or intentional outing. When somebody says that they've never edited about themselves and then you^#6 find a diff of them editing about themselves, that doesn't make them a liar. People can misremember things. It doesn't entitle you to groveling apologies either. Please be civil. The same can be said about accusations of outing (with malice) and harassment. You can and should express concern if somebody is doing something that negatively affects you. Stirring the pot or threatening escalation is unlikely to defuse the situation.
  5. Finally, I will address just one instance of user conduct, because I think it's important. @A. C. Santacruz: do you remember why you were blocked from ANI? Does this really feel like a good use of your time? Why is your signature showing up 72 times on this page? This is not an accusation of wrongdoing, but I urge you to do some self-reflection. You have a lot of other valuable contributions in your history.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I spent an entire sleepless night on this rigamarole, and I'm going to take the last 2 hours of sleep that remain to me. I'll be back much later. Please try to be kind to one another. AlexEng^(TALK) 13:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I remind you that I neither started this thread (Levivich), the one in ANI (Rp2006), nor the one in RSN (BilledMammal). I don't want to seem passive-aggressive in this comment, as I genuinely appreciate experienced editors making sure I both understand how I can improve my contributions to the wiki and better follow the guidelines. So while being singled out is a bit surprising, I'm thankful for the opportunity AlexEng gives me to reflect positively on this thread. One of the reasons why my signature shows up repeatedly on this page is that I also contribute and comment in other threads.

You (and other editors coming across this comment) can read the justification for my block (which expires soon-ish) in this thread. I remember it well. In this thread and others since the ban I have made sure to be patient, ask for consensus before doing any action, and proposing constructive ways where both GSoW editors and those of us with concerns over the COI shown in this thread can go about improving any possibly problematic articles together. I consider my participation in this thread about as good a use of my time as my other activity on wiki (and the reason why I have been so active lately in wiki is I'm currently quarantined with Omicron so have plenty of free time). Hell, if I'm being compared to (or mentioned in relation with or asked about being) a communist, a witch-hunter, and a Nazi (this sounds like the start of a good bar joke...) but still continue to engage in good faith with the editors I'm disagreeing with in this discussion, I certainly feel the time I'm spending here will improve the wiki. It certainly wouldn't be worth the wikistress otherwise. Additionally, I'm glad I wasn't discouraged by what I consider to be uncivil behavior by others in the Sharon A. Hill article. The talk page there is doing steady progress and I'm sure the end result will be a really great BLP. I hope the improvements there can be mirrored in the many other BLPs affected by the issues raised above in this thread. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Close this discussion as a tempest in a teapot and start a new WikiProject

This is an absurd discussion. GSoW have been active on Wikipedia for years and have done a lot of great work to bring various articles up to a higher quality. They, like the rest of Wikipedians, are human. While I have been extremely grateful for the vast majority of work GSoW has done, there are edits I've seen GSoW affiliates do which I think need to be discussed, changed, etc. But that does not mean that there is a systemic problem with GSoW let alone a concerted effort to abrogate Wikipedia rules. If people are concerned that there is something that needs to be made more transparent with GSoW, they should be encouraging more active and transparent work of this organization on wiki in the WP:WIR model. This will not happen if the kind of WP:WIKIHOUNDING I'm seeing in this discussion continues. We are only as good as the volunteers who edit and there is noting we can do as a community to encourage transparency other than being a community that is welcoming to groups who are doing the work that is inline with the goals of our website.

So I'm going to make a suggestion here. Let's close this mess and start a WikiProject page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Guerrilla Skeptics of Wikipedia. There we can take discussion about how best to support GSoW collaborations, edit-a-thons, and, sure, deal with COI questions in a collaborative rather than WP:PUNITIVE space.

jps (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've also finally gotten caught up on this. Nothing really seems to have changed since the last major thread, other than apparently specific evidence of COI from Rp2006? Like seemingly everyone in this discussion, I think the majority of GSOW edits are positive. If issues with the edits themselves have been this sparse for all this time then their editor training methods must be terrific and should serve as a model for WikiEd (and can y'all please extend your influence to TheCatSite forums where I've literally been cautioned to "not be so abrasive" when telling people not to use Mercola Pet products or feed their cat diatomaceous earth...).
But as I said the last time, the intent behind the "backwards editing" described in that article by Gerbic is indisputably at odds with the letter of COI/refspam/PROMO. It might not reflect the purpose of the group or even its primary editing approach. But it is still an explicit instruction to promote SI/etc. by someone affiliated with SI/etc. and who serves to benefit personally from such promotion. I understand the training probably covers WP:DUE and trainees are probably taught to be much more discerning in what they add and cite here than that article implies. However, neither the general public nor most wiki editors are familiar with how you actually apply "backwards editing", so when we see things like that article or evidence of SELFCITE or UNDUE negative coverage in BLPs it reads very similar to the standard coordinated POV pushing we see every day from groups like OpIndia. Even if an individual editor adding material sourced to SI/etc. has no COI with them, in fact, even if they're not a GSoW member, when your organization is publicly appearing to encourage promotional, agenda-based editing by anonymous editors with undisclosed affiliation it gives fringe proponents that little nugget of justification in saying "don't trust Wikipedia, they have biased articles paid for by _____", or "SI isn't reliable, they pay people to cite them on wiki", or "the skeptic movement is deceitful, they secretly inflate the legitimacy of mainstream POVs on wiki". Susan's agreeing not to edit on SI/etc. or insert refs to them would do a lot to build up the reputability of GSoW, and it would be even better if the whole group publicly agreed not to promote info from/citations to affiliates in mainspace (maybe just suggest on talk pages?). Ultimately, I think it's best for everyone's image to be aboveboard in both actual and apparent COI/REFSPAM/SELFCITE/POV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

the intent behind the "backwards editing" described in that article by Gerbic is indisputably at odds with the letter of COI/refspam/PROMO I categorically disagree with this claim. I have students who add links to The Astrophysical Journal to various astronomy articles in essentially the same fashion. I do not see that as being "indisputably at odds" even with the letter of those PAGs.... and certainly they aren't at odds with the spirit of WP. jps (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

How would adding links to ApJ be equivalent? Are you an editor there and specifically telling students to add refs to promote the journal? Are you telling them to cite close colleagues of yours to boost their reputation? JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a discussion jps and I had about this: User_talk:ජපස#SI/GSoW. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The way I see it, adding citations to particular papers or journals that you are affiliated with, with the intent to increase exposure of those items, runs a very high risk of introducing UNDUE bias toward one POV. It's why we have REFBOMB in the first place. In the case of CSI, there's the added concern particular SI authors might be writing pieces specifically for inclusion in wikipedia, an issue that definitely does not plague scientific academic publishing. I'm not saying that happens, but that the possibility makes it clearly distinct from editing in relevant citations to a specific journal. JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This 'backwards editing' thing is an article in the Skeptical Inquirer that used the Skeptical Inquirer as an example. We've heard from a GSoW member above that it isn't a part of their training materials. I don't think it is great that SI ran a piece that essentially said 'cite us on Wikipedia', but we should be careful not to conflate these two issues even though sgerbic is involved in both of them. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some more explanation on your point, as I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning, MrOllie.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie, sorry to do it to you again, but feel free to tell me to take a long walk off a short pier -- I think in essence the issue is we have to define what "backwards editing" is. Some seem to define it as "seeing a citation and looking for a place to put it," while others define it as "taking a citation from a source you wish to promote and shoehorning it in." Dumuzid (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: This discussion is nominally about Rp2006, and has grown to be about GSoW in general. The article 'Learn to Edit Wikipedia like a GSoW Editor-Backwards Editing' is an article by sgerbic, that ran in SI, but is specifically written as advice for people who don't want to join GSoW. I think it is confusing for everyone that we keep conflating this with processes taught to GSoW members. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This entire long "discussion" across multiple places just seems like a personal crusade from the likes of ScottishFinnishRadish, Santacruz, and Levivich. As an outside observer who has been watching all of this nonsense and sprawling threads go down, that's the only way I can feel to summarize everything. Wikihounding seems particularly prescient in this regard by the editors in question. Silverseren^C 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

jps I fully agree that the GSoW matter is best dealt with through a WikiProject. I have maintained that position since the good ol' initial ANI thread. Is there a better place to discuss this rather than bloat the COIN thread even further? I feel so many subthreads is making the knot harder to untie.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If I were SusanGerbic I would embrace jps suggestion to make GSoW into a WikiProject. If nothing else, it would be a place to centralize the criticism of GSoW, which seems to be coming from a small but persistent group that has spread it all over various noticeboards and AN/I. If such discussions took place under the aegis of the WikiProject, the temptation to ‘prosecute the case’ would be defused and more collaborative outcomes enabled. I understand Susan prefers Facebook for its user-friendly approach to newbies. She could start by shifting some of the more advanced administrative functions of GSoW over to the WikiProject (article lists and status, etc.), and then gradually transfer more functionality over time, perhaps reserving Facebook for stuff like newcomer orientation and basic Wiki skills. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with LuckyLouie's proposed way of organizing the WikiProject. My biggest concerns have always been transparency and COIs. I believe Levivich and Sgerbic's discussion above will be useful to resolving the second one constructively, and the hybrid WikiProject approach will resolve the first one almost completely in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• 1. This discussion of what would make editors end this drama has been fascinating. I respect most of your opinions and am open to most of the ideas. But hounding is rampant here on Wikipedia by editors that claim they are looking out for the best interests of GSoW. There are currently too many threads to deal with here for a reasonable person to read so I have no idea what I'm missing, even comments are being inserted in the middle of conversations I've already read. Wikipedia is NOT a place to have discussions like this, I don't have a better solution but this has just evolved into showing the lurkers and new editors the worst of the crew that are here on COI. Let me be crystal clear, GSoW is a private group that operates off-Wikipedia on Facebook, it also is very active already here on Wikipedia, every day we are editing along side you, we post and are active in admin areas, teahouse, talk pages, WMC, you see us every day you edit. I train brand new people who have never edited before, some editors I have to work with one-on-one to learn how to make a user page, the most basic edits that you all take for granted are difficult for them at the beginning (some of the beginners) a large chunk of our people are not native English speakers so we have that to deal with also, which requires more hands-on-personal time. All this is NOT contusive for a text heavy platform like Wikipedia. Most instructions here are a wall-of-text and I have difficulty understanding. I started GSoW years ago because it was so confusing for a beginner and editors were so mean to new people making mistakes, we needed a visual way to train people, a safe place for people to make edits, a kind and friendly place where we could train. A GSoW Wiki project located here on Wikipedia would have the very first obstacle of being just another Wiki:Project with text and columns and to-do lists and rankings of stuff. A new person would turn tail and run for the hills. Just imagine someone in your life that is not considered tech literate and show them one of the Wiki:Projects and say "Here you go, figure it out" they wouldn't have a clue where to start, what button to click and much else. You all have the same thing in common, you understand this world, you know how to code, you speak this jargon that only makes Wikipedia more intimidating.
  2. And "IF" I were to have a GSoW Project here, then how would I keep ALL discussions to the project? Force all the 100+ people to unfriend each other on social media, tell them they could no longer discuss the work they are doing off-Wikipedia? How would that work? And even if that were possible, just imagine the day when someone said "I think they are still talking off Wiki to each other". More hounding. We already have Wiki:ProjectSkepticism we are already there. That Wiki:Project and MOST Wiki:Projects are dormant and have almost no work being done. They fail time and again. You will never attract non-tech people here if you do not embrace new teaching methods. There is a world out there that are missing out on telling the stories that explain their music, culture, food, and more. They lack the luxury of having a desktop computer, even having Internet. If they were to appear, they would be run off with this kind of drama, attacks, biting and hounding. You seem to be living in a world of perfection and think only the cream of the crop should be here on Wikipedia. Forget that there are others who have every right to learn to edit, and yes, it takes time to learn, it takes mentorship and encouragement and patience.
  3. I have already had to remove one editor from GSoW when I learned they had a sock-puppet. We didn't go though a trial here, we didn't have a full-on blown out drama fest here on Wikipedia. I asked that person to leave the project and now they are completely gone from Wikipedia. We have standards also, we rarely post in places such as this, they are busy actually working on the projects that they have decided to work on. When I started GSoW over ten years ago, Wikipedia was a very different place. I would like to think that GSoW had something to do with that. We just added page 1,946 last night (now 1,948). 45% of the work we do is in non-English languages. That 1,046 are just the pages we have written or built from a stub to a full-article. We make thousands of edits outside those pages. Anyone here who passes judgement on the quality or our work after looking at a couple pages is lying. That is just a fact. In the ANI drama thread from a couple months ago, I tried to explain our training method and was ignored, people picked apart what I was saying to respond to just a fragment in order to justify their impressions of GSoW.
  4. We also have standards that are ethical - there is one person here in this current drama that I would never allow into our editing team. Claiming over seventeen pages on their user page as their own "significant contributions" is beyond the pale, pages they have not edited at all. Learning that last night just made me ill. Apparently this is okay behavior in this climate. I'm not okay with it.
  5. So when you all have finally decided my fate here on Wikipedia, why don't you let me know. I'm sick of this mess, sick of finding conversations about me and GSoW all over Wikipedia, sick of people not reading this insane thread but still wanting to give their opinion of the matter, sick of people who are looking to cast blame for whatever reasons. I'm frustrated - sorry - but this behavior has run off so many great editors, and scared off beginners and people who can not (or will not) tolerate the drama. As @AlexEng has said, this HAS TO stop. The HOUNDING MUST STOP also. I've also lost too many hours of sleep over this. ENOUGH! Sgerbic (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't respond to the rest. I assume the 17 significant contributions refers to my page. I didn't write those articles, but I did nominate them for DYK. I thought that was clear. Same goes for the FPs. Nominating is still a contribution I'm proud of and which I happily list on my page. I'd have appreciated you reach out to me and ask me about it so I could clarify that in my userpage rather than this way, but alas. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

OMG! I had noticed the long list of DYK's under "Significant contributions" when you started to hound me. Looking no further than to pop some links open, I was very impressed. I have only written from scratch (or expanded) 6 articles that made it to DYK's, and you had done this with over 15. I thought maybe I had the wrong idea; Santacruz does actual work and isn't just here to cause drama. Oooopps... I was right all along. You nominated them. Significant. And I see that you just added the subcat title "Nominations" above the list after being called out on this. Better late than not at all. Rp2006 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for AlexEng (pings are hard to fix if you don't get them right the first time, see H:PINGFIX). Firefangledfeathers 22:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Susan, re #2, I wasn't suggesting you move all discussion to the WikiProject, just some, a little at a time, beginning with high level stuff like lists of articles being worked on, articles completed, etc. that do not need to be conducted in a private Facebook group. I do understand you are engaging and involving people who otherwise could not handle the technocracy of Wikipedia, but certainly they won't remain frightened novices forever. After they are suitably experienced, they could conceivably navigate AfDs, RfCs, Talk page discussions, etc. on their own. Keeping them in the Facebook bubble forever isn't necessary, IMO. Also, I know maintaining their private identity is crucial and no one wants to encourage outing of GSoW members. But I'm sure there is a way to eventually transition them from a private Facebook group to an anonymous Wikipedia editor account without jeopardizing their identity. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think transitioning the editors would be too difficult - as it is, GSoW publicly names each editor who is responsible for editing an article and provides a link to their Facebook page. Presumably those editors are already comfortable being connected with their work on WP. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Sgerbic then how would I keep ALL discussions to the project You don't have to any more than WP:Women in red keep all their discussions at this site. The problem right now is that there is no centralized discussion place on-wiki for people to talk about GSoW. If there was, this would allow us to keep our discussions more focused on the different initiatives, prevent some of the forum-shopping-lite and endless discussions that are happening. This is also not to say that the WP:Wikiproject page would be required to be the main organizational means for you either. It would just provide an on-wiki home for people from across the project to discuss GSoW. Think of it as a communication portal. jps (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

COI and activism

In the BLP issues on British politics articles ArbCom case, the first principle that they agreed to read:

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and promotion of political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them or placed under sanctions, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

That's the core problem here. Things like editing to insert a journal you write for into as many articles as you can, or self-referencing, or whatever, are symptoms, but not the core issue. GSoW aren't just a Wikipedia editing group, they are also activists opposing people they write about here, and Wikipedia is fundamentally a means to further that. When they run stings against BLP subjects, publish their own articles on the stings, and then come here and add those articles to BLPs, we are creating the sorts of problems that we had with had with British politics. When they organise for someone to write a negative review because they thought that there was a lack of criticism so that they could add that review to the article,[33] or in one case after a dispute on WP went and recorded the subject, providing that recording to a journalist so that they could write an article covering what they wanted, and then added that to the BLP to win the dispute [34] - we have activism and WP combining in a way that has the potential to breakdown basic issues of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. That's the core problem for me.

The reason it is so difficult is that I also agree that Gerbic does an exemplary job training editors, I fundamentally agree with their POV, and most editors who are part of GSoW are excellent. I wish they were more open about issues rather than tending to be misleading, but that isn't a GSoW specific problem. But I have no idea how we handle a serious COI formed from combining off-wiki activism with on-wiki actions, where the two are intrinsically connected. - Bilby (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Reputation Stars Announces Wikipedia Page Creation Services

For your whatever.

"Their writers look for the best quality sources full of accurate information to win favor with Wikipedia admins. With the help of these seasoned experts, customers can boost their personal or corporate prestige with a Wikipedia page today."

Merry Christmas! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

At least they are somewhat up front with requirements for articles, and give us some credit for checking sourcing. Requirements for publishing Wikipedia editors’ goal is to ensure that pages are accurate, free from spam, and notable enough to be included. Reputable sources such as news articles are required to establish a subject’s notability. If you have significant press coverage, you could be a good candidate for a Wikipedia article. Musicians and academics with significant accomplishments may meet qualification requirements with less coverage than is usually needed. If you lack significant coverage, we have connections with a number of PR organizations that can help improve your news coverage. However, it’s important to note that Wikipedia editors do not allow paid articles as sources for pages. They usually check for paid sources, so we recommend creating a plan to get more natural press. Contact us to discuss the details of PR coverage[35] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there was a cryptocurrency company who complained to their PR-guy something like "We spent $100 000 on press coverage, and you couldn't get us a fucking WP-article!?" @David Gerard? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

yeah, it was hilarious - Ditto Communications doing PR for Decred. To their credit, the PR agency did try to talk sense into them. I mentioned it in Signpost last year - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

From the same person who ran/runs Submit Express. --SVTCobra 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is the Wikipedia editor who is known as Pierre Zarokian, doing Wikipedia for 8 years. Does anybody know who that is? scope_creep^Talk 18:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not currently, as far as I know, but the Submit Express entry shows a past IP and user name. There's also a user name used by an employee though not active for over nine months. --SVTCobra 18:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Navjit Buttar

• Navjit Buttar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Suchayaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subject editor created Navjit Buttar in article space. Reviewer User:Onel5969 moved it to draft space, with the notation "Segregate UPE". The originator then moved it back to article space without discussion, but with the move reason "No Proof of UPE". This was not an actual denial of UPE, and can be read as weaseling. The subject editor should answer the question of whether they are being paid explicitly. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Where were they asked that question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am guessing here, Andy. --SVTCobra 23:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

• Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Railway Preservation Society of Ireland
• GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GalavantEnchancedMoon has today, 25 December 2021, re-started editing Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RPSI) per [36]. While purporting to address the balance between North and South operations the wording continues to make subtle poke's between the north and south of the society, with emphasis on the how the Southern operations (Dublin/Mullingar) have been "hard done by" the north. This is consistent with previous contributions such as Special:Diff/1022135389 "However, some members regard this as a waste of money and effort that would be better used on their existing locomotive and carriage fleet." The discussions on Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland/Archive 1 ^{NB I inserted "talk" in this link to fix it. --SVTCobra 03:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC))} are unsavoury; there has been need to delrev various articles on the main page. GalavantEnchancedMoon backed off from discussions at the time, but has re-emerged, and there is a question of COI, althougth previously denied. I was a member of the RPSI from 25 August 2021 until I resigned my membership in 22 November 2021 (more because RPSI email bulletin communications were reminding me of by pblock on the article by Mjroots and if I attended an RPSI event I might slag of WikiPedia admins handling of the matter. I accept my pblock has to remain becuase I was a member for a short while). There remains a question in my mind if GalavantEnchancedMoon should be allowed to use Wikipedia to air his disdains relating to the RPSI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Is everyone contributing to this article a member or former member of the society? --SVTCobra 04:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: - GEM states that he is not a member of the RPSI. We have to AGF that is the case.

As for the issues raised here, as I see it the RPSI has bases in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Both should be covered. Any major disputes between factions should also be covered, but in a neutral and non-partisan way. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots Because GEM has used the RPSI journal to support some of those claims using poorly embellished (and in one case syntactically incorrect) and offline resources I have removed the old wallet from its watertight hole and attempted to re-join the RPSI if they will choose to have me (Its always horrible when a browser screen says Whoops, looks like something went wrong. after one has entered the credit card details!). Obviously we can unending amounts of AGF ... except perhaps on my motives ... I'm a tad sarky because I just may have burned £30 so I hope people will AGF about that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: - Although I don't know the situation re the RPSI, many heritage railways do sell their house journal to the public. That GEM has used such a journal is not, in itself, evidence of membership of the RPSI. A different concern, which is valid, is that the journal is a WP:PRIMARY source insofar as it covers matters relating to the RPSI itself. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots:: Its reasonable for primary sources to be used for certain facts, but its use by GEM surely deserves scrutiny? Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A "major dispute" should be covered only if reliable secondary sources have published on the topic. Whatever the journal says about its dispute is immaterial. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. Are you able to do that, Mjroots? I am at a loss, quite frankly. Nevertheless, I am aware of larger rail clubs who do not have a Wikipedia page, so maybe TNT is an option if they can't agree. I cannot speak to the content of the article. --SVTCobra 08:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I purchased some second hand copies of the magazine (among other societies) many years ago. They are also available online, for example https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/49122667/five-foot-three-number-58-railway-preservation-society-of-ireland GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Please indicate larger rail clubs in the British Isles that do not have an article and are also a Train Operating Company? Also please think about the fact the publicly open Whitehead Railway Museum effectively requires that it has its own section. And before yet another TNT or stubify can anyone please tell me what is wrong from a neutrality viewpoint (yes there are spelling mistakes and there is expansion needed) with This 19th December 2021 version? However a key issue with a more recent addition such as [37] and determine if the and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead. if factually correct it is non neutral in tone. It is not to decry probable good/great Mullingar, situated somewhat in the centre of the Island of Ireland, has done; but I suspect the 1985 closure of the Mullingar line to Athone and access to Galway, Ballina, Westport, and former Great Southern and Western Railway other than via Dublin. Totally worth of mention, but probably a History section item rather than what I read as sour grapes. Take look at Dublin operations section. The Society has extensive operations out of Dublin which are said to bring in the lion's share of income, according to Five Foot Three issue 43. Does that undated? RS? look neutral? Now I am far from denying it may be true (Especially from earlier times but as the previous issue of Five Foot three was (No. 42) was in 1996 and that looks like a cherry picked claim. It not like Dublin Operations might still be generating most revenue, even with Covid, and it certainly needs a mention, but in this form of biased fashion? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said that about TNT'ing. Anyway, to clarify, I was not speaking of the British Isles and also not about clubs that operate real trains. Basically, just a couple of US-based clubs with larger membership numbers. Kindly disregard those parts of my message. It was really late at night for me. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor (I've never even set foot in Ireland), my understanding is that this is a long-running dispute, and essentially all major contributors to the article have a COI. Which makes sense, because everyone else doesn't want to wade into the middle of a war zone (I certainly don't). I don't know how to resolve this beyond banning everyone with a COI from making direct edits to the article entirely and having someone neutral rewrite it (I am NOT volunteering to do this). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings:: I'm am going to again, and I repeat again due to SVTCobra, cover the matter of why a rewrite is unnecessary. I was not an RPSI member prior to 25 August 2021. Per Special/Diff:1040560446 I declared I had just joined the RPSI (ie gone COI) and removed my contributions since a stubification. Independent contributor who took over mediation role for a while reviewed those contributions and confirmed they should be reinstated at Special:Diff/1040663068. Subsequently I have requested two {{request edit}} which were eventually were implemented. Yes I have had prose and spelling issues in those contributions. The format of the Rolling stock was to satisfy Drmies who seemed unhappy with a tabular format, while linking to relevant articles relating to stock. In totality there should be no need to revert back further than This 19th December 2021 version; what is not to say it could not be improved. But you vaguewave claim of a rewrite needed? No. A neutral rewrite of content added beyond that date given the totallity of GEM's contributions - definitively in my view. And your suggestion of Pblocking all COI editor's (especially perhaps those who have avoided formal mediation?) - yes I would sau that is a good idea but I would wouldn't I given the circumstances. My argument for that would need to be pretty involved and is slightly complex ... I have claimed GEM is a connected contributor based upon an independent admin's assessment - Mjroots has claimed we must AGF his statement he is not. I have insufficient time to do so at present ... I must concentrate on a Hospital Visit to a relative I am booked for this afternoon and various related matters ... being particular cautious to make most due diligence to minimise infection transmission risk either in or out of that establishment. Obviously it would be better in other than mental reasons not to visit, and I have made the reason to visit after due consideration. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• DJM, if you feel the bit about Dublin bringing income needs mention but is in biased form, maybe there's an alternative way of phrasing we could suggest here and see what people think? :) GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@GalavantEnchancedMoon: This forum is really about whether your COI is valid. Mjroots, if I am not mistaken, has claimed about needing to AGF you do not having a COI. In contrast Drmies at Special:Diff/1038917193 used to the phrase "interested parties" with your name being specifically mentioned. ( At this point, and I should have dont this earlier, I should mention that while being an RPSI member from 25-August-2021 to 22 November 2021 and from 29 December 2021 my actions on Wikipedia are my own and I do not claim to represent the RPSI etc, etc,). Of course from my point of view I think I have seen prolific POV pushing, some of it of a most serious nature. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Australian Defence Forces

I'm not sure of what this article says as it's behind a paywall but the blurb was concerning enough that I thought I'd share it here. Anyone know what it says? Is this being discussed elsewhere? https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/defence-force-wikipedia-cleanup-operation-to-rid-internet-of-army-scandals/news-story/2e774a202274ffcc0537ca33b0686a72 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I just access the article and it pertains to edits made to Sydney University Regiment between November 12-15 by an anonymous editor. The editor deleted controversial sections in their entirety. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP edits appear to have been reverted already. One of the IPs does appear to be from the Australian Defence Forces which would be obvious COI. I cannot, however, access the Telegraph article. To follow protocol, would you please list and notify the suspected IPs of this discussion, MaskedSinger? If it recurs, escalating to ANI might be advisable. --SVTCobra 01:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: The IPs in question appear to be 203.6.77.2 and 220.240.238.58. Do you agree? Want to confirm with you first. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not for me to say; you are the one bringing the allegations. But, if we are talking SUR, you just might be right. And no, you needn't confirm with me first. --SVTCobra 09:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, 203.6.77.2 has been tagged publicly since 2015. --SVTCobra 09:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

And 220.240.238.58 was tagged in November. Anything else to do here @SVTCobra:? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean tagged as being registered to the ADF. 220.240.238.58 just looks like a random Australian IP. --SVTCobra 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiIslam

• WikiIslam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Underthemayofan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RubiconForder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Context

The Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA), the parent organization of WikiIslam, has a long but mostly overlooked history of conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on EXMNA and related articles of its leadership to promote the organization and its projects on Wikipedia that has been noted since 2014. There is at least one account on the history of EXMNA page that is easily linked to a senior leader of the organization. In compliance with WP:OUTING, those details can be provided via email.

In 2020, the page on WikiIslam was created. The wiki has garnered quite negative coverage from reliable sources, which have described it as anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, and even Islamophobic. A series of IP addresses from the same range promptly began editing the page to frame Wikipedia's description of WikiIslam much more favorably:

• 2600:1700:20C0:F600:DC57:282A:5FDD:BE94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1700:20C0:F600:3DAD:50EE:2F11:EE01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1700:20C0:F600:B1B4:185:F8CF:D8CF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

When confronted with the possibility that the IP user had a COI, the user stopped editing. A few months later in January of this year, Editor atlas (talk · contribs) performed a couple of edits before shifting their focus to the WikiIslam article and editing in a similar fashion to the IP user. When provided with a COI notice, the editor responded not by denying the COI but by stating "I object, I'm trying to maintain the neutrality of the article." The account was soon abandoned after.

User Underthemayofan

User Underthemayofan accumulated about a dozen edits before initiating a very heavy focus on WikiIslam, editing along the same lines as the IP addresses above and user Editor atlas, in an attempt to cover WikiIslam more favorably. He has demonstrated an intimate familiarity with the wiki and EXMNA, being able to identify the organization's employees, among other things. User RubiconForder, an apparent meatpuppet, had a handful of edits before editing WikiIslam and also popped up in support of user Underthemayofan, quickly declaring that a consensus existed in favor of changing the page to cite WikiIslam itself while de-emphasizing reliable sources.

User:TrangaBellam, User:Doug Weller, and I have all asked about user Underthemayofan's conflict of interests or relationship with WikiIslam. Thus far, they have denied any relationship or COI. Snuish (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a meatpuppet? what? I've been following the wikiislam page on wikipedia for some time and was just waiting for someone else to make a move on updating it. Lazy? Sure. Meatpuppet? lol no.

I also want to point out that anyone who follows the Islam/ex-Islam internet wars will know all about what you describe as constituting the "intimate familiarity" of Underthemayofan. The EXMNA employee you mentioned is on twitter and has a large following within those circles: https://twitter.com/AlanSmith8859. If you aren't following this stuff, then it seems you are exceptionally out of the loop and probably need to do more digging before you accuse random wikipedia editors of COI just because they disagree with you. RubiconForder (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, multiple experienced users who've suspected a COI here are doing so "just because" you disagree with us. It must have nothing to do with the fact that there is a lengthy history of COI editing along the same lines. Snuish (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Lengthy history?" You haven't proven that any of those account were COI! I can tell you I had nothing to do with them, and an analysis of my IP and those IP's will lead to that conclusion.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what standard of proof you would need for this argument, but it's probably not the same as would be required by the community. You being a meatpuppet would not require you to be the same editor or have the same IP address as editors we've come across before. Snuish (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

So then which "standard of proof" are you operating from, besides "everyone who disagrees with me is part of a conspiracy?"--Underthemayofan (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The duck test. Given the number of editors I haven't named above, you have an excellent strawman argument there. Snuish (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Snuish2: If you possess evidence which WP:OUTING is preventing you from posting here, you should email it to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org ... There are also other options which can include this. --SVTCobra 05:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Snuish2: please either present some evidence or stop making this accusation. So far all you have is that I was aware of information that by your own admission is publicly available. @SVTCobra: do I have any recourse to appeal to or defend myself here? This accusation is baseless and aimed only at silencing me because I disagree with Snuish2 on a topic in which he is apparently personally invested. I have also had a baseless accusation of edit warring aimed at me. Is this how Wikipedia welcomes new users to the platform?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan:, to be honest, I do not know. But I'd expect them to contact you if the evidence is not incontrovertible. If it is bullshit, I don't think any of us will ever hear of it again. Again, that's if there's a report and I don't know if there's anything to report. So for now, I'd just relax if I were you. I am sorry if you felt it unfair that I laid out options for Snuish2. --SVTCobra 05:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I have no complaint with anything you have done, it seems you're just following protocol. It just seems that the fact that Snuish2 even posted here and dragged me into defending myself on the basis of such lousy evidence is harassments designed to silence me and keep me from participating in the editing of the article.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan: Well, I don't know what the evidence might be other than your interest in WikiIslam and perceived POV thereof. And to be fair, your edit history looks a little obsessed with the topic. --SVTCobra 06:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I grant that, but the recent history of every user including User:Snuish2 looks like that if you check it recently. I have been editing for almost 6 months now and this is the first topic I am jumping into where I have seen what seems to be to be rank misinformation on the platform. I won't deny being very interested in the topic but I am apparently not alone. Snuish2 has 2 editors apparently in lockstep with him and with similarly "obsessed" histories, should I open complaints of COI on them?--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Snuish (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, your edits, even with your first account Snuish seem to have a keen interest in WikiIslam since 2020. And it continues with your current account/user name. Is it a passing interest? Or are you vested in this? --SVTCobra 07:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a passing interest or if I'll continue to be interested in it for quite some time. My interest is in the counter-jihad movement and related topics, of which WikiIslam is an outgrowth. I've dedicated a lot of time to improving articles in that arena some and others related to Islamophobia. Snuish (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. We are getting somewhere. --SVTCobra 07:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• To quote a ruling from Arbitration Committee (2005), For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. It is self-evident that all these editors (registered or not) are part of a meatpuppetry ring, which I concede, might not be organized or operated with a motive. In a similar vein they might not have a COI (perks of anonymity) but their behavior shows no deviation from editors who declared one or hypothetical editors having one.
  Establishment of motive is very difficult—even in real life prosecution—but that does not waive off sanctions. A consistent refusal to stonewall discussions and simultaneous sealioning can only lead to further waste productive use of editorial resources. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

RubiconForder is not my sock puppet. The information User:Snuish2 cited is publicly available on the internet, see here: https://twitter.com/AlanSmith8859 and here on WikiIslam itself: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Asmith. In addition to Rubicon forder there are other accounts who have taken a similar line to me on WikiIslam.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

While the information is publicly available, it's not readily apparent from either EXMNA's website, where there is no mention of Alan Smith, or WikiIslam's website, which doesn't mention that Alan Smith is an employee of EXMNA. You have to go a bit off the beaten path to find it. Snuish (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Alan Smith also posts fairly frequently on Ex-Muslim Reddit, see here https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/qzdvqu/new_wikiislam_article_on_mariyah_the_copt/. He is fairly well-known in the Ex-Muslim online community.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan: Would you describe yourself as member of that same community? --SVTCobra 21:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No I am not but I am a member of the online atheist community.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's sad how many atheists are so anti-Muslim. Since you've decided to abandon good faith, User:Underthemayofan, I feel free to say that it appears that you are one of them. It's embarrassing to me as an atheist. @Snuish:, his twitter feed says "Head Editor&Admin of WikiIslam http://wikiislam.net Employee of @ExmuslimsOrg ""[38] Doug Weller talk 11:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan: why are you asking for help from an inexperienced editor with a couple of blocks who hasn't edited for 10 months? I can't see anything you have in common except that User:EdJohnston blocked them and he's also given you a warning about reverting at WikiIslam without talk page consensus, which you want to appeal. What have I missed? Doug Weller talk 11:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:I asked the question to them, not to you, so I am not really interested in discussing it with you. As for "good faith" I see you've decided to abondon WP:AGF. I am not "anti-Muslim" and your feelings on what is and is not "embarrassing to [you] as an atheist" are irrelevant. My confessional background is not relevant, I only brought it up in answer to SVT's question, I could bring up the assumed confessional identity of others in this conversation but I don't since it's not relevant to the verifiable facts of the case. Since your interest in this article apparently has more to do with your feelings about how a "good atheist" should not be "anti-Muslim" I would suggest that perhaps it might be best if you bowed out of this particular discussion.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Good faith isn't a suicide pact. You accused me of deception [39] and above you accused two nameless editors of editing in lockstep and being obsessed. I should not have said anti-Muslim but anti-Islam, as what I've seen of people who are virulently anti-Islam they deny being anti-Muslim. My sadness is indeed irrelevant and don't affect my interest in the article which except for the pov tag I haven't edited since January, and one of my edits was to revert Snuish2. I didn't raise your "confessional background", you mentioned it. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have indeffed Underthemayofan as an undisclosed COI editor and RubiconForder as either their sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Some evidence from the paid-en-wp queue is involved (ticket:2021122810008593 for those with access) but this is primarily based on their on-wiki behavior to date. I've also ECP'd the article for good measure. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and the other functionaries who reviewed this discussion and the paid-en-wp ticket. Thanks to SVTCobra also! Snuish (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Tim Eyman

• Tim Eyman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chanjagent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting tax protester Tim Eyman. There are a lot of contributions, most of which seem to me to be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@82.20.240.157: You must notify users when you report them here. I have gone ahead and done so on your behalf this time. Chanjagent is indeed the definition of SPA, but luckily, they really haven't been active since 2020. The user also has a very bad habit of marking everything as a minor edit. --SVTCobra 01:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Sennheiser

• Sennheiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mareike Oer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems like there's some COI/Paid editing going on here with this user- all of their edits seem to be made with the intention of promoting Sennheiser, and they recently came back after about a year of absence. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am basically sure that the editor has a COI with Sennheiser based on a google search of the editor's username. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like an obvious case of COI. I've rolled back their recent edits on the page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

So it would seem, although it could be a Sennheiser fan. scope_creep^Talk 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it, as a quick Google search of their username shows that a person with the same name happens to be the the Head of Global Public Relations at Sennheiser. I’m going to rollback to an older unaffected version of the article and do some further cleanup tomorrow. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 19:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I recall having done some cleanup on this some time ago, but this is apparently a longer-term spam/PR campaign and will need a close eye kept on it. I have started cleaning up some of the puffery which existed even in the older version which wasn't as bad, but it certainly needs more work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: does it also happen in their product pages? If so, I'd be willing to add those to my watchlist and help out. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a good thought. The only product page I can readily find for them is Sennheiser MD 421. Apparently that was translated from a German Wikipedia article, and while my ability to speak German is pretty minimal, I don't straightaway see evidence that the German article was spammed in the same way. That said, the current version of that could probably do with a trim of some fluff, but it was nowhere near as bad as the company article was. If anyone knows of articles on any of their other products, those should probably be checked out as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

User's talk page was a red link until after their last edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

NB Mareike Oer has been blocked. --SVTCobra 00:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Hurst

• Glenn Hurst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LouisNMcDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aaafram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sanity0050 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just a bit of context, Glenn Hurst is running in the election above. The user then created a draft and article about the person above. From their activities of editing only on themself and the candidate to the much more obvious giveaway of "Lou McDonald for Glenn Hurst" listed as the author at File:GH Launch Capital MainShot 2-scaled.jpg, I think this is a clear-cut case. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 22:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the article above was AFD-ed and closed as Redirect. Also adding other users (Aaafram and Sanity0050) as they use the same flowery language about the candidate and has been editing on similar articles. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the lot. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GeneralNotability for the quick action and correct decision given the obvious COI and other concerns described above. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Tango Shalom

• Tango Shalom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CLANIADO1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.243.147.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:B057:9F8:67B6:E777 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) added by me --SVTCobra 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• GravityMaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added by me. --SVTCobra 01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:3168:40FA:4504:E1C0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:5C12:4A9C:991B:40B9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The problem: diff. Can we block him? He was adding promotional and poorly sourced content here and here, eventually ruining the article until I fixed it.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Filmomusico: At the top of this page is the notice "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." Not only have you not done so, but nor have you made any prior comment - such as to offer advice about sourcing and NPoV - on the user's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Sorry about that, I see it now. As for not making any prior comment, I thought we soft block such editors for at least a username violation (since he claimed who he is). I will try to offer advice, but am doubtful that he will listen.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Filmomusico (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not a username violation. COI editors should not be banned off-hand, but encouraged to communicate through the article's talk page. --SVTCobra 18:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I added 67.243.147.234 who posts on User talk:CLANIADO1 as if they are the same person. Note that this IP user uses the word "we" when talking about Tango Shalom, so that's as clear a COI as it can be. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A mobile IP has begun editing Tango Shalom heavily. I added them above. --SVTCobra 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed promo material from the article which was added by the mobile IP.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Another user GravityMaze has thrown their hat into the ring. I added them above. --SVTCobra 01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: As I said earlier, convincing them to change the habits of editing is useless. A block should be imposed sooner or later. Just today, 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:B057:9F8:67B6:E777 (talk · contribs) returned back to adding copyrighted text. I restored the pre copyvio version. I'm proposing page protection. Anyone with me?--Filmomusico (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed Tango Shalom from the lede of Judi Beecher. Within an hour, it was added back to the Career section as her best know work by 47.20.114.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It had originally been added to the lede by GravityMaze. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Thanks. My initial edit to Judi Beecher was to remove the dubious sources. I didn't removed the content because I thought that somebody will find proof for those claims by using reliable sources. Sorry for being negligiant.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there's still a lot of unsourced information in that article, I just fixed things which were clearly added as a way to hype Tango Shalom. --SVTCobra 00:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: and @Rsjaffe: I added 2 more IPs which are directly linked to the article. There was another one that did some vandalism but was reverted by ClueBotNG.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Samsona

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

See my post at User talk:Samsona. [40] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

After talk message from both me[41] and Opabinia,[42] Samsona made another predatory journal, COI edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Please help me. I am trying to add relevant information for my students. I am not a predatory journal. Please do not remove all my hard workSamsona (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I made some comments on Samsona's user talk to try to explain why they're being reverted. This is clearly academic citation spamming. Even setting that aside, I've checked a bunch of their edits and the sources being cited don't meet WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Jangpbest one of your students? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also a WP:REALNAME issue. [43] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

REALNAME would be an issue if you think this is a case of impersonation, but I don't think that's the allegation here. --SVTCobra 00:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Samson AO is the author of the journal articles in the citation-spammed edits. Samson AO is indexed in Pubmed and identifies a real person: [44]. Samsona created an article about the real Samson AO, and Jangpbest created a draft about the same person. Samsona mentions his students. But Samsona says they are not AO Samson, but that they know AO Samson. Then why are they using Samson AO’s name to citation spam Samson AO’s publications? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And now, making the same posts using still predatory journal from an IP: [45] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am curious, why do you keep saying 'predatory', Sandy? Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

See the edit summary linked above (“ Tags: use of predatory open access journal “ … this is also explained in more detail at Samsona’s talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

They're citing an article in the journal 'Aging'. See a review of that journal here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, but it might have been quicker to link to predatory publishing a concept which I had not hear of before. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It is linked, in the edit summary of every edit where that journal is added, and in the diff I referred you to above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Then it should have been easy to put it somewhere or anywhere in this discussion. Anyway, I don't want to get combative here. Let's focus on Samsona and their cry for help. --SVTCobra 04:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Its on Beall's list [46] scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

• London Action Resource Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Leutha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paki.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For a long time, two users (one is Harry Potter, now Leutha; the other is Paki.tv also known as PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal) have been adding disputed text to the article about London Action Resource Centre (LARC). They tend to back up each other and seem to know each other offwiki. There have been various fruitless attempts to debate the disruption on the talkpage and Paki.tv has been blocked twice for disruptive editing, most recently this month. The most frequently added text is the followign paragraph:

Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation. The library was set up to run on the principles of the Antisystemic Library on 18 June 2003. A split in the User Group over claims of institutional racism and of fascist infiltration of Peoples' Global Action.[7] of which LARC is one of the founding info-points, led to the expulsion of the No Platform group West Essex Zapatista at the December 2004 AGM of the company. This led to the forced departure of the Voice Refugee Forum and eventually the relocation of the Antisystemic Library.

The paragraph or similar has been added by Paki.tv: here, here, here, here, here, here, here; and added by Leutha: here, here, here, here, here.

The problems stem from an apparent real life beef the two users have with LARC after they were expelled from the centre in 2004. The statement by LARC is actually on wikipedia, here. The relevant part is:

At this year's London Action Resource Centre (LARC) Annual General Meeting, a decision was made (by majority vote) to exclude two individuals who had been behaving disruptively and often abusively for some time. They are now not welcome within the building. Their names are Fabian and Asim, part of a group called West Essex Zapatista.

And NickW commented on the talkpage in 2006:

My view on the LARC article is straightforward. Users Paki.tv and Harrypotter have attempted to misrepresent LARC through their numerous edits. Their motivation appears to be one of 'revenge' as they are banned from using LARC (you'll note early contributions to the article by Harrypotter in 2003 were of a different vein). They are both consistent in their approach and methodology, favouring obscure labyrinthine 'intellectual' debate (i.e. obfuscation to confuse and wear down third parties), personal attacks and 'outing'(N.B. I don't think they always use their named accounts), self-creation of supporting 'evidence', and general misrepresentation. Interestingly enough, it was this kind of behaviour that led to their rejection from LARC.

This beef leads them to add poorly referenced information (often from their own websites) about alleged racism and how the club is run. They were previously involved as the antisystemic library and West Essex Zapatista (WEZ). Lately, in offering new poor references to support their argument, Paki.tv has made the conflict of interest apparent again and that's what I'll come on to now, after noting that I've made various efforts to ask about conflict of interest which haven't got very far on the talk page, eg here, here, here

Leutha

Leutha began the LARC page when they were Harry Potter. Now on User:Leutha they have a link to another of their accounts, namely User:Fabian_Tompsett_(MDR). Fabian Tompsett crops up in a Mute editorial, where they write "Asim and I were heavily involved in developing the London Action Resource Centre (LARC), and in 2004 became involved in preparations for the Peoples Global Action (PGA) conference scheduled for that year in Belgrade" and as Fabian here, in "Where I found concerns raised by West Essex Zapatista dealing with the Resnik vs. Jajinci issue relevant, it is not necessarily the same with the gender reader and questionnaire issue. Concerns raised by Fabian from WEZ in April in regards to gender questionnaire seemed to me minor issues relating to language of the document".

Therefore, Leutha has been involved with LARC and West Essex Zapatista, yet keep on adding nonsense to the LARC article. That's the COI. Leutha seems intent on denying this COI, saying in their latest comment "Again, I repeat, at no time was I a member of LARC. Surely that's easy to grasp." Not a member perhaps but definitely involved and definitely with an axe to grind.

Paki.tv

They have consistently avoided answering if they have a COI. I believe it's obvious after their recent edits, happy to expand on this in the correct channels if necessary.

Thanks for any help Mujinga (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to pblock both from the article in question, but am open to other suggestions. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That is certainly one way to handle it. See also User talk:Paki.tv#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion, where I left a final warning for Paki.tv. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability, I am afraid that I do not feel your response is appropriate for the following reasons:

• I do not understand why the COI issues of two different editors is being treated as a single issue. I shall only deal with the issue as regards myself, however.
• I do not understand why you have not followed the Wikipedia:Blocking policy (W:BP):

  eg: "pblock" may be a term which admins are familiar with, however this was jargon leaving me wondering what you were referring to. If you wish to use such an abbreviated term, this can easily be linked to Wikipedia:Partial blocks to fall in line with W:Bp

@Mujinga has cited four edits made by myself, dating from 2008 to 4 July 2020, when the last of these was made. However he has avoided referencing the most recent edit: here (26 November 2021) to which @Mujinga deleted two days letter with an explanation on the talk page,here. Why?

I find the contents of this explanation of 28 November 2021 very problematic.

1) @Mujinga identifies me

2) They claim that I am an exmember of LARC

3) They claim that I that I was contributing "original research to the article in a weird attempt to besmirch the project's good name as they already did many years ago."

4) They further suggesting that I was "using wikipedia to pursue a vendetta".

Please consider Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Avoid_outing: "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence." There is also a link to Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information.

2)So, having pointed to a real word identity, @Mujinga has identified me falsely as having been a member of LARC, something which is carefully defined in the memorandum and articles of association which can be found in the incorporation documents here.

3)&4) As regards this claim, I responded We do indeed live in hope.

I must admit since the 28 November personal attacks by @Mujinga I have been particularly circumspect.

Having reviewed the material @Mujinga has tried to ignore, lets now deal with their claims:

• The issue as regards the edit nearly a year and a half ago on 4 July 2020, this is in many ways covered by the response to 3 & 4. I certainly felt hope in the weeks following the protests to the murder of George Floyd and also the Central Park birdwatching incident (May 25, 2020), I optimistically hoped that the consensus on the importance and credibility of these issues had shifted ground. Unfortunately with @Mujinga this does not appear to be the case. In the subsequent 18 months, I have not reposted any of this material, so it seem hard to see why @Mujinga is creating anxieties that I might do so? Perhaps his concerns relate to point 3, and the points he made about this using words such as "besmirch" and "vendetta." As I previously remarked "it would seem that in taking state funds the directors are acting in accordance with their governing document. Indeed some people might see this as example of shrewdness." Indeed many people living in the UK – probably a large majority _ agree that having state funding for the NHS and other community facilities is a good thing and welcome community organisations accessing these funds.

When issues of COI are coached in such inflammatory terms, and based on incorrect information, I would suggest that the question should be posed in less antagonistic terms:

What COI would an individual who may have had even "heavy involvement" with an organisation over a decade and a half ago make as regards editing the page with an update about how that organisation has been handling the COVID crisis? Leutha (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Pblock proposal

• For me, a pblock from the page in question for both Paki.tv and Leutha would be a great solution. It would save me from having to revert their repeated attempts to add contentious, badly sourced material. The pblock was suggested by @GeneralNotability: then not really discussed further. I don't have much to reply to Leutha except to say I didn't make any attempt to out them, they did it themselves on their userpage with an ORCID link. Mujinga (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

BeyondGenderAgenda

This entry BeyondGenderAgenda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is promotional and there is very probably and obviously paid editing. The user Tacrossen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only written this article for the German and English Wikipedia, nothing more. user:2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2

Woah, that article has quite a weird format. It's like half brochure half name drops. The "media coverage" naming of that section might indicate a paid edit, as that would be a PR/marketing term that isn't usually used by WP natives when naming sections. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2: Did you leave a message informing the editor they were appearing on this noticeboard? scope_creep^Talk 00:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe this section was started by 2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2. I assume they didn't notify the editor, or tag the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question has deleted their account. The article is very weak and of dubious notability. Group consensus is needed, but this article looks to me like a candidate for deletion. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Go4thProsper:, what do you mean User:Tacrossen has deleted their account? I mean, they haven't been active since February but that's it. --SVTCobra 05:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not an "initiative", it's a company -> GmbH (Germany) like LLC in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:B1A4:DE0:B441:F341:7E5A:2C42 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

White Hill Studios

• White Hill Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RS at WHS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article was written by someone connected to this company (per the username). I removed some of the worst promotional language in the article, and added a COI tag on the article and requested the editor to acknowledge their relationship to the company. Instead, they blanked their user page, removed the COI tag on the article and restored everything I removed. MB 07:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear User MB, RS at WHS (talk) I do not have a conflict of interest with the company. I had just created a wiki page of the company after referring to other companies of the same industry. You can see the pattern is same for other Indian film companies. No information is promotional in nature and is backed by citations and references wherever possible. I would request you to delete the accusation thereof. RS at WHS (talk) RS at WHS 2:17 pm, 30 December 2021 (IST)

RS at WHS: Ignoring the obvious concerns re your username: On December 22, in your second edit on Wikipedia, you created your userpage by adding the UserboxCOI template, explicitly declaring that you had a COI with White Hill Studios.[47] You removed that template a minute later.[48] DoubleCross (‡) 14:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

DoubleCross @MB:, do you want to move that COIN notice from the user page to the user talk page? Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add that notice, MB did. - DoubleCross (‡) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It was G11'd on 30 August 2021 for being straight COI Promo. It is a straight up COI again. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Never post anything to a editors user page. I've moved the notice. I have put a G11 on the article. scope_creep^Talk 15:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That was inadvertent. They had neither a User or TP and I posted at the wrong redlink. MB 17:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've indeffed RS at WHS as an undisclosed paid editor who is also clearly lying to us, and I've deleted Lekh (film), another of his articles. The film is produced by White House, of course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks. Great work. Have a good one in 2022. scope_creep^Talk 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@MB: If there no talk page present, then go ahead and create it. scope_creep^Talk 22:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Philippe1226

Probably a sock-puppet, scarce contributions, half od them to remove COI tag

IP, you should notify the relevant user at their talk page. Contributions (Israeli BLPs) might indicate some Israeli PR firm, and I agree with some (especially Alon Korngreen's BLP) articles being indicative of a COI. Regarding the sock-puppet allegation, I'd recommend you start a thread at WP:SPI. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume the editor the IP suspects is the puppet master would be Ovedc, who has disclosed paid edits in two of these three pages before. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Tks, Alon Korngreen is a paid article. in the entry history I have noticed that the reviewer who acccepted the entry is banned from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.83.105 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

IP, the reviewer was banned for reasons unrelated (to my knowledge) to the article. Korngreen was created by Ovedc, who I have listed above. If you or other editors believe Philippe is a sock of Ovedc you must go through the proper channels (namely, WP:SPI) in order for that to be discussed. Not that I think it's unlikely (Ovedc has been previously banned for using multiple accounts, although unbanned later), just that this is not the proper noticeboard for sock investigations. Regarding the COI of Philippe, I think the best action is for those who feel the articles are still in need of a COI tag to re-add those and discuss this matter with Philippe themselves before coming here again. It is quite hard to determine if an editor has a COI when they only have 5 minor edits, especially if they edit once every few months.

TL;DR: Reviewer banned for unrelated reasons, this is not the proper noticeboard for sock investigations, and I don't see any action that can really be taken here as of now. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Engineers India

• Engineers India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rajiv Nair EIL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DRajkhowa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ptrnext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following editors from Engineers India Limited are editing Engineers India page. This seems to be a direct Conflict of Interest issue. RPSkokie (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@RPSkokie: Post a mesaage to inform they are mentioned here. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Notified just now. Thank you. RPSkokie (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

RPSkokie I highly recommend you contact Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to get the content you recently deleted and subsequent version showing the material to be wp:revdeled, per wp:outing policy. Next time you can just say "googling these names seems to suggest employees of the company" or something along those lines such as "a google search of the editor usernames indicates a high likelihood of COI". It will give other editors the information that is needed for this discussion without explicitly outing anyone. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree this is definitely a case of COI editing without proper disclosure. @Rajiv Nair EIL and DRajkhowa: please read this page on how to disclose COIs properly and how to edit with COIs. Having COIs won't prevent you from editing these pages, just changes how you should do so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I did a big mistake by revealing personal information. Will follow your suggested route; "googling these names seems to suggest employees of the company". RPSkokie (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have personally made that mistake recently (even had to go to ANI to be ironed out, and plenty of veteran editors left the thread more confused than when they went in lol), and you took proactive steps to remove the content from the page, so don't feel to bad about it. Merely a {{minnow}}-ing, if anything :P. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about Ptrnext. Their edits look like they tried to clean up the article and nothing else. Furthermore, Ptrnext's edit history, while not long, shows an interest in a great many articles. I don't see COI there. The other two accounts are clear as day. One doesn't even need to go off-wiki to confirm it to a high degree of certainty. --SVTCobra 13:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Shouldn't have mentioned Ptrnext, my bad. I'll have some fish for lunch too, then. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: @RPSkokie: @A. C. Santacruz: Yep, I found Engineers India page through List of public sector undertakings in India and was merely fixing citations and formatting on the page. Do I need to do anything now? I still see my userlink listed above with the other two editors. Ptrnext (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you're all good to go I'm pretty sure. Thanks for your gnoming, Ptrnext. Ps: you can use {{reply to}} to notify multiple editors in one go.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Kerry Raheb

• 2022 United States Senate election in Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kerryraheb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's clear to me that the account's entire purpose is to promote/publicise Kerry Raheb's candidacy in the election, including adding an external link and picture, with a very obvious username. Their first edit is also only 9 minutes after the account was created. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 00:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor is a spammer and is WP:NOTHERE. scope_creep^Talk 00:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I would tread a little easier, scope_creep. There are just four edits and most people who see "a site that all can edit" will not immediately think about Wikipedia having exceptions. The COI is obvious and some of the edits were egregious but first we should try to bring them into the fold. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No, they knew exactly what they were doing. They wouldn't have done it otherwise. Happy New Year!! scope_creep^Talk 01:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with scope_creep here. There is absolutely no way that this user cares about improving the encyclopedia. Mlb96 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mlb96:, true but that's the case for all COI and paid editors. What we seek to do, in my opinion, is to corral them from editing directly and let them notify us when there's a mistake or something missing. (We/us = Wikipedia). I don't think we should automatically block out this input. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year to all the COIN readers! But, yes, Kerryraheb was trying to help the campaign of the similarly named candidate, but I wouldn't go as far calling it spamming. Maybe I have a soft spot for small party candidates. Cheers. Let's hope 2022 will be better than 2021. --SVTCobra 01:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I felt it appropriate to escalate this to ANI with this statement here as the user was continually ignoring this noticeboard and direct talk page messages.--SVTCobra 06:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, if the editor is who he claims to be? then it certainly is a COI issue. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've Pblocked Raheb. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Ghil

• Michael Ghil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Geograma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm going to feel incredibly stupid if I'm wrong, but this looks like an SPA just fluffing up the Michael Ghil article. I'm thinking they have a COI, but I'm not sure. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the contributions are basically uncited, including information on his early life. Contributions use scientific jargon and include a list of all PhD supervisees and plenty of awards. I'd agree with the COI, Skarmory. No one is stupid to come to this noticeboard unless they forget to do their due diligence :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Holy moley. This article is in pretty bad shape -- I see that some people have taken a crack at thinning out the CV, but it is still fairly extravagant. I believe I've seen, somewhere, an actual PAG about how many "selected publications" you're supposed to have in a scientist BLP. jp×g 10:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jim Anderson (sound engineer)

• Jim Anderson (sound engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jimnanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mr. Anderson was cautioned on his talk page about editing his biography, and was advised to add suggested edits to the talk page. Mr. Anderson replied:

"Why Can I Not edit or correct my own personal information on my own page? This makes no sense and your changes are incorrect. I should be alb to correct my own page and my own information. I wrote this page in the first place and it needs to be updated."

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson replies: All of Magnolia677's changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Anderson_(sound_engineer)&oldid=prev&diff=1063413574 are incorrect. My changes on the left in yellow are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimnanderson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we summarize what reliable sources say about the subject. There is no way to prove what you say is correct is actually correct without sources. If you can provide sources, the changes will likely be accepted, but you did not provide any sources for e.g. the awards you added. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skarmory: @Magnolia677: Have you tried to look into sources that back up the things that he's saying? I'm well aware of WP:V, but it seems prima facie absurd to confidently assert that he's incorrect about whether he worked for a radio station during or after his college career (and then make no attempt to follow up with sources). The rest of these edits seem to be quibbling over minor grammatical issues -- "Anderson's recordings have received 11 Grammy-awards" versus "Anderson has produced 11 Grammy-awarded recordings", is this serious? jp×g 09:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JPxG: I did not check for sources, I was explicitly pointing out the awards section as the most obvious point - I'm not trying to imply that the stuff e.g. radio network is wrong, and I did not touch the edits, just popping in to share my views. I noticed the grammatical fixes but they weren't too relevant in my view, if he wants to put those changes back up I wouldn't argue with them personally. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I made an extremely cursory effort to find references for the article, and was able to back up virtually all of the things in it. I am not sure what the issue was supposed to be here, but will gladly follow up here if there are additional problems. I left a {{peacock}} template on it, because frankly it isn't a very good article (basically just a list of awards) -- but I've removed the {{coi}} and {{autobiography}} templates because Jim's contributions are limited to very small parts of the article. jp×g 10:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The main issue is that subject matters aren't supposed to edit their pages per WP:COISELF, and User:Jimanderson clearly failed to request changes through a requested edit on its talk page. The edits might be correct, but they're still not supposed to touch it. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jimnanderson has been blocked per WP:REALNAME until they can provide proof that they are the person they claim to be. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

COI editing on June Preston

• June Preston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Idoonie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brokenmeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.109.77.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users mentioned above, who claim to be related to June Preston have been editing that page for over a decade, with lots of problems, including edits like:

[49], [50], [51], [52] and [53].

This seems to be their only interests on the wiki. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• NOTE: Brokenmeow, who in edit summaries repeatedly noted that she was June Preston, hasn't edited since 2016. Idoonie, who has repeatedly stated in edit summaries that she is Preston's daughter, is currently still editing. Obviously either of them should make edit requests on the talkpage rather than edit the article directly. And some brave soul should take it upon themselves to remove all of the puffery (especially that which is inadequately cited) from that article and from any article that they inserted Preston's name into. Softlavender (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Recommendation: I recommend that an administrator indef block both accounts from editing that particular article, but retain their ability to edit the talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• User:AssumeGoodWraith, it seems to me that on the one hand you're right--and then there's the other hand. AssumeGoodWraith, if you assume good faith, you're dealing with an editor who is trying to preserve the legacy of their mother, who wants to correct what may well be errors, who thinks that "Conflict of Interest" is a bad thing involving money changing hands, who puts a collection of clipping on Pinterest thinking that these might count as the types of sources that Wikipedia accepts--and probably an editor who is less computer savvy than you. So I am not opposed to blocking them from the article, as long as someone takes the time to explain how communication works here, what reliable secondary sources are, in short what they can and cannot do here. Nicely, please, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Drmies: As much as the edits are problematic, and I may be going a bit too strong, I AM assuming good faith. They just don't know. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also, unrelated, but I've found another related account. Probably not too many problems with this one. [54] – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: Small correction, Brokenmeow's edit summaries didn't claim to be June Preston herself, but rather her daughter (here).

  I've added Piress for this edit, claiming to be the daughter; and the IP 98.109.77.155 for multiple edit summaries with the same claim. It seems this individual has created several accounts over the years with overlapping spurts of activity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Drm310, see the account's first edit and edit summary: [55] (whether plausible or not). Then by October 2016 mother and daughter apparently lived together (per that account's last edit summary) and shared the same computer. That said, the daughter created the wiki article and wrote at least 75% of it [56]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Softlavender, I missed that. Normally I'd report an account like that for WP:NOSHARING but it's stale, so there's no point now. I've left a note for the one active account about use of multiple accounts. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I read all your comments and am very saddened that you think I am some sort of bad person doing something wrong. All I wanted to do was preserve my mom's legacy (she is now 93) and have I wanted a nice wiki page of her for people to read what an asset she was to the film industry in the 30's and 40's and later in the operatic field in the 50's onward. She had an amazing life (she had dolls and cloths lines in her likeliness, she was a Shirley Temple type in fact both June Preston and Shirley Temple dresses were sold together in stores and yes I have proof of all that) and that was ALL I wanted to do, was to have information on her that people would enjoy. I was not trying to do anything bad or wrong or deviant. I'm not tech savvy so yes maybe I had 2 addition accounts that I made maybe accidentally years ago... but I offered to delete them but am told i cannot. I thought the June Preston page was great with facts and back up photos and newspaper articles to prove all the information was true and accurate. I meant no harm in any way and now the page has been stripped down to nothing and I am told I cannot fix it as I am her daughter. How can if be fixed if i am the only one left that can tell her story? In addition the information about her birthday and birthplace is incorrect I dont know how they got there. At this point if I cannot fix her page I would rather have nothing at Wiki at all because this wrong information on her page will go viral and it is incorrect. I am sorry for anything I may have done wrong, I am older myself and am not tech savvy like all of you. I meant no harm I just wanted to do this for my mom while she is still alive to view it from time to time. If you want proof, just look at my Pinterest pages and see all her photos and proof of who she is Child Star: https://www.pinterest.com/sabmeows/june-preston-famous-film-child-star/ and Opera Singer with the MET: https://www.pinterest.com/sabmeows/june-preston-opera-singer/, I hope you look at those pages and see that I am speaking the truth and I am not a bad person but only a daughter trying to keep her mom's name alive! Thank you allIdoonie (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Idoonie: I, too, am saddened if you feel mistreated on Wikipedia. All too often, however, Wikipedia sees people who try to edit pages for nefarious reasons. This is not only the reason for the conflict of interest policy exists, but also why some responses may have seemed callous. Nevertheless, you do have a conflict of interest when you write about you mother. It is also Wikipedia's desire to be correct. Another policy of Wikipedia is verifiability and therefore we cannot just take your word for facts. Going forward, you should only edit the Talk:June Preston page and not the article directly.
Please use {{Request edit}} and state what needs to be changed, but keep in mind, Wikipedia needs to be able to verify. I know, and I am sorry, this can be unpleasant process. You are not a bad person. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Idoonie: I'll echo the sentiment that we do not believe that you're a bad person. However, your close personal connection to the subject is precisely why you should not edit the article directly. Editors need to have emotional detachment from the subjects they write about, and realize that this is a collaborative project where consensus is the fundamental editorial model. Editors must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns; readers of Wikipedia expect plainly factual articles, neutrally worded and reliably sourced, written independently of their subjects. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your comments very much, I was thinking i did a horrible thing and I am not that kind of person at all. So since I am the only person left (i am her only child) to tell her story how do we go about fixing her page if I am not able to add information? Permission: May I put on this chat/talk the information that use to be on the page before it was taken all off and you go over it? I don't want to do anything that will cause you any problems? I have whatever is needed to corroborate the information that is on the page with you if you need to see it with your eyes, (original newspaper articles, advertisements and studio photos etc.) I don't know any other way to prove what is on her page is true than what is written and shown in print from the newspapers, magazines in the 30's - 60's and 1990 including photos of the june preston dresses, doll, toys, photos etc. they are all authentic (i have trunks of her memorabilia). I understand now that the my close personal connection is an issue but if I have the back up and proof of her career I would hope that would help. I am not trying to maker her out to be someone she was not, she was a huge star back in the day (not Betty Davis) but nonetheless she was huge (all her apparel lines were sold side by side with Shirley Temple's dresses) the photos prove/show both their names together which was on her wiki page showing advertisements and newspaper articles https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664636989/ including Fotoplay mag. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664618955/ other entertainment magazines of the time with both my mom and Shirley Temple June Preston was considered a "Big Pay Babes" https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664616687/ children making over $250.00 a week and back then that was a lot of money. Mom was also a Meglin Kiddie, https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664617269/. So it's all true and backed up, also my mom's opera career https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564666877903/, there are newspaper articles, programs and photos that were attached to her page showing she toured with the Metropolitan Opera etc. I'm truly am not embellishing anything at all I only put on her life and what she did with back up. So let me know if I can put on this chat a copy of what it use to look like and maybe we can fix her page again with the correct info and i can send you any backup you need to authenticate what is needed). Thank you all so much for putting up with this, I only want to do keep my mom's legacy alive but don't want to do anything wrong to offend Wiki. Thanks you and take care , Sabrina Idoonie (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Idoonie:, you are beginning to veer off to content issues that should be discussed on talk pages and not here. However, I can tell you right away, Pinterest cannot be used as a source. It is a social media site where people can post pretty much anything. I will probably contact you on your talk page to give you a little guidance for going forward. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Suncom Technologies

• Suncom Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hlev3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I found this article duruing categories mainteinance routine and moved it to draft as the author had a clear WP:COI. The editor than moved the article back to mainspace with a comment "Article verified and edited by founder of company, Howard Leventhal". --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The article is seriously unsourced and breaks plenty of MOS guidelines, so I wonder what's the best way to fix that. Draftifying certainly seems like a good first step. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Where exactly is conflict of interest? Company was sold 30 years ago and then went out of business. It was an important player in history of video game industry. My text here is merely historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlev3 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Further on I got Wikipedia emails from Hlev3:

Sorry, I do not see any supposed conflict in my Wikipedia article about Suncom. In what way exactly might I benefit *tangibly* from publishing historical information about a notable company that closed 30 years ago? I have provided two newspaper articles which back numerous statements made in my text. There is a link to a German blog in the article which refers to the company's product. Do you find something false about the article? If so please tell me exactly is false or suspected of being false and I will edit if it is false.

The legal definition of conflict of interest from Black's Law Dictionary: https://thelawdictionary.org/conflict-of-interest/. I receive nothing from publishing this article. I am one of the only people capable on Earth of posting the information in this article. Most of the others are either deceased or frankly, senile. What is the justification for not having this true and accurate historical information viewable on Wikipedia?"

"More succinctly:

1) Exactly how do I personally benefit tangibly from posting this article? 2) Exactly what third party or parties to whom I owe a fiduciary duty is diminished or harmed by this article?

If you cannot provide coherent, truthful answers to these questions, there cannot possibly be a conflict of interest. All I have done by posting this article is to illuminate the history of a seminal, significant video game industry-influencing company. It should be a positive that I write this attesting to my own personal knowledge and I made it clear at bottom of article that I - the company's founder - wrote it." --Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Did... did they just cite Black's Law Dictionary instead of just reading the 1st line of WP:COI? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes he did, Padgriffin. Not going to lie, it's nice from time to time to find some entertainment out of a Noticeboard like this. Sadly I failed the wikilawyer bar exam, so I cannot possibly refute his claims /s :P Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I sent them an email as they seem to prefer that method of communication- the contents are posted below for transparency's sake.

"Dear Hlev3,

I am writing to clarify why your article has been moved to draftspace. Wikipedia policy requires that editors edit with a neutral point of view , but as you possess an implicit link to the company, this constitutes a potential Conflict of Interest that may undermine your ability to write in a neutral fashion. In addition, Wikipedia requires that articles follow a consistent Manual of Style for articles in mainspace, which the article is currently not abiding by. We are willing to assist you in getting the article to a state where it can pass the Articles for Creation review process and be published as a mainspace article but I would ask you to refrain from manually moving the article until it reaches such a state. If you have further questions, you may reply to this email or respond to the discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard for assistance.

Yours, Padgriffin"

Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hlev3:, the relevant rules here are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, namely WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE, not what Black's Law Dictionary has about COI in legal matters. If we assume (and I have no reason not to), you are who you say you are, this does run afoul of Wikipedia policy. While Suncom may long be a defunct company, that in no way precludes COI. I think the Suncom story is notable and something Wikipedia should have an article about. However, you should recuse yourself from editing the article yourself and act as a consultant, if you will.
What is a concern that could be a legal matter, are the newspaper clippings you have uploaded. I am not a copyright lawyer, but I am pretty sure that copyright has not expired on those items from the Herald. Let's try to work together and save the Suncom article. --SVTCobra 04:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Jason-Jimmy Kent, Justin Chatwin and associated film industry BLPs

• Aaron Kaufman (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blake Robbins (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peer Pedersen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zone 414 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Die in a Gunfight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Prodigy (TV pilot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• One Way (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Walk (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Poor Boy (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Robert Scott Wildes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David A. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Collin Schiffli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jason-Jimmy Kent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across Jason-Jimmy Kent's contributions while reviewing an NPP-candidate's trial run, and was concerned that they include several hallmarks of paid editing, including a) contributions all focused on a small group of affiliated and relatively obscure filmmakers/actors b) consistently avoids adding information about negative critical responses despite availability of such references, which are typically added by other editors later on (see Zone 414, Die in a Gunfight, Summer Night (2019 film), and contrast against Unleashed (2016 film), a film with positive critical reception where Jason-Jimmy Kent did bother to add critical reception information. Also n.b. Poor Boy (film) is still missing a Reception section despite having several negative reviews on RT) c) rapid article creation timing consistent with UPE practices and d) PRish prose, often backed by citations to primary or PR sources such as His next two shorts, Head Case (2009) and Band (2010), starred his good friend and frequent collaborator, actor David Dastmalchian. I asked Jason-Jimmy Kent to disclose any COIs on their talk page, but I am unconvinced by their explanation that they're simply a fan of Justin Chatwin, and am further concerned that even if we assume that this explanation is true, Jason-Jimmy's editing thus far is indistinguishable from UPE in effect and requires course-correction even if editors are willing to take them at their word. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Oklahoma Mesonet

• Oklahoma Mesonet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Admelvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Illston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.15.9.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Illston originally expanded the article hugely on July 27–28, 2016, adding plenty of unsourced sections with material that includes quite a bit which is pretty much just advertisements (seriously, downloads to an app? how did that stay in the article for 5 years?). Anyway, Admelvin came along on January 25, 2017, and removed references and replaced them with external links. Admelvin returned on September 3, 2021 (and later September 9) to make some smaller changes (by smaller I mean not pure advertising) and then added back a deleted image on September 17. An IP geolocating to Oklahoma University also popped in on August 12, 2021, and updated the records section (without sources, I did not check thoroughly on the other editors but looking at the state of the article it looks like they were probably adding mostly unsourced info). I have further evidence if needed, but this is pretty slam dunk imo. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations

• Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ifeoma Ozoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Apple worker organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User of concern: SquareInARoundHole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for all three pages)

Specific concerns (will repeat same items below on the two other COI comments):

• Old Summary: SquareInARoundHole appears to be someone very close to Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Many updates made by the user to this BLP are very personal (like updating the details about the person's high school, & then update the article for that high school with details about its mascot). SquareInARoundHole has only been in use since Nov 17 2021 and already received one COI warning on Nov 26 2021 from Blablubbs following ~19 edits to Ifeoma Ozoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page & ~4 edits to Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page in only 2 days, including adding Scarlett's SEC filing to both Ozoma & Scarlett's pages, and creating a "Silenced No More" section on Scarlett's page despite that being Ozoma legislation. This is very similar to what SquareInARoundHole has been attempting to do on Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page the last few days. SquareInARoundHole also updates Scarlett's page and other BLP pages (i.e. I will file additional COIs for Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) & Ifeoma Ozoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) with insider information based on Tweets or personal knowledge, and a significant amount of which appears to get reverted later.SquareInARoundHole also appears to have personal bias in how facts are synthesized, & what/who is included and what/who is excluded in this & related articles. Many comments by the user also seem emotionally charged beyond what I'd expect for a neutral editor.SquareInARoundHole has gone a spree adding ~20 updates, many significant & most reverted by other editors, to Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page in the last few days. Many updates to this and other pages by SquareInARoundHole seem insignificant for the standards of a BLP & the class C rating of this BLP page seems to reflect that.
• Revised summary, per tl;dr request: I allege in that in editing the Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, SquareInARoundHole is violating COI rules that "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself.... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly." This also includes Scarlett's updates about Scarlett to Ifeoma Ozoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Apple worker organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), & Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Further, I feel that Scarlett has been harassing and defaming me outside Wiki for months, and has recently stated she plans to testify as a defense witness for Apple, against me on my Apple cases. Thus, SquareInARoundHole if Scarlett, is also violating COI rules when editing Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as editor's "should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases." Further, because Scarlett has apparently worked to prevent press from writing about me (as told to me by the press) and then Scarlett publicly bragged about it -- and Scarlett has made false accusations about me to many [57] friends and supporters in text messages & DMs, I think she would also fall into breaking the COI rules against editor's editing pages "who are involved in a significant controversy/dispute with another individual or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Even outside my allegations of harassment against Scarlett, Scarlett is involved in legal cases with me, with us both filing NLRB charges against Apple and SEC whistleblower complaints against Apple. That, in addition to her apparently planning to testify against me, makes this a blatant COI in my opinion. If this user is not Cher Scarlett, I believe it to be someone very close to Scarlett and likely working at Scarlett's direction. I also have concerns about Scarlett/SquareInARoundHole possibly making some edits on my page at the direction of Apple Inc as some of her edits on my page were adding doubt on my legal claims against Apple. Cher recently signed a settlement with Apple with unknown terms, but at the very least she's agreed to withdraw her NLRB charge against Apple and she said she did request the withdrawal, and apparently is now also a defense witness for them. ~HazelBasil talk 01:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I highly recommend a neutral party review at least the user's updates to this main article, it's talk page, and any Noticeboard content. (P.S. For the sake of transparency, please note I (HazelBasil, am Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) HazelBasil (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am going to respond only to this heading, as you have repeated the same content three times. I am not entirely sure what your issues are with my updates to these three articles. My updates to the three pages mentioned are not much different than the updates I've made to other pages. I do extensive research on people I am interested in, which is mainly women in tech, especially those involved various activism, including labor activists such as yourself. It's a little ridiculous to me that you have focused intently on these three articles, as though I've not edited anything that isn't tangential to the three of you.

• With the high school in question, I found Scarlett's high school listed on her website, and when I googled it and her, I found that she had signed a petition regarding the Mascot change, and again, found it interesting so I added it to the respective article. As for your claim that the information is "very personal," that's a bit absurd. I've added information that was readily available in the news, in interviews, and her website, just like any other article, and in most cases, this comes with some information about their personal lives.
• I'm a bit unclear what your issues with the SEC tips and legislation are. GorillaWarfare already updated to a better heading than the one I selected, and it is appropriate to mention you both engaging in the same action in the same timeframe against the same company. It is quite common to find cross-references of various people when it is warranted, just as you'll find others named in Scarlett's article, and Ozoma's, because the mentions are due for context. I am also unclear why you are bringing up Blablubbs's notice on my talk page. It does not say what their concern was, and your assumption here that it is related to Ozoma's article feels inappropriate.
• Everything I added to Ozoma's page was sourced from her websites and news articles. It was improved upon later by other more experienced editors, such as GorillaWarfare.
• The tweets you mentioned I referenced were embedded in the article I referenced. This is done elsewhere in your article, and across Wikipedia. I have already asked GorillaWarfare for clarification as to why the context around the problematic Medical Release form from the embedded thread of your tweets wasn't a good addition, versus the other tweets used in your article. I haven't contested it though, which again, leaves me a little perplexed as to what your issue is. Wikipedia articles are constantly being improved by editors, that's how the platform works. The fact that my updates have been, at times, altered, or in some cases, removed, is a normal part of the process.
• The claim that my comments are "emotionally charged" is absurd, and you've not given any examples of them. I looked through all of my editing comments, and the only ones that aren't discussing solely the content or context of the respective edits are discussing a user that created accounts with the sole purpose of diminishing Scarlett's and Ozoma's articles. (Igotthistoo and Thistechworkertoo). If you could clarify which of my comments are "emotionally charged," I'll respond if there's something to respond to.
• I answered to this already, but I do not know you, Scarlett, or Ozoma (or any of the other subjects of articles I have edited).GorillaWarfare addressed issues with some of the sourcing already, and the single instance of synthesized understanding from the EEOC's website, and I'm not sure why defining what a right to sue is biased to you, but at any rate, this was already addressed by GorillaWarfare and I am not contesting it, so again, I'm unclear what your issue actually is.

I have no issue with all of the articles I have contributed to being looked over by other editors and admins. That is the way Wikipedia works, and I happen to think it works well, which is why I decided to contribute as well. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole: While I see it is not currently in the article, what you said about Cher Scarlett and her signing a petition somewhere smacks of original research. You should be mindful of that when you do your "extensive research". --SVTCobra 23:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I mentioned why I knew about the high school mascot controversy because Gjøvik questioned how I knew about it. I simply discovered it while I was trying to confirm she went to that high school because I didn't know at the time about WP:ABOUTSELF. I never added the information about the mascot to Scarlett's article, I added it to the article about the high school, and did not mention Scarlett in the content about the mascot. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(comment from involved editor) Also adding my comments in this section only rather than copying them ×3. I wonder if these three sections ought to be combined. I've spoken to HazelBasil offline about her belief that SquareInARoundHole a) is Cher Scarlett or b) exhibits a COI with respect to Gjøvik, Scarlett, and other organizers in the tech industry like Ozoma. I don't agree with either a or b, but I also acknowledge that she has a lot more insight into the conflict between herself and Scarlett and could be seeing something I'm not. I also explained that I could not be the one to act in an administrative capacity with respect to these articles (since I created and have substantially written two of them), and told her she could post here if she wanted an uninvolved admin to take a look.

I wrote to her: But whoever [SquareInARoundHole] is, their edits are indistinguishable from someone who has an interest in the labor organizing and whistleblowing in tech over the past few years, who is still getting the hang of the specifics of some of Wikipedia's (many and lengthy) policies. You have pointed to a few edits that place undue weight on some statements that were critical or skeptical of you, or credulous of Apple's side of the story, but other edits by this person have added useful information about your complaints about Apple that place quite a lot of weight on your side of the story. This person has also added information about your SEC complaint to Scarlett's article—something that it seems Scarlett would be unlikely to do if she is indeed trying to have you written out of the story as you have suggested.

To address a few comments in this section:

• many significant & most reverted by other editors – I have reverted a few of SquareInARoundHole's edits for various reasons, but it's mostly been due to what strike me as pretty common issues in edits by new editors: not realizing that various publications are deprecated sources, over-reliance on primary sources, etc. I've posted on their talk page with some guidance and they've responded well to the feedback and seem to have adjusted their editing accordingly. I don't think it's accurate to say that "most" of their edits have been reverted—many of them have been constructive, well-sourced, and neutral.
• Many comments by the user also seem emotionally charged beyond what I'd expect for a neutral editor. – This has also not been my experience, though I haven't reviewed every single edit by the user. HazelBasil, could you provide diffs of these comments?
• updates Scarlett's page and other BLP pages with insider information based on Tweets or personal knowledge – I have seen SIARH add information that is based on primary sources (tweets, etc.) which is a common error in good-faith new users. I don't believe I've seen them add anything that is "insider information" or hasn't been stated publicly. Diffs would be helpful here as well.
• Regarding your comments on SIARH's "spree" editing, making many small edits in succession rather than one large one can appear a bit overwhelming, but it is how many editors (myself included) prefer to edit so that changes can be properly reflected in edit summaries. I don't think it is indicative of an issue. Regarding the article's C-class rating, I don't think it's fair to say that this is a negative thing or is solely because of SIARH's edits. Most of my new articles (and those of many editors) are rated at "Start" or, if I've been particularly thorough, "C" class simply because they are so new and still being written. This is a comomon rating (Wikipedia:Content assessment#Statistics) and is not meant to suggest there is a major issue with the page—major issues are typically noted with maintenance templates rather than through the rating system.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! As previously discussed offline with GorillaWarfare, at length, I respectfully disagree with GorillaWarfare's assessment. I also posted this notice with an understanding that there would be unbiased discussion and review from a fresh set of eyes. Can someone please clarify if I need to make a case why an uninvolved editor should review? Or if I need to respond to justification requests by involved editors? I was hoping I could simply post this and have someone with no bias review the edits and not be influenced by the involved editors either. Thank you! HazelBasil talk 22:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: This noticeboard is not for content disputes. What is the conflict of interest (specifically) that you are alleging? I can certainly see that SquareInARoundHole has a very narrow topic area for their edits, but that in-and-of-itself is not a conflict of interest. Similarly, bias or a non-neutral point of view are not inherently COI, either. So, do you suspect SquareInARoundHole has a real-life connection to the subjects? Do you think SquareInARoundHole is being paid to edit these pages? --SVTCobra 23:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Hi! Thank you. This is why I'm confused. I'm not trying to dispute content, I'm flagging what appears to be a conflict of interest with SquareInARoundHole and these three pages. As I said in my first post, "SquareInARoundHole appears to be someone very close to Cher Scarlett." The three pages I mentioned all include edits by SquareInARoundHole to the three pages about Cher Scarlett. I provided a few examples not knowing if I had to provide a justification on why I flagged the account on this board, but I was confused why the involved editor (GorillaWarfare) and the person I flagged for COI (SquareInARoundHole) are disputing the specific examples and asking me to engage in discussion on them. It's probably also worth noting that on Dec 31 2021, GorillaWarfare wrote to me about my concerns about SquareInARoundHole having a COI, saying, "This a concern that you could potentially raise yourself (see Conflict_of_interest Noticeboard), but I don't think it would likely be successful given the user's editing history." I was concerened GorillaWarfare's statement felt like it was discouraging me from even reporting my concerns, and I am now further concerned that she has posted on this board in defense of the account I have concerns about. To repeat, I'm simply looking for a fresh set of unbiased eyes to review edits made by SquareInARoundHole to those three pages to establish if SquareInARoundHole is one of the people in these profiles or has a close relationship to any/all of them. Thank you. HazelBasil talk 23:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil:, there's a lot of edits and material to sift through. But in support of your allegation that SquareInARoundHole knows Cher Scarlett, I found this edit with an edit summary which includes clarified she was never on medical leave. This is in direct contradiction to the cited source which states she is now on paid medical leave. Now this may be an insignificant detail to distinguish between medical leave and paid time off, but curious nonetheless. --SVTCobra 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I read an article, which is referenced, which stated she was never on medical leave. I felt that this was of material importance, though if that is up for debate, I'm not married to my edits. From the source:

Feeling overwhelmed emotionally from the abuse and the stories of the mistreatment her co-workers experienced, she also requested medical leave from the company. "I was at such a low place, I definitely had a lot of very suicidal thoughts," she said. While discussing her leave application, Apple asked her to stop talking about the company publicly. Given the timing of the request, Scarlett felt like Apple was making her acceptance of it a condition of granting her leave — and felt like she had little choice but to agree. Her medical leave eventually became four weeks of paid time off.

— Sonya Herrera

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Thank you for taking time to review! Yeah, I saw a few things like that too. Curious indeed. -HazelBasil talk 01:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: Since you already identified yourself as Ashley Gjøvik, I assume edits to this page prompted all of this. Were any particular edits of concern and pointed to COI? I don't readily see it, but I also have concerns about SquareInARoundHole and original research. And yes, I did see this edit which mentions Scarlett. --SVTCobra 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: That's correct, several edits to my page prompted me flagging this user. I will list some of the edits I saw on Scarlett's page, then my page, which led me to suspect a COI. Again, not looking to debate content, but I found these edits by SquareInARoundHole suspicious.

Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits by SquareInARoundHole

▸ Edit on Nov 17 at Line 45: added that Scarlett attended high school at Juanita High School with no source cited & the three other sources in the paragraph don't mention the name of the high school. The edit said Scarlett "wanted to be a junior astronaut," while the source said Scarlett was "a junior astronaut who wanted to become a scientist." None of Scarlett's bios or employment history say anything about her being a junior astronaut, so it appears the user fixed a typo in the WP article with insider knowledge. It that edit, user also updated that Scarlett grew up in Kirkland, WA to that Scarlett was born in Walla Walla, WA & grew up in Kirkland - again without any cites & nothing mentioned in those three articles.

▸ Edit on Nov on 20 at Line 28 added "and during her tenure, she taught a web development course for the University of Washington," and only cited Scarlett's website which says she was an instructor at the university for five months but does not say what type of course she taught, so again the type of course must have been added with insider information.

▸ Edit on Nov 20 3:58 UST at Line 28 with comment "adding news of memo" and added "Two days later, on November 19th 2021, Apple posted a company-wide memo affirming employees' rights to discuss pay and other working conditions, both internally and externally." The cited NBC article went live at Nov. 19 7:20 PM PST (Nov 20 3:20am UST). User added this memo 38 minutes after the article went live. In the cited article Scarlett simply says the memo "is a win" for employees. It will be weeks later that Scarlett reveals the memo was allegedly part of her settlement agreement with Apple. A few minutes later user adds a the word confidential to a note on Scarlett's settlement noting "clarify the details of the settlement were confidential, according to her lawyer in the source."

▸ Edit on Nov 24 21:30 UST at Line 47 user adds a "Silenced No More Section" to Scarlett's page. It cites three articles but only one of them mentions Scarlett. That NYT article mentioning Scarlett was apparently published around 6:30am (14:30 UST) on Nov 24, again with updates made very shortly after an article was published. In this update

▸ Edit on Nov 25 00:10 UST at Line 49 she added a note from a Reuters article published Nov 24 ~4pm PST (Jan 5 00:00 UST). Once again user posted updates and cited an article very quickly after the article was published, this time i appears only 10min.

▸ Edit on Nov 28 6:38 UST at Line 40 user edits "Scarlett helped to lead a group of around 7,000 employees in organizing to be allowed to continue working remotely" to "Scarlett and over 7,000 other employees organized to be allowed to continue working remotely" where the cited article only says "Scarlett is one of over 7,000 Apple employees who participate regularly in an internal corporate Slack group called “remote work advocacy,” where workers discuss their frustrations with management on the issue, and how other companies are offering more flexible arrangements."

▸ Edit on Nov 28 6:40 UST at Line 40 with comment "removed unnecessary information about Chelsey Glasson" and updated "Keiser cited the outreach from Scarlett and from Chelsey Glasson, who is suing Google for alleged pregnancy discrimination, as inspiration for the bill" to "Keiser cited the outreach from Scarlett and from Chelsey Glasson, another tech activist, as inspiration for the bill." despite the cited article saying " Chelsey Glasson, a former Google employee who sued for pregnancy discrimination, also wrote the lawmaker." Then all hell breaks loose... you can read that back & forth yourself.

▸ Edit on Nov 28 at Line 40 with reverting an update that said: "Scarlett and other employees helped to lead employees in organizing to be allowed to continue" back to a version that said: "Scarlett helped to lead employees in organizing to be allowed to continue." with an update comment saying: "all references clearly note her as the leader or co-leader WP:AIV" This was bizarre because there's no coverage I'm aware of covering the work-from home organizing where leaders were named.

▸ Edit on Nov 28 at all over with another revert commenting "Restored this page to a previous version. This article is about Scarlett, and needs to reflect content and context from WP:RS. igotthistoo may have a WP:COI and committing WP:AVI, as many of their edits introduced unrelated individuals, and created negative or false context on this WP:BLP, based on sources." Which is interesting to me not because of the content necessarily, but because SquareInARoundHole acts like they've never used Wikipedia before and asks questions about how to cite things like it's their first experience editing articles, yet 11 days into this brand new account throws out "WP:RS", "WP:COI," "WP:BLP," and "WP:AVI". While user in some comments acts unsure of basic expectations they also just commented about another user "many of their edits introduced unrelated individuals, and created negative or false context on this WP:BLP"

▸ Edits on Nov 28-Dec6 on Incident Notice Board about Cher Scarlett's page. I don't know what this is all about, but a few comments stood out to me:

✽ User wrote about another users "diminishing the work of Scarlett". Scarlett would later write a few weeks later "During this same time, a few women embarked on a harassment campaign against me, including abusing Wikipedia to diminish me and perhaps most disgustingly refer to my childhood abuse as alleged.” Again, I don't know the details of that back & forth, but I found it very interesting Scarlett admitted to monitoring her Wikipedia page and used the word "diminish" herself.

✽ Again, SquareInARoundHole acts like they are using Wikipedia for the first time (and GorillaWarfare states she believes user is not Scarlett partially because it appears user is just learning how to use Wikipedia, yet user posts about the other user apparently "adding in unsourced context that swings neutrality negative, unrelated individuals that are WP:NN to detract focus from the subject, and removing important context from WP:RS to further alter the neutrality to a negative outcome" and "it looks like you may have an undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and/or those you have attempted to add to this WP:BLP, affecting the WP:NPOV and leading to WP:EW." Also states, "We are willing to consider any of your good faith edits with a RFC in Scarlett's talk page, provided you have proper reliable sources cited, and a clear, neutral reasoning behind the edits" and "A WP:BLP is not the space to work on an agenda." Again, does not sound like a new user.

✽ Page also has yet another COI warning, "Based on the quantity, depth, and insider knowledge required for (SquareInARoundHole) comments and edits about Cher Scarlett, it seems possible that user could be Scarlett herself or someone close to her. Can the user also please be checked for WP:COI? (SquareInARoundHole)'s talk page already has a Managing a conflict of interest warning. User's account has only existed since 17 Nov and roughly half their edits are to Scarlett's page or about Scarlett on Ozoma's page."

▸ Edit on Dec 11 22:22 UST at Line 40 is when things get really interesting. Now user updates the page with a new source, a Verge article published ~Dec 11, again very close timing. This article states "Scarlett says that her settlement with Apple required it to post “a company-wide memo clarifying employee rights including discussing pay & working conditions,” “in a prominent and visible location on the People site.” This is the memo that SquareInARoundHole added to Scarlett's article before anyone else knew that the memo was related to Scarlett's exit package. User also added a line saying "Scarlett received less than a half a year's severance" but that information does not appear in the cited articles.

▸ Edit on Dec 31 20:16 UST at Line 43 user added my 2nd SEC complaint to Scarlett's page saying "Ashley Gjøvik a former Apple program manager who was vocal about issues at the company, also filed a tip the following day" despite the cited article not actually mentioning if this was my Sept 1 SEC whistleblower complaint about a conflict of interest in the Apple board of directors or my Oct 26 SEC whistleblower complaint about unlawful employee policies. This edit was only 17 hours after my Wikipedia page was moved to mainspace and I had not told anyone other than close friends that it was created (& GorillaWarfare of course). The only people who many have been notified were those with BLP who were tagged in the "see also" which were: Cher Scarlett, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Frances Haughen. User also cited a PDF on my personal website for the filing.

▸ Edit on Dec 31 22:48 UST at Line 41 with comment "Moved Gjovik up to an expansion of harassment and abuse endured by both parties." User now adds very concerning edit "a former Apple program manager who was vocal about issues at the company, endured similar harassment from colleagues, including that she had been doxxed in the same thread as Scarlett. This information was later updated to a description of criticism of Gjøvik on Blind containing information she believed could compromise her safety. The thread was deleted by Blind's staff, which Gjøvik says was at her request." citing both the live Mashable version and a Wayback archive version of the page. Background: a reporter wrote about a tweet I made where I talked about being doxxed on Blind and then someone reached out to the reporters editors demanding it not say I was doxxed (i have emails & texts on this). The only people who knew about the details of what information was actually shared were my close friends and Cher Scarlett (because she demanded details from me after my tweet). I complained to one person about the back & forth & what I thought was Cher requesting the updates, a reporter named Zoe Schiffer. Other than that, I have no idea who would even know enough about this page updates, let alone be interested in citing a WayBack archive of the "before" version.

▸ Edit on Dec 31 23:46 UST at Line 43, as you mentioned, it was unusual she clarified the status of Scarlett's leave despite it contradicting the cited source. User also added "which she changed in 2018 after providing federal investigators information that led to the arrest of the perpetrator of an incident when she was a teenager she said involved being forced into sexual acts on camera." which was not mentioned in any of the cited material.

▸ Edit on Dec 31 at See Also user removed me from the list of people in her "See Also." -HazelBasil talk 02:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Dec 31 to Scarlett's [ Talk page] saying "Scarlett's speaking to the press openly was a rarity that inspired Rotondo (and others) to start speaking out about Apple on Twitter. While it could be contextual that Scarlett has helped others, like Rotondo, become publicly vocal about issues they experienced at Apple" which has not been printed anywhere and some would disagree with.

OK. This is a mouthful. I am off to bed. Maybe someone else will have time to look at it before I come back. --SVTCobra 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits by SquareInARoundHole (note: page was created Dec 21 2021 1:02 UST and moved to mainspace 3:06 UST same day)

▸ Edit at Dec 31 21:54 UST on Line 32-59 user adds she "says was told not to discuss her concerns with other employees, a request she alleged was a violation of her rights under the NLRB." but this information is not in the article cited, in fact I don't think any articles have said that directly. User also added " She went on to raise her concerns amongst employees in the Sunnyvale office that they were possibly being exposed to hazardous chemicals, urging them to test the air, and that she was subsequently harassed and humiliated" which also is not in the cited article. User added this about the privacy section "Other employees said the upload process was user-initiated, and that they were instructed "not to upload anything sensitive, confidential, or private," although other staffers reported a company policy that bars employees from wiping their company-owned devices when they leave the company, and violation of the policy leaves them open to legal action." which again was not in the article about that topic. User edited "On August 4, 2021, Apple placed her on paid administrative leave" to then add "while they investigated some of her internal complaints," which again is not cited in any articles. User wrote about the leave that "which she said she requested as a "last resort", and which she later described as "indefinite" and "forced" in a complaint" which was misleading & was reverted. User added a SEC complaint citing my website, which was then reverted. User then added Cher Scarlett's SEC complaint to my article despite zero press covering both of our Nia Impact capital complaints together. User then removed Cher Scarlett from my page's See Also.

▸ Edit on Jan 3 at Line 46 user provided negative editorialization of my EEOC right to sue saying " Both the DFEH and EEOC issued Gjøvik right to sue letters, which indicates that while the agencies were unable to determine if law was violated and would not be proceeding on her behalf," despite no press saying it like that, instead press saw it as a positive as EEOC investigations are not required and it was a step forward.

▸ Edit on Jan 3 at Line 32 & Line 30 & Line 33 & Line 33 again user added information not included in the press and not widely known, referencing an ADA medical release document I shared with Scarlett and Scarlett Tweeted the document but never said was my document.

▸ Edit on Jan 3 at Line 31 said "determined that she may have VOC poisoning" which is not printed anywhere and is not really a thing, VOCs are a huge group of chemicals, some of which are fairly safe. User also added this "She continued to press Apple for information on the reasons for the environmental testing and its results, and says that she was subsequently harassed and humiliated." which is not in the cited article. ~HazelBasil talk 05:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Jan 1 to my Talk page Talk user adds bizarre statement " As she [Gjovik/me] is a woman, and one who seems particularly subject to harassment, it would be nice to clarify how much higher education she's accomplished"

▸ Edit on Jan 1 to my Talk page Talk user says "Gjøvik has mentioned the harassment from her colleagues in numerous places, though I discovered it in the Mashable piece (or rather, a copy of the original that was re-published on another outlet). Was going to expand with additional context from the piece on truthout.org.[1] It seems heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett in the Mashable piece, and relevant to properly highlight what she endured at the company for speaking out" which is weird & confusing for numerous reasons, but also confusing why something "heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett" would need to be Gjovik/my page.

Apple Worker Organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits by SquareInARoundHole

▸ Edit on Nov 19 03:21 at AppleToo user updates page that "Cher Scarlett has left the company". Scarlett's departure was only made public at 03:35 AM IST/UST, 17 Nov 2021. It was a quick and minor update if this person isn't connected to Scarlett.

▸ Edit on Nov 23 at AppleToo user updates Scarlett's "settlement" to "non-board settlement" which seems over specific.

▸ Edit on Dec 24 at AppleTogether adds an "Apple Together" section even thought it appears to be simply a rename of AppleToo and Scarlett continues to infer she's still leading the group & provides updates on their activities, including the walkout details added to the page. ~HazelBasil talk 06:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: (Response to HazelBasil's list of claims below, collapsed because of its length)

Extended content

* Edit on Nov 17 at Line 45: added that Scarlett attended high school at Juanita High School with no source cited & the three other sources in the paragraph don't mention the name of the high school. The edit said Scarlett "wanted to be a junior astronaut," while the source said Scarlett was "a junior astronaut who wanted to become a scientist." None of Scarlett's bios or employment history say anything about her being a junior astronaut, so it appears the user fixed a typo in the WP article with insider knowledge. It that edit, user also updated that Scarlett grew up in Kirkland, WA to that Scarlett was born in Walla Walla, WA & grew up in Kirkland - again without any cites & nothing mentioned in those three articles. - The diff you are referencing does not say I made an edit that said Scarlett "wanted to be a junior astronaut". The diff says the edit was "Scarlett was interested in science and video gaming, and says she wanted to be a scientist and go to space after being a junior astronaut." The article you are referencing says "Scarlett described growing up in Kirkland Wash., and being a junior astronaut who wanted to become a scientist and go to space." You can see in the diff I said the bits about her birth place and high school was what she said on her website, and GorillaWarfare informed me that it being on her website did not need to be stated and made edits which reflected such. Edit on Nov on 20 at Line 28 added "and during her tenure, she taught a web development course for the University of Washington," and only cited Scarlett's website which says she was an instructor at the university for five months but does not say what type of course she taught, so again the type of course must have been added with insider information. - The course she taught is listed on her LinkedIn, which is listed on her website. I simplified what is listed there. The sourcing was already deemed unreliable by GorillaWarfare and I have since not used LinkedIn to source information on any article. Edit on Nov 20 3:58 UST at Line 28 with comment "adding news of memo" and added "Two days later, on November 19th 2021, Apple posted a company-wide memo affirming employees' rights to discuss pay and other working conditions, both internally and externally." The cited NBC article went live at Nov. 19 7:20 PM PST (Nov 20 3:20am UST). User added this memo 38 minutes after the article went live. In the cited article Scarlett simply says the memo "is a win" for employees. It will be weeks later that Scarlett reveals the memo was allegedly part of her settlement agreement with Apple. A few minutes later user adds a the word confidential to a note on Scarlett's settlement noting "clarify the details of the settlement were confidential, according to her lawyer in the source.” - I saw the news, and this particular type of news is something I get notifications about because I'm interested in it. I have made a number of updates to Wikipedia following news I saw, but as you can see, there's plenty I didn't see or add in a timely manner. I drew the conclusion it was likely a term of her settlement, and since she was mentioned in the article, I was under the impression the journalist was implying that she was credited for the memo, too. The article cited a lawyer as saying it was a win for workers, not Scarlett. I'm confused why expanding and adding context from source material is an issue to you. Could you explain why you think that's an issue? Edit on Nov 24 21:30 UST at Line 47 user adds a "Silenced No More Section" to Scarlett's page. It cites three articles but only one of them mentions Scarlett. That NYT article mentioning Scarlett was apparently published around 6:30am (14:30 UST) on Nov 24, again with updates made very shortly after an article was published. - I already responded to this in my previous comment above, but not every source mentions the subject of articles. They also may help clarify explanations (and I believe those were citations about the California legislation for context I thought was necessary). I'm not sure what the 7 hour gap here is supposed to be implying. Edit on Nov 25 00:10 UST at Line 49 she added a note from a Reuters article published Nov 24 ~4pm PST (Jan 5 00:00 UST). Once again user posted updates and cited an article very quickly after the article was published, this time i appears only 10min. - I saw the new shortly after it was published and thought the context would be useful for Scarlett's biography. Edit on Nov 28 6:38 UST at Line 40 user edits "Scarlett helped to lead a group of around 7,000 employees in organizing to be allowed to continue working remotely" to "Scarlett and over 7,000 other employees organized to be allowed to continue working remotely" where the cited article only says "Scarlett is one of over 7,000 Apple employees who participate regularly in an internal corporate Slack group called “remote work advocacy,” where workers discuss their frustrations with management on the issue, and how other companies are offering more flexible arrangements." - I did not add the anecdote about 7,000 employees. Igotthistoo did. I only added back in the leadership bit, which was originally written by GorillaWarfare, which was supported by the following paragraph: "Cher Scarlett, an engineer at Apple who joined the company during the pandemic and has become a leader in, among other issues, organizing her colleagues on pushing for more remote work." I may have made a mistake tying the "large group" to the "7,000 employees," but if anything, that makes it clear that I do not have context that you have. The diff you linked is the reversion of an edit that was not supported by the cited reference. "Scarlett and other employees who remained anonymous for fear of professional repercussions" (from edit made by Igotthistoo) vs the article, which states, "who spoke to Recode on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional repercussions" Edit on Nov 28 6:40 UST with comment "removed unnecessary information about Chelsey Glasson" and updated "Keiser cited the outreach from Scarlett and from Chelsey Glasson, who is suing Google for alleged pregnancy discrimination, as inspiration for the bill" to "Keiser cited the outreach from Scarlett and from Chelsey Glasson, another tech activist, as inspiration for the bill." despite the cited article saying " Chelsey Glasson, a former Google employee who sued for pregnancy discrimination, also wrote the lawmaker." Then all hell breaks loose... you can read that back & forth yourself. - I did not see why Chelsey Glasson would be relevant. She did not work at Apple, there is no evidence that Scarlett worked at Google or worked with Glasson on previous legislature, and the source only states that they both reached out to Karen Keiser. I could not find any sources that showed they were working together on this legislation, either. I don't quite understand why this would indicate I have some COI with Scarlett? Do you have a COI with Glasson as well? Do Scarlett and Glasson know each other? I only thought it was undue because they don't seem to be connected to each other other than they both contacted the same senator about NDA laws in Washington state. If you (or any other editor) disagrees with my conclusion, there is a talk page to discuss it. I'm new and have taken care to most times ask questions and improve as an editor. Edit on Nov 28 - with reverting an update that said: "Scarlett and other employees helped to lead employees in organizing to be allowed to continue" back to a version that said: "Scarlett helped to lead employees in organizing to be allowed to continue." with an update comment saying: "all references clearly note her as the leader or co-leader WP:AIV" This was bizarre because there's no coverage I'm aware of covering the work-from home organizing where leaders were named. - The diff you've linked here is not my edit, and the comment you are referencing was about contentious AppleToo edits, that looked like they fit Wikipedia's definition of Vandalism. Edit on Nov 28 - with another revert commenting "Restored this page to a previous version. This article is about Scarlett, and needs to reflect content and context from WP:RS. igotthistoo may have a WP:COI and committing WP:AVI, as many of their edits introduced unrelated individuals, and created negative or false context on this WP:BLP, based on sources." Which is interesting to me not because of the content necessarily, but because SquareInARoundHole acts like they've never used Wikipedia before and asks questions about how to cite things like it's their first experience editing articles, yet 11 days into this brand new account throws out "WP:RS", "WP:COI," "WP:BLP," and "WP:AVI". While user in some comments acts unsure of basic expectations they also just commented about another user "many of their edits introduced unrelated individuals, and created negative or false context on this WP:BLP” - This is ridiculous. Yes, I am learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. This does involve reading and learning some things ahead of time, and in other cases, learning from mistakes. The user was banned from editing Scarlett's page, and additionally, a sock account they created was permanently banned. I reverted all of their edits because it became difficult for myself and GorillaWarfare to fix what they had done without violating Wikipedia's rules. How would the things I understand and the things I'm still learning about Wikipedia indicate I have a COI with Scarlett? I have edited Wikipedia in the past without an account, I decided to make an account when I wanted to focus on women in tech. Edits on Nov 28-Dec6 on Incident Notice Board about Cher Scarlett's page. I don't know what this is all about, but a few comments stood out to me: User wrote about another users "diminishing the work of Scarlett". Scarlett would later write a few weeks later "During this same time, a few women embarked on a harassment campaign against me, including abusing Wikipedia to diminish me and perhaps most disgustingly refer to my childhood abuse as alleged.” Again, I don't know the details of that back & forth, but I found it very interesting Scarlett admitted to monitoring her Wikipedia page and used the word "diminish" herself. - I can't speak to Scarlett's monitoring of her Wikipedia article, and again, I don't quite understand how this would be indicative of a COI. You are also monitoring your article, which is understandable given that it is about you, and you likely want it to be fair and accurate. I imagine all other living people would feel the same. I also cannot speak for her also using the word diminish, which I, GorillaWarfare, and Igotthistoo all used. Pointing it out feels like an absurd reach. Again, SquareInARoundHole acts like they are using Wikipedia for the first time (and GorillaWarfare states she believes user is not Scarlett partially because it appears user is just learning how to use Wikipedia, yet user posts about the other user apparently "adding in unsourced context that swings neutrality negative, unrelated individuals that are WP:NN to detract focus from the subject, and removing important context from WP:RS to further alter the neutrality to a negative outcome" and "it looks like you may have an undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and/or those you have attempted to add to this WP:BLP, affecting the WP:NPOV and leading to WP:EW." Also states, "We are willing to consider any of your good faith edits with a RFC in Scarlett's talk page, provided you have proper reliable sources cited, and a clear, neutral reasoning behind the edits" and "A WP:BLP is not the space to work on an agenda." Again, does not sound like a new user. - Again, this is a ridiculous claim I've already stated above. Contrasting the parts of Wikipedia I understand and the parts I don't know about, or have yet to get the hang of, does not point to any issues with me as an editor. I have consistently listened to feedback and become a better editor. Page also has yet another COI warning, "Based on the quantity, depth, and insider knowledge required for (SquareInARoundHole) comments and edits about Cher Scarlett, it seems possible that user could be Scarlett herself or someone close to her. Can the user also please be checked for WP:COI? (SquareInARoundHole)'s talk page already has a Managing a conflict of interest warning. User's account has only existed since 17 Nov and roughly half their edits are to Scarlett's page or about Scarlett on Ozoma's page.” - The previous COI warning was not from you, and as I said previously, unless you have spoken to the user who posted it and clarified it was a question about Scarlett, bringing it up as a point to prove your thesis feels inappropriate to me. You, Scarlett, and Ozoma, have been constantly in the news. The others I have edited thus far have not been. I would love to write about some of the others, too, who are currently in the news, but they are either are not yet on Wikipedia, or others get to their pages with updates quicker than I've been able to. It does feel good to be the one to add previously missing information to a biography, or to be the person to expand upon something in an article. SquareInARoundHole Edit on Dec 11 22:22 UST at Line 40 is when things get really interesting. Now user updates the page with a new source, a Verge article published ~Dec 11, again very close timing. This article states "Scarlett says that her settlement with Apple required it to post “a company-wide memo clarifying employee rights including discussing pay & working conditions,” “in a prominent and visible location on the People site.” This is the memo that SquareInARoundHole added to Scarlett's article before anyone else knew that the memo was related to Scarlett's exit package. User also added a line saying "Scarlett received less than a half a year's severance" but that information does not appear in the cited articles. - I am not the editor who added information about this. I started watching Scarlett's article when it was vandalized so that I can quickly jump in and help if that happens again. I saw the update, read about it, looked for more information, found it, and added it. Additionally, you keep saying I'm adding information not in sources, but this is another instance where it's nearly verbatim what is in one of the article's cited. "So far, the company had paid less than half of a year’s worth of severance." Edit on Dec 31 20:16 UST at Line 43 user added my 2nd SEC complaint to Scarlett's page saying "Ashley Gjøvik a former Apple program manager who was vocal about issues at the company, also filed a tip the following day" despite the cited article not actually mentioning if this was my Sept 1 SEC whistleblower complaint about a conflict of interest in the Apple board of directors or my Oct 26 SEC whistleblower complaint about unlawful employee policies. This edit was only 17 hours after my Wikipedia page was moved to mainspace and I had not told anyone other than close friends that it was created (& GorillaWarfare of course). The only people who many have been notified were those with BLP who were tagged in the "see also" which were: Cher Scarlett, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Frances Haughen. User also cited a PDF on my personal website for the filing. - Again, I am watching Scarlett's article. I saw that you were added it to in my watchlist, and I was excited to expand your article because of the coverage I've seen about you. The article referenced states, "Former Apple employee Ashley Gjovik also filed an SEC whistleblower complaint in October alleging Apple made false statements to the agency." I added the PDF you published on your website because according to you, it is the October SEC tip you filed about false statements to the agency. Again, I have no idea whatsoever why this edit is an issue to you. I was giving you credit for your work, and additionally referencing that work, which is expansive and interesting. Edit on Dec 31 22:48 UST at Line 41 with comment "Moved Gjovik up to an expansion of harassment and abuse endured by both parties." User now adds very concerning edit "a former Apple program manager who was vocal about issues at the company, endured similar harassment from colleagues, including that she had been doxxed in the same thread as Scarlett. This information was later updated to a description of criticism of Gjøvik on Blind containing information she believed could compromise her safety. The thread was deleted by Blind's staff, which Gjøvik says was at her request." citing both the live Mashable version and a Wayback archive version of the page. Background: a reporter wrote about a tweet I made where I talked about being doxxed on Blind and then someone reached out to the reporters editors demanding it not say I was doxxed (i have emails & texts on this). The only people who knew about the details of what information was actually shared were my close friends and Cher Scarlett (because she demanded details from me after my tweet). I complained to one person about the back & forth & what I thought was Cher requesting the updates, a reporter named Zoe Schiffer. Other than that, I have no idea who would even know enough about this page updates, let alone be interested in citing a WayBack archive of the "before" version. - I found the original article syndicated elsewhere, which is why I got the WayBack version. I assumed doxxing would be the way YOU described what happened to you, but clarified it was later updated because that's what was in the source. I don't need to know, or care to know, the background of what has transpired between you, Scarlett, journalists, or anyone else. I am only interested in accurately and fairly representing you (and all of the subjects I edit) on Wikipedia. This was already dealt with by GorillaWarfare, and ultimately removed because she disagreed with my assessment that you have been subjected to harassment by your colleagues and felt that the reference about your doxxing (or whatever you classify it as) was undue because the article was mainly about Scarlett. I am confused by your position on my mentioning the harassment you've faced, because I found mention of it in more sources than I mentioned on your talk page, ie, "After Gjøvik started to gain momentum on Twitter, multiple current and former Apple employees tweeted about how they were suspicious of her claims and felt like she was merely trying to get attention." Women in tech, especially outspoken ones, are prone to more harassment than others, according to what the women peers I have discuss amongst themselves, but I apologize deeply if you feel that has not only not been the case with you, and that you feel it is harmful to mention it. I don't know you, so I'd have no context that mentioning the harassment cited in these articles would be unwanted. Edit on Dec 31 23:46 UST at Line 43, as you mentioned, it was unusual she clarified the status of Scarlett's leave despite it contradicting the cited source. User also added "which she changed in 2018 after providing federal investigators information that led to the arrest of the perpetrator of an incident when she was a teenager she said involved being forced into sexual acts on camera." which was not mentioned in any of the cited material. - I cited both of these edits, the first I've already cited above, and here is what the other states: Scarlett says she was forced to perform sex acts on camera at 19. Days later, she says she attempted suicide. She provided information to federal investigators in 2018, which led to the arrest of the perpetrator, and began going by Scarlett, which is not her real name, out of concern for her safety. She is in the process of legally changing it. — Reed Albergotti GorillaWarfare removed these edits because the addition of some of it has been contested on Scarlett's talk page, and I did not properly address the topic before adding it. After reading the full discussion, I opted not to request for comment on it being added back in, as it looks like she would not want it to be mentioned, either, based on the safety concerns mentioned by two editors. Edit on Dec 31 - user removed me from the list of people in her "See Also." - I removed you from the list of "See Also" because I added you to a section as a mention, which adds you to the list of referenced articles automatically. Edit on Dec 31 to Scarlett's Talk page saying "Scarlett's speaking to the press openly was a rarity that inspired Rotondo (and others) to start speaking out about Apple on Twitter. While it could be contextual that Scarlett has helped others, like Rotondo, become publicly vocal about issues they experienced at Apple" which has not been printed anywhere and some would disagree with. - The source referenced by Igotthistoo in stating that Kate Rotondo should be added to Scarlett's wikipedia page says this: "Before May 2021, the public rarely heard from Apple employees like Kate Rotondo." and "News of the survey inspired others, including Kate Rotondo, to begin tweeting openly about their own issues trying to get paid and leveled fairly." and additionally points directly to Scarlett's outspokenness starting in May of 2021. I have no context for what you or others would disagree with, I was responding to the comment that Igotthistoo made after reading the article they referenced, and additionally gave an option for possibly mentioning Kate Rotondo under a different framing that would be supported by the article. You left out the statement I made that if that were something to be added, it would "additional sources to support Scarlett's effort leading others in the same way" Edit at Dec 31 21:54 UST on Line 32-59 user adds she "says was told not to discuss her concerns with other employees, a request she alleged was a violation of her rights under the NLRB." but this information is not in the article cited, in fact I don't think any articles have said that directly. User also added " She went on to raise her concerns amongst employees in the Sunnyvale office that they were possibly being exposed to hazardous chemicals, urging them to test the air, and that she was subsequently harassed and humiliated" which also is not in the cited article. User added this about the privacy section "Other employees said the upload process was user-initiated, and that they were instructed "not to upload anything sensitive, confidential, or private," although other staffers reported a company policy that bars employees from wiping their company-owned devices when they leave the company, and violation of the policy leaves them open to legal action." which again was not in the article about that topic. User edited "On August 4, 2021, Apple placed her on paid administrative leave" to then add "while they investigated some of her internal complaints," which again is not cited in any articles. User wrote about the leave that "which she said she requested as a "last resort", and which she later described as "indefinite" and "forced" in a complaint" which was misleading & was reverted. User added a SEC complaint citing my website, which was then reverted. User then added Cher Scarlett's SEC complaint to my article despite zero press covering both of our Nia Impact capital complaints together. User then removed Cher Scarlett from my page's See Also. - I cited multiple references, not only one article. In reference to you being told not to talk about your concerns with other employees being a part of your NLRB charges (I believe this is where I sourced this, though if I remember correctly, it was in numerous sources I read: Gjovik said her concerns were brushed aside and she was warned against speaking up about them. In her letter to the NLRB, she said Apple’s employee relations department “intimidated me not to speak about my safety concerns” — Patrick McGee Additionally - "She also urged her employers to test the air in the office before the cracks were repaired to establish whether workers had been put at risk since 2015." - Martin Bright I found the terminology "indefinite paid administrative leave" misleading based on all of the materials I read, including an email from an Apple HR representative you uploaded to your website which states that it was not indefinite. Some sources, including The New York Post (which I didn't know at the time was not allowed to be used, nor that it was essentially a tabloid), clarified it was during the ongoing investigation into some of your claims. Neutrality is important, and while I tend to want to ignore everything from the corporate side, I felt the most balanced take was to point out that they refused to investigate all of your complaints (negative for Apple), rather than sharing your published correspondence of their denial, which felt like it would be unfairly swinging neutrality in Apple's favor, and to say that you felt it was indefinite. My understanding differed from GorillaWarfare, who felt the other sources were not reliable enough to clarify whether or not you called the leave indefinite or if it was actually intended to be indefinite. I did not contest this, though I still think it's confusing as a reader. Additionally, I did not write that you requested it, nor that you described it as forced in a complaint. That was originally added by GorillaWarfare, and is supported by the references. Again, Scarlett was removed from the "See Also" section because she was added contextually to your page, since Reuters tied your SEC tips together in the article referenced in your previous note about this. Edit on Jan 3 at Line 46 user provided negative editorialization of my EEOC right to sue saying " Both the DFEH and EEOC issued Gjøvik right to sue letters, which indicates that while the agencies were unable to determine if law was violated and would not be proceeding on her behalf," despite no press saying it like that, instead press saw it as a positive as EEOC investigations are not required and it was a step forward. - As someone who is not in law school and has little understanding of legal terminology, the articles did not clarify at all what a right to sue notice was, other than it gives you the right to sue. As a reader, not just an editor, I wanted to understand what this meant and why it was needed. The Wikipedia entry I found (linked in previous sentence) is a disambiguation link, which I've had multiple sections added to my page for accidentally using disambiguation links. I used the Wikipedia entry on the disambiguation link, and the EEOC's website to clarify what that means, and why. Nothing I wrote was negative. The EEOC says "If we aren't able to determine if the law may have been violated, we will send you a Notice of Right to Sue. This notice gives you the right to file a lawsuit in court ... If we decide not to file a lawsuit, we will give you a Notice of Right to Sue." and "If you filed your charge under Title VII ... you must have a Notice of Right to Sue from EEOC before you can file a lawsuit in federal court." and I got the "EEOC has verified that the claim, if proven, would be unlawful discrimination" from the disambiguation link. I put those together to define why it was important that you received that, and what it meant. To me, that's a positive statement that the EEOC and DFEH felt your claim was a violation of the law if it could be proven in court. I'm sorry that you thought it was not. I really do try to be balanced in my edits. As discussed previously, this explanation was removed in favor of the disambiguation link because of "synthesizing", which is not something I knew at the time I was doing. I considered EEOC's website to be a good source of explaining your receipt of these letters. Edit on Jan 3 at Line 32 & Line 30 & Line 33 & Line 33 again user added information not included in the press and not widely known, referencing an ADA medical release document I shared with Scarlett and Scarlett Tweeted the document but never said was my document. - I supplied two references for this. The first stated "the employee relations representative suggested [Gjøvik] file an ADA accommodation request to continue working remotely after September ... Apple told her she’d also need to fill out a medical release form." The second came from this tweet thread, which was embedded in an article about your paid administration leave. In the tweet thread, you said "They also suggested requesting #ADA #disability accommodations after I raised concerns about unsafe #workconditions ... If you missed it a couple weeks ago, the medical release forms Apple sends us for requesting accommodations are a problem in themselves..." By using the term "us," you were stating that you also received this form, which was consistent with what was reported by the Verge. GorillaWarfare and I discussed this on my talk page about why some embedded tweet threads were fine to source, and others weren't. I did not contest this. Edit on Jan 3 at Line 31 said "determined that she may have VOC poisoning" which is not printed anywhere and is not really a thing, VOCs are a huge group of chemicals, some of which are fairly safe. User also added this "She continued to press Apple for information on the reasons for the environmental testing and its results, and says that she was subsequently harassed and humiliated." which is not in the cited article. - From your article: "I saw two doctors who specialize in chemical exposure, and they both decided that based on the timeline of my illness, the VOC readings in my unit and my specific symptoms, that my mystery illness sounded like symptoms of VOC exposure." It looks like I made a mistake in using the term "poisoning," but I had just also read the other piece in which you said that “Apple poisoned me: physically, mentally, spiritually” and another piece that said “Most of us know that there’s some level of pollution in our day-to-day lives, but there’s still a lot of trust in the government and companies to do the right thing when it comes to poisoning people,” which led me to the understanding the illness you experienced about was due to VOC exposure and that constituted poisoning. I apologize for misunderstanding what you've said, but again, GorillaWarfare already addressed this in saying that the references were not high enough quality and I did not contest. Edit on Jan 1 to my Talk page Talk user adds bizarre statement " As she [Gjovik/me] is a woman, and one who seems particularly subject to harassment, it would be nice to clarify how much higher education she's accomplished” - I don't understand this comment, or how it points to a COI. I wanted to highlight your academic career, like I want to do with other women in tech. I already discussed my understanding of how outspoken women in tech seem to be prone to harassment, and that you have experienced it first-hand given the coverage. Edit on Jan 1 to my Talk page Talk user says "Gjøvik has mentioned the harassment from her colleagues in numerous places, though I discovered it in the Mashable piece (or rather, a copy of the original that was re-published on another outlet). Was going to expand with additional context from the piece on truthout.org.[1] It seems heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett in the Mashable piece, and relevant to properly highlight what she endured at the company for speaking out" which is weird & confusing for numerous reasons, but also confusing why something "heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett" would need to be Gjovik/my page. - Again, as I said on my talk page, I was under the impression you had been a victim of the culture described by Scarlett based on the sourced material. Edit on Nov 19 03:21 at AppleToo user updates page that "Cher Scarlett has left the company". Scarlett's departure was only made public at 03:35 AM IST/UST, 17 Nov 2021. It was a quick and minor update if this person isn't connected to Scarlett. - I updated an article for accuracy 2 days after news broke of it with reliable sources. Again, you're reaching. Edit on Nov 23 at AppleToo user updates Scarlett's "settlement" to "non-board settlement" which seems over specific. - Again, I'm not familiar with legal jargon, but "settlement" confused me, and others into thinking that Scarlett had been involved with a lawsuit with Apple. Withdrawing an NLRB charge as part of a settlement is described on the NLRB's article as a "non-board settlement." Which added necessary context that relieved the confusion. Edit on Dec 24 at AppleTogether adds an "Apple Together" section even thought it appears to be simply a rename of AppleToo and Scarlett continues to infer she's still leading the group & provides updates on their activities, including the walkout details added to the page. - I have no idea what this is supposed to be indicative of. I'm just using what's in the news, none of which mentions Scarlett, other than that she tweeted in support.The sources cited refer to group as a worker organization, whereas #AppleToo is described as a platform and a movement. If you disagree with how its written about, propose edits to it on the talkpage. This isn't the place for that.

~ SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I am declaring here that I have a COI with regard to the article subject area, as stated on my user page. I do not know any of the involved users in any capacity outside of Wikipedia. I'm a little bit hazy on policy, but I couldn't find anything saying that I shouldn't contribute to tangential COIN discussions such as this one; if it's a problem, tell me, and I'll dip out. With that out of the way, I'm not seeing the same contradiction as you, SVTCobra. The source says Her medical leave eventually became four weeks of paid time off. I took that to mean what SquareInARoundHole wrote in the edit: "She said after her compliance, she was granted four weeks of paid time off instead of medical leave." That's what the source says, paraphrased. Medical leave is a long term unpaid absence. If she got 4 weeks in October and she returned in November, where did the long term leave go? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng: I wasn't able to source what was going on for the last 2 weeks of October, only the 4 weeks PTO mentioned in that piece which would cover late September through October 15th. This is probably out of scope for this discussion, though. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors in this page please read WP:PEPPER. This page is immensely hard to follow as is. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: This list is excessive, and while I could see the questions about timing of 2 of the edits being so close to the news, the rest of what you've said repeatedly incorrectly claims that I've written things not in the source material when it is clearly there. None of us have the context you do, but I will tell you that I am feeling suspicious about the fact that the majority of your concerns are about Scarlett's article, and not yours, and several seem to be referencing Scarlett's vandal Igotthistoo and its sock, and that you felt the need to reference Scarlett's description of the vandalism incident in a random medium post not referenced anywhere on Wikipedia or the news. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

-> (Note from Ashley Gjovik/HazelBasil] on 00:25, 6 January 2022 UTC) To everyone reviewing this COI review request: I do not plan on responding to every numerous inline comment just made by SquareInARoundHole unless an uninvolved editor requests me to directly, in which case I'm happy to provide clarification. I will note that personally I find many of SquareInARoundHole's recent comments (and the sheer quantity, detail, and emotion of them) additionally indicative of a COI by the user and I feel provide additional evidence supporting my concern. A few notes below.

SquareInARoundHole, Jan 5: Do you have a COI with Glasson as well?

Answer: Yes, as I've said, I am Ashley Gjovik. I know, and it is known, that I know Glasson, Rotondo, Ozoma, & Scarlett.

SquareInARoundHole, Jan 5: I have edited Wikipedia in the past without an account

Answer: SquareInARoundHole, can you confirm if you edited any of these four pages previously without an account? And if so, would you disclose what the edits were?

SquareInARoundHole, Jan 5: I am confused by your position on my mentioning the harassment you've faced, because I found mention of it in more sources than I mentioned on your talk page, ie, "After Gjøvik started to gain momentum on Twitter, multiple current and former Apple employees tweeted about how they were suspicious of her claims and felt like she was merely trying to get attention."

Answer: That article was referring the harassment I faced by Shantini Vyas and Cher Scarlett. There is no press coverage naming them as I had been trying to keep this unfortunate abuse out of the press for months, in an effort to not distract from the overall movement.

SquareInARoundHole, Jan 5: "I found the terminology "indefinite paid administrative leave" misleading based on all of the materials I read, including an email from an Apple HR representative you uploaded to your website which states that it was not indefinite."

Answer: I now feel even more conclusively that the SquareInARoundHole user is indeed Cher Scarlett. The crux of Scarlett's harassment against me has been claiming I asked to be put on leave like it was a vacation, the leave was not indefinite, that I leaked IP, and my cases have no merit (all of which I refute, with piles of evidence & the press never implying any of those accusations).

SquareInARoundHole,Jan 5: "Again, I'm not familiar with legal jargon, but "settlement" confused me, and others into thinking that Scarlett had been involved with a lawsuit with Apple."

Answer: I don't know how an uninvolved person who is not close to Scarlett would know that "others thought Scarlett was involved in a lawsuit", as that was not mentioned in any press I saw.

SquareInARoundHole,Jan 5: " I am feeling suspicious about the fact that the majority of your concerns are about Scarlett's article, and not yours, and several seem to be referencing Scarlett's vandal Igotthistoo and its sock, and that you felt the need to reference Scarlett's description of the vandalism incident in a random medium post not referenced anywhere on Wikipedia or the news."

Answer: It's my understanding that any user can flag a potential conflict of interest with another user and any page. As mentioned, I do have a COI with Scarlett, as I know her, have interacted with her directly, and she has been harassing me for months. That Medium post names me.

SquareInARoundHole,Jan 5: Numerous quotes: "This is ridiculous." "Pointing it out feels like an absurd reach." "Again, this is a ridiculous claim." "This list is excessive." "I am feeling suspicious about the fact that the majority of your concerns are about Scarlett's article, and not yours."

Answer: Finally, these additional examples show the charged language I saw in previous comments and edits from SquareInARoundHole which strike me as someone at the very least way too over-invested in these women & these articles.

~HazelBasil talk 00:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: I came into this discussion assuming good faith, and as I went through your very long list of incorrect assertions that the content wasn't in the source material, or framed claims by way of removal of important context so that it would appear that I had a vendetta that supported your assumption that I know Scarlett, I became very annoyed that this is how I chose to spend my only day off this week. I ensured your academic achievements were properly highlighted, and added important context that helps the reader see your side of the story. I was confused about one word: indefinite. To me, indefinite means something has no limits. You stated, "I asked them to mitigate the hostile work environment while they investigate ... if there was no other option they could give me paid administrative leave." I don't think my confusion is unwarranted, nor do I agree with your assessment that it should be conflated with someone else's alleged harassment of you, nor do I think it somehow makes it seem like Apple did not engage in likely illegal and deplorable tactics to silence you. Like I said, I thought it was more damning against Apple that they only chose to investigate a few of your claims, and seemingly not the ones you found to be important. I don't have the context you do. Last - yes, I do find it suspicious that you went into a noticeboard discussion that has expired, tied it to a Medium post by Scarlett, and managed to allege some of the same things the vandal Igotthistoo and 98.51.101.124 (Sunnyvale, CA) did about my edits being unsourced (or unverified or un-cited), the contention of Scarlett's role as a leader, and bringing up a COI notice you don't have the context for, and more similar points. You do not come across here as someone who was uninvolved in that event. I sincerely do not care about your interpersonal issues with other women, including any that I have contributed to on Wikipedia. I don't want to know about them, or get involved, as it could cloud my judgement in making edits. I won't be making further edits anywhere about you on Wikipedia, and I'm disengaging from this discussion. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

-> (Note from Ashley Gjovik/HazelBasil] on 03:50, 6 January 2022 UTC) Hello uninvolved editors, I deeply apologize for all the comments & edits my COI review request has prompted, as well as the general chaos contained there within. I do not know why SquareInARoundHole has taken it upon themself to become so involved in this discussion about their account as it was my understanding neutral parties would simply be reviewing edits and logs to look for a COI. That being said, regardless of SquareInARoundHole "disengaging" from the COI review request about their account, I would like to please request we continue the COI review for their account on the four pages I mentioned. Thank you. ~HazelBasil talk 03:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, it is not unusual for editors to respond to allegations of improper editing against them—in fact, it is often considered to be dodging accountability when one doesn't. Editors are allowed to give their side of the story. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And SquareInARoundHole, if I'm understanding you correctly that you believe that HazelBasil is a sock of Igotthistoo and the IP, WP:SPI is the better spot to discuss that if you're hoping for an admin to look into it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@All & @GorillaWarfare: My Wikipedia account is nine years old and from the beginning, my name has been associated with it via my Talk page. I don't see how it could be a sock puppet account for different account created a month ago. I'm going to say it again, I feel like the counter-accusations, and also GorillaWarfare originally dissuading me from even raising this Conflict of Interest concern in the first place, then defending SquareInARoundHole before anyone uninvolved even reviews, then SquareInARoundHole's manifesto response, and then GorillaWarfare's defense of SquareInARoundHole's repsonse and assistance on helping her claim i'm a sock puppet against all laws of physics -- all of this feels like intimidation to drop my concerns and I'm feeling very uncomfortable all of it. I'm definitely losing faith in the Wikipedia processes through this experience. ~HazelBasil talk 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I believe that HazelBasil had to have been involved with the previous incident involving Igotthistoo (& their sock: Thistechworkertoo), 98.51.101.124 (Sunnyvale, CA), and 73.202.58.200 (Santa Clara, CA) based on their comments above, yes. That may mean that Igotthistoo is a sock of HazelBasil, one or both of the IP users, or all of them. I do not believe HazelBasil's stated COI with Scarlett and the others mentioned explains what they've written here, and how it mirrors the complaints of that incident, and that one of the first actions in that incident was to add Gjøvik to Scarlett's article in the lede. This edit maps directly to one of HazelBasil's complaints above, as does this edit, and this edit. I'll head to the other board with this concern. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: Technically Igotthistoo would be the sockpuppet of HazelBasil if SIARH was correct; I phrased it poorly. But WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is an issue that would apply to all accounts operated by one individual in violation of that policy. Regarding me "dissuading" you from making this COI complaint, I don't agree that I did—in fact I directed you to the proper location to do raise it. I did give you my opinion on the likelihood of it succeeding, but I also wrote "Again, I could be wrong on this, and if you would like to get an outside opinion you're more than welcome to request it." Involved editors, as well as those accused of misconduct, giving their opinion what happened in a conflict is also very normal in Wikipedia discussions. As for my "assistance on helping her claim i'm a sock puppet"—I have simply directed them to the appropriate location to raise that concern, the same as I did for you and your conflict of interest concern. I am trying my best to be fair and helpful to those who are involved, as well as provide context to the reviewing admins. I have made my involvement in editing the article quite explicit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This thread is giving me a headache and I cannot give it the attention it deserves. Unfortunately, there is an unrelated but concurrent discussion above (started more than 2 weeks earlier) which is also taking a lot of time. So, I guess the best I can do now is ask involved parties here for patience. --SVTCobra 23:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish for a TL;DR where someone can give me a concise allegation like "X is an agent of Apple looking to discredit former employees" or "Y is an agent of a radical group looking to discredit Apple" or "Z is an agent of a nefarious group looking to discredit worker's organizations" or anything direct. Unfortunately, Xmas was two weeks ago, so I guess the heart of the issue will not come gift-wrapped. --SVTCobra 00:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Apologies, I've never done this before. Adding allegation here, and also at the top. I allege that the Wikipedia user SquareInARoundHole is the human Cher Scarlett. I allege in that in editing the Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, SquareInARoundHole is violating COI rules that "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself.... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly." This also includes Scarlett's updates about Scarlett to Ifeoma Ozoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Apple worker organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), & Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Further, I feel that Scarlett has been harassing and defaming me outside Wiki for months, and has recently stated she plans to testify as a defense witness for Apple, against me on my Apple cases. Thus, SquareInARoundHole if Scarlett, is also violating COI rules when editing Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as editor's "should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases." Further, because Scarlett has apparently worked to prevent press from writing about me (as told to me by the press) and then Scarlett publicly bragged about it -- and Scarlett has made false accusations about me to many [58] friends and supporters in text messages & DMs, I think she would also fall into breaking the COI rules against editor's editing pages "who are involved in a significant controversy/dispute with another individual or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Even outside my allegations of harassment against Scarlett, Scarlett is involved in legal cases with me, with us both filing NLRB charges against Apple and SEC whistleblower complaints against Apple. That, in addition to her apparently planning to testify against me, makes this a blatant COI in my opinion. If this user is not Cher Scarlett, I believe it to be someone very close to Scarlett and likely working at Scarlett's direction. I also have concerns about Scarlett/SquareInARoundHole possibly making some edits on my page at the direction of Apple Inc as some of her edits on my page were adding doubt on my legal claims against Apple. Cher recently signed a settlement with Apple with unknown terms, but at the very least she's agreed to withdraw her NLRB charge against Apple and she said she did request the withdrawal, and apparently is now also a defense witness for them. ~HazelBasil talk 01:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@HazelBasil:, Thank you. At least we have a concrete allegation. The revalation that there are off-wiki issues is also helpful. I have medicated my headache with enough alcohol that I should not comment further. --SVTCobra 02:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

HazelBasil I seriously recommend you try to make your TL;DRs at most ~500 characters. Quoting of the COI guidelines might be redundant in some cases, and I recommend you use {{tq}} in the future as the distinction in color makes it easier to sift through your comments. From what I understand, you are implying SquareInARoundHole is responsible for the tweets you have linked. If SIARH has not admitted on-wiki to managing that twitter account, that may be considered outing. On the actual issues you are raising regarding COI, I am sorry but I genuinely cannot understand what you are saying and suggest you rephrase them. Again, follow the format SVTCobra mentioned above and try to spare us the details at first. There is plenty of opportunity for follow up questions or explanations, and a 3000 character "summary" will only make less people want to hear you out. Just give me a 3 sentence summary and I'll hear you out. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: I was asked to provide examples by SVT, so I did. SquareInARoundHole went in and peppered responses to each bullet making the section "impossible to read," per SVT. I was then asked to summarize by SVT, so I did. P.S. The Tweets I linked to are mine; I am Ashley Gjovik. ~HazelBasil talk 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree on SIARH making the thread hard to read, see my comments above on the issue. I see now you are Gjovik. It's a bit too late here for me to go through the tweets now with that understanding, but I'll do so in the morning once I've got a fresher mind. Thanks for responding so quickly, HazelBasil, and I hope I didn't come across as passive agressive or rude in any way. Another small note, I strongly recommend against user {{pagelinks}} within a discussion paragraph as it kind of bulks the text a bit.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: & @SVTCobra: - Thank you both for taking the time to attempt to read this novella. I'm happy to respond to any follow up questions you have (I can also email evidence as needed for off-wiki accusations). I look forward to hearing your outcome once you've had time to review. Please note that some comments were made inline by GorillaWarfare who self identfied as an involved editor & who created Cher Scarlett's page, and also AlexEng who self-identified a COI with the topic of the article. Further, SquareinaRoundHole already received one COI warning from Blablubbs in November 2021. Finally, SquareinaRoundHole just flagged my account for review as a Sock Puppet, an action by SquareinaRoundHole I view as an act of retaliation against me for alleging SquareinaRoundHole has a COI & is Scarlett. It's also worth noting GorillaWarfare appears to have helped facilitate the Sock Puppet inquiry, even posting the notice about it on my Talk page herself, which at this point makes me worry GorillaWarfare is beyond involved or biased, but may also have an actual COI with SquareinaRoundHole... but that can be a matter for another day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazelBasil (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: I apologize for the way I responded above making the post more difficult to read. I am still new to Wikipedia. I am working on consolidating it into the preferred formatting. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also created the Ashley Gjøvik page. I have not facilitated the sockpuppet investigation any more than I have facilitated this COI discussion; I informed you where to raise concerns about COI and I informed SIARH where to raise concerns about socking. I posted the notice on your talk page because I saw that SIARH had created the discussion but had not notified you, and I wanted to ensure you had a fair chance to present your side of the story—as SIARH has here. I don't know what a COI with SIARH would even entail, but all of my interactions with them are publicly visible on-wiki if you (or anyone else) would like to peruse them—those are the only communications I've had with this editor. As for your suggestions that I am biased against you somehow, I have explained my stance on you, Scarlett, and labor activism in our previous conversation, which I will repeat here for the benefit of others if it is useful (but collapsed in case the reviewers of this already long conversation don't care to see it). As always, I welcome third-party review of my own editing, if that's something you would like."I think it's unfortunate that there has been conflict between various individuals who are all otherwise working for the same cause, though I can totally understand someone also trying to ensure they are not maligned, unfairly represented in press, etc. I'm sad to see it when I do see it cross my feed. But one boundary I would like to draw is that you not try to involve me in that conflict. I have written both about you and about Scarlett, and in both articles I think I have been fair and not taken sides on whether one of you is credible and the other isn't. My goal here, as I've mentioned, is to ensure that labor organizing in tech is well-represented in Wikipedia, as are some of the people we have to thank for it. But the absolute last thing I want to do is become a part of the conflicts between various activists in this space. As I've already said, I totally understand that conflict is sometimes necessary to protect one's reputation and for various other noble reasons, and I default to assuming that it is only those reasons that cause people to engage in such things (and to be clear—I assume that of both you and Scarlett—even though it is quite possible that both can't be simultaneously true). But there is not such a noble reason for me to become involved in this particular conflict, nor could I in good faith edit Wikipedia articles about either of you if I was. Nor can I pretend to have anywhere near sufficient information on what has happened between the two of you to take any kind of informed side in the conflict."

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: A few hours ago you tried to post on this page explaining my point of view & reasoning for posting this COI. You must have realized it was weird to speak on my behalf since you then deleted it. However, I also find it weird, & I'm adding it in to keep this whole dumpster fire in one place...."I don't want to speak for HazelBasil and so I invite her to expand on this or correct me if I'm mistaken. My understanding is that HazelBasil (Ashley Gjøvik) believes that SquareInARoundHole is Cher Scarlett. Gjøvik and Scarlett are both former Apple employees who have stood up against the company in various ways, and have ongoing complaints with the NLRB, SEC, etc. However there has also been some conflict between Gjøvik and Scarlett which I will admit I am only partially aware of. I believe Gjøvik has alleged that Scarlett has told reporters not to speak to Gjøvik and is trying to have her written out of the story of labor organizing/whistleblowing vs. Apple, and spoken negatively about her behind her back to others. And she is alleging that SIARH is continuing this behavior on Wikipedia as SquareInARoundHole. If SIARH was Scarlett they would also have a COI with respect to Apple worker organizations as a former Apple employee with grievances against the company, and as a part of the #AppleToo movement. I am not sure what the COI would be between Scarlett and Ozoma though—perhaps that they have been in communications over proposed legislation? HB can perhaps elaborate there. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)" (Note: Entry reverted 3 minutes later HazelBasil (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC))

I hit an edit conflict while trying to reply to SVTCobra's request for a concise explanation of the root issue. I removed it to avoid adding length to a discussion that was already overlong, since you answered the same question in more detail at the same time as I, but no problem if you'd rather it stay. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate when an editor claims to be "fixing formatting" adds 14000+ characters to a thread. But that's just me, I guess. Also, why is everyone involved contributing again just because I asked for patience? All of you claim to want input from COIN. I know it hasn't been immediate like you may have wanted, but this is a mess now. --SVTCobra 05:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, of course, but somebody or something may have suggested to them that COIN was basically akin to a criminal proceeding by Wikipedia standards, rather than a place to solicit advice from other editors. Some newer users may not understand the processes here. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: This is a dumpster fire, I'm sorry. Is it possible to revert SquareinaRoundHole's 14k update? She appears to have edited and reformatted most of my comments and I'm struggling to check to see if she's changed actual content or modified links. Due to all the chaos already ensuing on this page, the page where she flagged me as a sock puppet, and the chaos with her outside Wikipedia, I don't feel comfortable trusting that she did not modify/remove anything material. Thanks. Sorry. HazelBasil (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I was removing the "peppered" replies and changing it to one inline response with tq's as suggested by another editor as the preferred way to address a list of bulleted comments. Can you please clarify how exactly you would like me to refute HazelBasil's aspersions and invalid claims that I've added un-cited material to Wikipedia? I am trying to learn and adjust accordingly, while this user has moved on from claiming they suspect I have a COI with the 4 referenced articles to flat-out stating I am someone I am not? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: If you diff the revision where you added your bulleted list with the revision just now after SIARH split the WP:PEPPERed format into a block of replies (diff) and then ctrl-f for "That's correct, several edits to my page" to scroll past all of the edits to other sections that happened in that period, you can confirm yourself that none of your statement was changed. Note that the diff collapses long portions of unchanged text; you will see "Line ###:" where a piece of the diff has been collapsed for that reason. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 06:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@AlexEng: COIN is not a criminal proceeding and everyone ought to be aware of what this noticeboard is or is not through the huge disclaimer at the top of the page. But you are right, it is also not a place for general advice. However, I think this was made clear early on in this thread. Early in this case could be within the first 30k characters of the thread. --SVTCobra 06:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I think you misunderstood my comment. I mean to say that less experienced editors can sometimes be under the mistaken impression that discussions at COIN are like a type of criminal proceeding in the world of Wikipedia; I am not under that mistaken impression myself. This discussion reads almost like somebody reporting an individual to the police, and then that individual vigorously defending themselves. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole: I don't know. Diatribes like this are rare in my experience on COIN. Like I said a few hours ago, I am not looking at content now. It's too late and I am inebriated. I just don't see how it should grow by 14K characters. But still, who says you have to respond to every post by HazelBasil? I haven't looked at a single diff in 2 days now. So, I don't know if there's merit to the vast amount of "diff-evidence" and I don't know if you even need to respond to any of it. If one day, I get around to looking at this mess again and HazelBasil has something that might suggest COI on you part, I will be sure to ping you and request a retort. But if another editor needs to review instead of me, well, I pity them if both sides are constantly editing/adding to the thread. Well, I am checking out for the night. --SVTCobra 06:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare's at least partially responsible for inciting the courtroom drama; a quote from her above "Just for the record, it is not unusual for editors to respond to allegations of improper editing against them—in fact, it is often considered to be dodging accountability when one doesn't GorillaWarfare 22:52, 6 January 2022" responding to me saying, "I do not know why SquareInARoundHole has taken it upon themself to become so involved in this discussion about their account as it was my understanding neutral parties would simply be reviewing edits and logs to look for a COI." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazelBasil (talk • contribs)

@HazelBasil: Please be fair to GorillaWarfare; she is an experienced and well-respected editor. She's not being combative. She's patiently explaining procedures here so that you might understand better the culture and processes common on Wikipedia. On a COIN thread like this one, it is true, as GW said, that people will usually respond at length to allegations concerning them. It is not unusual to see verbose discussions here. What is unusual – and what makes this discussion exceptionally difficult to read – is point-by-point replies formatted in line, as if one were responding to an email. Here, we usually rely on the threaded discussion format. There is no hard and fast rule about it, but editors are generally expected to make all of their points in one (usually) or more (rarely) contiguous paragraphs, indented one level from the previous reply. When that doesn't happen, it makes the conversation frustrating to follow. On another note, and to clear up any possible misunderstandings, this is not a venue where independent authorities investigate user behavior and come to a binding conclusion. In rare cases, conflicts here can escalate to such measures and lead to behavioral discussions at alternative venues, but that is the exception rather than the rule. The primary purpose of this noticeboard is to solicit feedback on potential and apparent conflicts of interest. You can read more about Wikipedia's definition of these terms at WP:COI. Due to the at times acerbic nature of such discussions, they do sometimes have the outward appearance of quasi-legal proceedings or investigations, but that is not reflective of the reality. The results of each thread are typically twofold: 1) Provide feedback to editors with a possible COI regarding the nature of their conflict, along with associated advice on avoiding problematic editing, and 2) Determine by consensus whether such editors have a conflict of interest that they should disclose. I urge you to pay particular attention to the sections in that link that describe the consensus-building process and how consensus is ultimately determined. This is crucial to understand, because it is very central to how we do things here. Please also feel free to ask any questions here or on my talk page. Should you like more assistance with understanding Wikipedia culture or policies, the Teahouse is open to everyone for that purpose. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: & note for other uninvolved editors: Closing the loop on Cher Scarlett/SquareinaRoundHole's continued harassment of me, this time via Wiki Sock Puppet accusation... results are back and shockingly I am in fact Ashley Gjovik/HazelBasil and not a puppet or using a puppet, I'm simply trying to report harassment and a user with a COI who clearly has a vendetta against me. Sockpuppet results are here. I wish I was as inebriated as SVT. Cheers. HazelBasil (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I ran the numbers on this dumpster fire of a thread since I seem to be getting blamed for where we ended up. This thread is currently ~17.3k words & 83.6k characters long (scream). Of that, SquareInARoundHole posted 7k words & 36k characters (43% of the content). GorillaWarfare posted 1.8k words & 8.7k characters (10% of the content). AlexEng posted 684 words & 3.5k characters (4% content). I posted 5.6k words & 28k characters (33% of total content). Of my edits, 4k words & 19k characters were the original ask or updates/clarifications in response to requests from uninvolved editors. So, 23% of the total content, was me responding to requests from reviewers, and 10% of total content were my commentary and responses to involved editors including the many updates made by SquareInARoundHole & GorillaWarfare. The rest of the edits were uninvolved editors trying to review this mess. Ranked: 43% - SquareInARoundHole; 23% - Me responding to uninvolved editors; 11% - all uninvolved editors combined; 10% GorillaWarfare; 9% - Me commenting & responding to folks in this list; 4% AlexEng HazelBasil (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC) HazelBasil 08:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I went to bed, but couldn't sleep. So I am at my computer again (and probably against medical advice) I looked at this thread again. I am sorry if I misunderstood you AlexEng, but I did want to distinguish this from a court. While sometimes admins will come by and instantly enact a block in clear-cut cases, I would say (or guess) most people here (myself included) are not administrators. Two cases where I was involved in recently were referred to WP:ANI before any adminstrative action was taken. In the simplist and ideal situations we have an editor acknowledge their COI and we work with them to resolve the issues. (Keven McDonald was the one I am proud of diffusing and solving). Nevertheless, while I have been somewhat active on this board for nearly three years, I feel a bit uneasy being the only one truly uninvolved responding to this. A far-reaching case above has grabbed most of the attention and I feel a little alone which is why I asked for patience. Aside from one or two short comments, I think everything here is from 1) the original poster who has COI with one of the articles, 2) the editor who has been accused of COI, 3) an editor who has already been involved and 4) an editor who wasn't involved but admits COI in general with the subjects. But, as you can see above, even with lots of editors looking at a situation, it can take weeks for a resolution or consensus. So, I hope everyone can be patient. Cheers, --SVTCobra 09:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• @HazelBasil: I am going to ask you one single time to stop speaking in absolutes that I am the person you are alleging. You are putting me into a position where I am being forced to announce that my pronouns are not she/her, and you are not giving me the basic respect of assuming good faith, like I gave you. I imagine that Wikipedia has a Code of conduct, and claiming I am harassing you for responding to your allegations and requesting your account be examined for sockpuppetry when you appear to not only have known about the previous incident in WP:ANB while it was active, but were likely involved in it, and casting aspersions on myself and others, would probably be violations.
• @SVTCobra: There's no sense of urgency from me. I apologize for my responses giving you that impression. I only wanted to give my side of things since the notice was about me. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Because SquareInARoundHole formally accused me & my account as being a sock puppet last night in retaliation against me for raising this COI concern, and they started a separate conversation on these matters on the Sockpuppet page, I'm copying the significant portions of that discussion here in an effort to keep all discussion about this in one place. I am including the following not only for cohesion but also because these comments and actions by SquareInARoundHole further support my allegation that SquareInARoundHole is Cher Scarlett acting on her own, someone acting at Scarlett's direction, or Cher Scarlett acting at the direction of Apple Inc.

• SquareInARoundHole wrote at 02:19, 7 January 2022 UTC: "HazelBasil added an entry to WP:COIN about their suspicion of my having a COI with 4 articles I've edited. Their complaints are mainly claims that the content I added was not in the source material when it was, and these complaints are mirrored in a previous incident from WP:ANB because of sock1's vandalism to Cher Scarlett, and additionally by ip2, who came to the incident to refute my questions about ip1 possibly being sock1 and sock2. Sock2 was confirmed to be a sock of sock1 by checkuser. She stated that her concern that I had a COI with Scarlett because of my edits to her article and talk page, but the evidence she presented was overwhelmingly about Scarlett's article, and her personal issues with the content, which speaks directly to sock1's contribution history. HazelBasil did clarify that she is Ashley Gjøvik, and that she has a COI with the other subjects she mentioned (Kate Rotondo and Chelsey Glasson), all of which happen to be people that sock1 added to Scarlett's article in a way that was meant to diminish Scarlett, and all of which are a part of HazelBasil's entry on COIN. She also brought up an alleged conflict between her and Scarlett, which helped paint a clear motive for sock1's and sock2's prior vandalism. My suspicions about HazelBasil's involvement was caused by her apparent investment in the incident, despite that it has long since expired when she supposedly became aware of me as an editor a week ago when I edited her article, and the similarity between many of her "concerns" and sock1's and ip1's contributions. Sock1 also cast an aspersion on GorillaWarfare and I, claiming we had an "arrangement" to "gatekeep" their vandalism from Scarlett's article, and HazelBasil has cast similar aspersions in the COIN entry. These diffs in particular seem to indicate that HazelBasil is ip1, ip2, sock1, and/or sock2: Added Gjøvik and Rotondo to lede, Added Rotondo to gender pay disparity concerns, 'Silenced No More' and Ifeoma Ozoma removal maps to the 7th addition here, Anonymity in advocacy around working remotely Role in advocacy around working remotely maps to the 9th addition here, and Addition of Chelsey Glasson maps to the 10th addition here. ip2 is of interest because of mention of unrelated COI notice on talk page and 11th entry here."
• Spicy wrote at 05:16, 7 January 2022 UTC: "I will say that looking at SquareInARoundHole's editing history, it's not unreasonable that two different people would suspect them to have a COI."
• Spicy wrote at 07:31, 7 January 2022 UTC: "In light of the Checkuser results, I don't think there is compelling evidence that the sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry policies have been violated by HazelBasil, so I am closing this case without further action."
• SquareInARoundHole wrote at 15:39, 7 January 2022 UTC: "A note about the geolocation - if HazelBasil is Ashley Gjøvik as she says she is, she lives in the Santa Clara, California/Sunnyvale, California area, as she attends law school at Santa Clara University and worked out of the Sunnyvale office at Apple Inc, according to her bio. This is part of the reason the IP address users, along with the other comments and particular investment in the previous incident with sock1 and sock2, made a compelling case that she either is all 4 users, or coordinating with them. If HazelBasil geo is showing she is far from the geographic area of the university or the office she worked at, it is due to the VPN. If I understand correctly, a VPN can make it look like you are somewhere you are not.
• Tamzin wrote at 16:16, 7 January 2022 UTC: "With respect, @SquareInARoundHole:, the SPI team understands how geolocation and VPNs work. Spicy has given you your answer, and has told you what to do for next steps if you desire. I am archiving this now."

HazelBasil (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Promotion of ISKCON founder with link spam and honorifics

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.

---

• Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dāsānudāsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user Dāsānudāsa keeps reverting edits [59] [60] [61] to restore Honorifics Swami and Prabhupada along with repeated internal links in violation of WP:HONORIFIC and MOS:LINKS. Swami and Prabhupada are honorifics. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics. He admittedly is a follower of this Gaudiya cult diff and trying to engage with him on the article talk has not been helpful. Venkat TL (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Swami, in the case of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami (Prabhupada), is NOT an honorific but is part of his name, as I have explained multiple times: [62], [63], [64], [65],

The man in question is also never simply called "AC Bhaktivedanta" in any reliable sources, which is the most important factor here.

That aside, Venkat TL is apparently either unable or unwilling to understand that he may not shoehorn through controversial changes without first building consensus to do so. The last talk page discussion on this topic, on Talk: Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, ended inconclusively with Venkat TL yet to respond, and yet he has tried again, in complete contradiction to the principles of WP:BRD and consensus-based editing, to remove the text unilaterally, despite having been reverted multiple times.

At this point, it is bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(1) It is a honorific. Every senior member of this cult uses the honorific name Swamy. (2) There is no reason to use his full name along with the linkspam to his article everytime he is referred to in the article. You are in violation of both. Venkat TL (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will discuss it with you on the relevant article talk page. Why are we here? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion would be more appropriate for WP:ANI or WP:AN3 than for WP:COIN, but I don't think that is necessary and I'm not certain it will go the way you want Venkat. While your arguments about the name seem reasonable, process is important, and the process now that your bold move (made via WP:RM/TR) has been reverted is to open a WP:RM proposing your move. Once it has passed, as I suspect it will based on what you have argued here, then it would be appropriate to update the links to the article.

Once that has happened, if Dāsānudāsa keeps insisting on their preferred form and edit warring to maintain it then it might be an appropriate time to WP:AN3. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Thanks for the suggestion. I am not seeking sanctions on Dāsānudāsa. It is important to point how his belief in his cult is clouding his judgement and preventing him from following WP:NPOV on articles related to his cult. The Article title for A. C. Bhaktivedanta is a different matter and I will follow your suggestion on it. Here I am discussing another article Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati which is not about A. C. Bhaktivedanta. As I understand MOS:LINK an internal article only needs to be linked once in the article. Why then is this person wikilinked every time he is referred to? Why are we using his full name (whatever it is including honorific) every time he is referred to in an article not about him. Can this be addressed here? I believe comments from uninvolved editors will be helpful. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Yes, that is definitely WP:OVERLINK, and those should certainly be removed, and per MOS:SURNAME you are right that they shouldn't be including the full name on every mention, regardless of honorifics - I have edited the article to match policy. However, I still don't believe this a matter for COIN; we don't typically hold that a member of a religious group has a COI with that group, although there are exceptions, and there is not much we can do here in the absence of a COI. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1. I have no problem with your addressing the over-linking, but you are doing so in the same edits as you are removing part of the name. If I could revert only the latter, I would. I have no objection to your removing excessive links.

2. I am not a "belie[ver] in the cult", as you suggest, and specifically say so in the diff you linked as evidence of my somehow having a conflict of interest. I am interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but I am also interested in Advaita Vedanta, in Theosophy, in Jungian psychology, in Formula 1 motor racing, in sleeping and in eating. None of this has anything to do with my editing behaviour on Wikipedia. If I was really editing in a partisan manner with regards to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, I would surely insist you refer to him as "Prabhupada", or "His Divine Grace", or other similar honorifics. One again: The "Swami" is his name. With an honorific "Swami", as at pages like Swami Vivekananda and Swami Rama, he would be called "Swami Swami". I have explained this more times than I care to count.

3. If you are concerned about the abuse of the honorific "Swami" in article titles, might I suggest you turn your attention to the two linked above? Or Swami Shraddhanand? Or Swami Satchidananda Saraswati? Swami Abhedananda? Swami Nikhilanand? There are plenty to choose from. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami is not one of them. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Mohamed Sherif Kamel

• Mohamed Sherif Kamel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ehab Lotayef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mohamedkamelerc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lotayef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comparing this article to the editors User Page, it ischer clearly an autobiography. There is a COI box on the UP acknowledging a conflict, however they are still editing the article in unacceptable ways. Yesterday, I removed a hyperlink to their LinkedIn page at the first bolded mention of their name in the lead. They put it back a second time, and I removed it again and placed a COI warning message on their TP. Today I see the LinkedIn link is back as ref#1. Their User Page is another version of their biography and should probably be CSDed as webhost vio as well (except for the COI user box! MB 22:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding in the article Ehab Lotayef and the user Lotayef. There appears to be a coordination of efforts between these two accounts. It should be noted that if either is notable, then we have WP:REALNAME concerns. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I made an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lotayef before finding this. Definetely something fishy going on User:Mohamedkamelerc creating Ehab Lotayef with it being edited by User:Lotayef who then creates Mohamed Sherif Kamel edited by Mohamedkamelerc. Obvious socking/meatpuppetry. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked for obvious socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

ScepticalChymist

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

I have just blocked this user after confirming that they operate a reputation management business despite denying that they are paid to edit here. Their edits are very professional, but their contribs need to be examined closely. SmartSE (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an example of what we need to look out for - they added this source on the day that it was published and it is highly likely that they were involved in writing the source in the first place, purely for use as a reference here. SmartSE (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Care UK

• Care UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stephenjonescareuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Stephenjonescareuk (SJ) has declared a COI but has continued to edit the article directly rather than via for example {{request edit}}, most recently to remove a {{COI}} tag at Special:Diff/1064302180 with the Removing the COI statement as I feel this has been explained and understood from me side. (which I reverted, especially as I do not believe his contributions through November 2021 and December 2021 have been checked through for neutrality). SJ has just made a talk page comment 2 days ago where they were expressing concerns over the neutrality of some editors at Special:Diff/1063895650, and perhaps rightly or wrongly I might feel that is a insinuation towards myself, but I may be feeling sensitive. Under these circumstances I bring the matter to COIN for review, to see if the {{COI}} should be removed, or the matter dealt with as paid editing with correct declarations fully in place. There may be a question if a PBlock is appropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)