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 Time Called You Talk:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:William Bolcom Talk:BP Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:John Challis Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:Emergent BioSolutions Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician) Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor) Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital & Research Centre Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Draft talk:Juris Svenne Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King School Talk:King the Land Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:Monero Talk:Moody Nolan Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Karen O'Rourke Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Joseph C. Papa Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Polymarket Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Jarred Rome Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Sartorius AG Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:ShareFile Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tencent Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Sam Ayoub

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

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

Chow Tai Fook

• Chow Tai Fook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kittychan1132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly a PR employee of Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group that ignoring uw-paid3 warning as well as tag herself with paid editing disclosure. Matthew hk (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, should be blocked for failure to engage in reasonable attempts to get them to disclose a COI. — Bilorv (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway the editor is stale after 2 weeks. Seem somewhat more active in zh-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Moody / College Church

• Joshua Moody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Juliacollegechurch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A draft of Joshua Moody, who is connected to "College Church," was created by "Juliacollegechurch" on March 30 and rejected at AfC. This editor was issued a COI warning around the same time.

Today, a mainspace article for this subject was created by another user. It was then further modified by "Juliacollegechurch" without addressing their CoI warning.

This editor also took interest in Zach Fallon, another subject with connections to "College Church," which they had edited in concurrence with the creator of the new Joshua Moody article ([1] [2]), who also has interest in subjects related to "College Church." (However, that user had not been served a CoI notice until now.) Cryptic Canadian 02:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If we expect people to reply to {{uw-coi}}, then the template's contents should tell them to do so. Otherwise, it's unreasonable to expect people to reply to boilerplate message with "Nope, I'm just a student at Wheaton, writing about my college, and I'm not getting paid by anybody".

User:Juliacollegechurch, if you happen to see this message, please consider expanding College Church before trying to write separate articles about its current and former pastors. Adding information from the local newspapers (I'll bet they ran some history pieces around the time of its 150th anniversary) would be very useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Return of promotional editing at Faisal Farooqui

• Faisal Farooqui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Thomasverve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (page creator, sock)
• Checkseems123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tailsmarcy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amanverma121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sock)

Refer to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 110#Promotional startup articles and their SPA creators for background. Asking for more eyes on Faisal Farooqui. I’ve done cleanup on this, but an aggressive effort seems to be underway to restore promotion of a businessperson. I’ve warned the other editor but they are continuing. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed some unsubstantiated claims and reorderd some material to make it less puffy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Which editor? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

PotW/Andy: As listed above. This article has clearly been target of promotion for years. "Faisal's management and leadership at Mouthshut.com has given rise to multi-faceted innovative approach to many aspects of consumer review community with social networks. His thoughts on integrating consumer-generated content with mobile phone and social media has been well recognized at international conferences." – Checkseems123, 2008 [3]; "included in a list of Entrepreneurs who have created History" for an op-ed index – Tailsmarcy1, 2019 [4] (note speedy deletion of Demi Rose by same editor as product typical of UPE); and now Amanverma121 with borderline editwarring to include stuff like an unreferenced "completed an internship with Morgan Stanely [sic]", auto-cited awards, and YouTube sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I need to dis-engage from this. I’ve now been accused of racism for challenging sources, and reverted yet again. Looks like edit warring from where I am. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Racism thing continues at ANI ☆ Bri (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bri, for what it's worth, I don't think you're at fault here - there's no doubt that there are racial disparity issues on Wikipedia, but from where I'm sitting it looks like it's being invoked as a smokescreen to distract from the promotion issues rather than being raised as a good-faith concern. creffett (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like WP:ASPERSIONS. Of course Bri is not at fault here. This behavior from the reported editor would even merit a block. --MarioGom (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm shocked, just shocked, to report that new checkuser evidence shows that this article has been dominated by a sockfarm since its inception in 2007 up through the recent wonderful ad hominem. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Papa John's Pizza

• Papa John's Pizza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paulobrien92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Papa John's International (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few days ago, on April 1st, there was a vandalization of Papa John's Pizza. It purported that the company was playing a prank by saying they would offer free pizzas to commentators on social media. A few hours after this post user:Papa John's International posted saying they were the official account tried to remove it. Both edit attempts were held up by the pending changes.

The second user with the name of the company, was promptly banned for multiple violations of Wikipedia tos with undisclosed COI and an account representing an organization. However, the other user, by user:Paulobrien92 appears to also hold a undisclosed COI.

Evidence: (Redacted)

His prose and style of wording is very formal and extremely similar to the PapajohnInternational user. Both are new accounts. It appears to be sockpuppetry. Who ever did the COI on the PapajohnInt guy, likely didn't see the other user.

- AH (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• No action taken. User:Papa John's International and User:Paulobrien92 each made one edit, on April 1st, which is more than two weeks ago. The edits consisted of removing a blatantly false and damaging statement asserting that the Papa John's company had been the perpetrator, rather than the victim, of an April Fool's joke that if taken seriously could have cost the company tens of thousands of dollars. There was nothing wrong with either of these edits. It might have been better form for these editors to have made edit requests on the talkpage given the COI issue, but I readily understand that new editors (1) would not know that this is the preference under our COI policies, and (2) would have considered it time-sensitive to delete the false information immediately rather than wait in an edit-request queue, potentially for days. I would not have blocked User:Papa John's Pizza under these circumstances; at most I would have given them a polite explanation of our COI policies and perhaps suggested a username change. (Although even that would have been ironic: We ask editors connected with an article subject to disclose the connection, but when an editor makes the most prominent disclosure possible—right in the username—we block them for it.) Equally I see no reason for any action against Paulobrien92 for his single, completely appropriate edit. And I certainly have no idea why this is being brought here now, some two weeks after the fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hypebeast

• Hypebeast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) speedily deleted four times, AfD-ed twice, most recently 26 April 2019
• Hypebeast Ltd. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (re)created in April 2020
• HYPEBEAST (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PorcSharpQuills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an administrator determine if Hypebeast Ltd. is a recreation of Hypebeast, which would be circumventing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypebeast (2nd nomination)? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you filled the username parameter? You mean user:PorcSharpQuills or someone else? Since no such user was called "username". Matthew hk (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want to point fingers if it is a GF creation and truly new. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not pointing fingers at all, IMHO. And it's sort of a requirement here that we list and notify the editors involved, so that here can be a discussion. Not doing so makes it into a bit of a secret investigation. I've added the user and will notify them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, now that they have been notified, I will say that I find this to be an unlikely action of a "new" editor on their second day. Error-free complete article including infobox, formatting templates, section wikilinks, etc. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It is quite clear it is something fishy and resemble to UPE. BTW wiki code can be learned from editing gamepedia or fandom, but the knowledge of using Template:Infobox company seem alarming. Matthew hk (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian billionaire

• Ruslan Baisarov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Issack.build (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to evidence added to an SPI, it seems very likely that topics related to Russian billionaire Ruslan Baisarov could have paid edits. I think the bio could use some scrutiny maybe starting with the claim of holding a doctorate. Also a bit odd that it doesn't mention his Chechen Muslim heritage although it is documented by Sputnik news agency, Moscow Times [5], UCL Press [6], and others.

More activities of sockfarm noted at WP:PAIDLIST#Percepto and was discussed at this noticeboard, now archive 157 ☆ Bri (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

George D. Lundberg

• George D. Lundberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Debora Holmes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appears to be a paid editor basing most of the article on unpublished interviews. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have previously discussed this matter on my talk page with this user who has admitted she is editing on behalf of Lundberg. I thought we were making progress in that she would request changes but today's large edit of the article indicates otherwise. Greyjoy ^talk 05:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to discussion on my talk page. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debora Holmes: It would be best if you could respond here to keep the conversation in one place. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 06:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean here? Also, please don't twist my words and intent. I fully intend to do what it takes to get this article up within Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. And to whom should I show my final product? Shall we work on one paragraph at a time? Debora Holmes (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Also, let me make it very clear that Dr. Lundberg did not instruct me as to what to write. When we say "behalf", I want to make it clear that concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago. Thanks.Debora Holmes (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debora Holmes: when you say that the concern is over the current inaccuracy that he noticed many years ago, you are confirming that you're in touch with the article subject and undertaking edits on their behalf. In order to preserve neutrality of our articles, we don't do that. We stay independent of our subjects. A selection of the problems with your recent edits (which boil down to a non-neutral approach) is as follows:

• "continues his valuable work" (puffery)
• "in 1982, he received an offer that propelled him in a new direction, one that led him to a new kind of medical pioneering." (more non-neutral puffery)
• "By 1981, however, the American Medical Association wanted a new editor-in-chief, and Lundberg was their first choice."
• "Lundberg invented the concurrent triple medium (“read, listen, watch, all on the same page”) video editorial, and continues to publish such regularly." (promotion, original research)
• "Although Lundberg stated that “the Army treated me very well,” he and his wife had three young children and “they kept making me move around,” In 1969, Lundberg placed computers into the clinical laboratory while concurrently abolishing the “ration stamp” approach to controlling excess lab test use. (trivia sourced by personal interview, which is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
• "using a modified Delphi approach, implementing it in less than one year, with student achievement outcome measures set and accomplished." (more puffery, sourced by original research)
• "He has 5 children, 11 grandchildren, and 2 great-grandchildren. When not working, Lundberg reads, hikes, cooks, swims, and is an enthusiast of the visual and performing arts and Alabama football." (trivia sourced by Original research)

The proper way to handle your interest in the article is to suggest edits on the talk page, using the request edit template. There is no doubt that the subject is notable and the article could be expanded, but you are way too close to this subject to be editing the page. Please allow other neutral editors to undertake that task. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Thank you VERY much for this specific feedback, ThatMontrealIP. As I've mentioned, I'm new to doing this and eager to learn. I think I understand what it is you want to see now, but please, please, gently guide me if I err. Also, if you got the impression that I've known Dr. Lundberg for years, that is absolutely not the case. It was only through a fellow academic a few months ago that I became aware of the issues with his page, and I had never exchanged a single email with him (let alone met him or worked with him etc.) until then. I'm going to suggest the first addition on the Talk page in the next hour. Will someone be able to comment fairly soon? Debora Holmes (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Debora Holmes, can't speak for commenting/suggested additions, but here's a bit of advice - if the only source for something is the subject of a page (in this case, a personal correspondence, but subject websites, self-published blogs, etc. also count) and there's no reliable source with that information, it probably does not belong on the page. There are times when it's okay per our self-published biography rules, but generally it should only be used for basic biographical facts (and nothing that ThatMontrealIP referred to above as "trivia"). So the subject's place of birth, cited to the subject and not found elsewhere? Probably fine. The fact that the subject was the first to do something? Probably not okay. In fact, as much as possible, don't use the personal correspondence, and stick to material published in independent reliable sources. creffett (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To follow up on what creffett is saying, secondary sources are are how the Wiki has been built. Relying only on secondary sources means anyone can edit a page by following what the secondary material says about someone.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your valuable comments. This is exactly the kind of advice I've been looking for! Debora Holmes (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC) I've just posted a proposal for the first section at this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_D._Lundberg#First_proposed_addition_to_Lundberg_article . I'm not sure if I posted the references/footnotes in the proper format for this talk page (I've been working in Virtual Mode so not too familiar with the usual Wiki mode), but it's evident at least where each of the 19 footnotes belong. In addition, there's 27 links, but not sure those show up. Let me know what you think. Debora Holmes (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debora Holmes: You need to tag your request with {{request edit}} to activate it. The advice on how to request edits is at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. TSventon (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

[User:TSventon|TSventon], thanks so very much for the guidance -- I will try doing that now! Also, I hope I entered your name right so that you get this...Debora Holmes (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Judi Rever

• Draft:Judi Rever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paxkahlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Draftified article - was originally in mainspace, I moved it to draft based on my suspicions of UPE or undisclosed COI. Article has strong indications of COI/UPE - see my note on the draft's talk page, but basically it is going out of its way to support the article's subject's claims and specifically counter controversies in a way that goes beyond "bias" and into "intentional promotion." Additional evidence which I can't share because of outing concerns, as usual will provide to admins privately on request. creffett (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft has been deleted at the author's request, this can be archived. creffett (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible paid editing by Aarmeen123

• Ahmad Massoud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aarmeen123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single-purpose account, only edits are creating and promoting Ahmad Massoud. The account was created in 2016, and since then made no major edits outside this one article. On April 14th, he uploaded two images (with metadata) of Massoud as his own work on commons-wiki and I'm unable to locate those images online so this strongly implies a close connection with the subject. Can someone please take a look if the subject is even notable? Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GSS, I would say probably notable (appears to meet GNG, though some of the news coverage, such as the Yahoo! News source, is...pretty flowery). Definite tone/neutrality issues, I'll do a little cleanup later today if nobody gets there first. creffett (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Yahoo! piece is an interview and I don't think we use interviews to establish notability, but anyways thanks for looking at it. GSS ^💬 18:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You're correct that it doesn't establish notability, but I'd say that at the minimum the CBC piece looks to me like actual news coverage instead of an interview. I'll do some more looking later, it's possible that not all of these are reliable sources or enough to establish notability, but my first glance read is that the subject probably will meet GNG. creffett (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Cyprus

• Daily Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NomiWrites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to [7]: "...Founded in 2020 by Malik Nomi, Daily Cyprus has come a long way from its beginnings in Limassol...". NomiWrites added links to Daily Cyprus in various Cyprus related articles. Cinadon36 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Cinadon36, reminder: per the big warning at the top of the page, you need to notify other editors when posting about them here. I will take care of it for you this time, but please remember to do so in the future. creffett (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

My wrong, sorry! Cinadon36 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Das osmnezz and UPE on footballers and football manager

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

The user seem a undisclosed paid editor that keep on gaming the draft system to spam re-submission for borderline notable to clear cut non-notable biographical draft. Any chance to deal with this ? Matthew hk (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're just a football fan with borderline CIR issues. They create thousands of few line stubs and are subject to editing restrictions (cannot create straight in article space), but having had their talkpage on my watchlist for years, I think it's football fandom and obsession rather than COI. Although I don't think many of their articles are worth it, even if they meet WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew hk:, I redirected my rejected drafts to my user page. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Das osmnezz, please don't redirect drafts to your user page. If you want your drafts deleted you may add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. creffett (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:By no Means (film)

• Draft:By no Means (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bynomeans19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username is the same as the film that they appear to be promoting here. Despite being notified here, they still submitted a draft article on the topic. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

...And its been completely blanked as it was a direct copyvio from IMDB. Curdle (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about where to draw the COI line

Hi all, I'm here to ask a question for myself, actually. I was thinking about working on a couple articles about United Methodist Church history, but I am a member of the denomination and occasional volunteer (though any editing I will do is purely on my own initiative and is not in any way asked or required of me). I plan to work on history only, and I feel that I can write about it neutrally, but I recognize that I've reported plenty of COI editors here who have said the exact same thing. My question is basically "does that seem like enough of a relationship that I should be making edit requests?" I will declare the COI on my COI list, and if people feel it's appropriate I can mark myself as a connected contributor and/or do edit requests, but I feel like it's a fairly weak COI (I don't hold any official positions or anything) so I wanted to ask here for feedback before doing anything. creffett (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, shouldn't be a problem. Just defer to any challenges and take them to Talk - which you would anyway, if I know you at all. Guy (help!) 18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Reported? Really? At any rate, general membership in such large organizations is not per se a conflict (if you are an officer that would be another matter) but as with every article stay away if you can't fulfill editing obligations, and if you feel someone else should look at any particular edits just ask. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, JzG, thank you both, that agrees with my interpretation of the policy. Just wanted to make sure before I did anything. creffett (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Cars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not make accusations without proof provided, per your line "Being so overly focused on one topic area and so unaware of other facets of our project". For many years and to present, I have edited across multiple articles related to music, television, etc. Ask folks in music and they'd recognize the name. I don't even log in as much. Ford stock is in the dumps and Wikipedia has no benefit to it and never will, simple as that. If it did and I had a factor, James Hackett would be jobless and then we'd really have problem with COI across multiple automakers, if that boosted profitability. Plenty of great evidence here with my topic interests: [8][9][10][11]. I stepped back from editing music, because of issues with finding good links and citations on 1970s to 2000s material.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citing myself

• Good Faith Collaboration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I decided to expand the article the book Good Faith Collaboration and as it happens one of the RS is a book review written by me ([12]). Is it ok for me to use it as one of the sources for the article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, probably best to make an edit request on the talk page just to make sure there's no question of neutrality. creffett (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I will quote WP:EXPERT'S guidance which echoes creffett's advice and which I think is strong Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about herself/himself. Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy does allow an editor to include information from his or her own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them. This may only be done when the editors are sure that the Wikipedia article maintains a neutral point of view and their material has been published in a reliable source by a third party. If the neutrality or reliability are questioned, it is Wikipedia consensus, rather than the expert editor, that decides what is to be done. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia.. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett and Barkeep49: Thank you for your comments. I invite scrutiny of my edit at [13]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan

• Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was searching for recent updates about the group, when I saw an article published by Al-Monitor referring to a contract between the organization mentioned above and the DC law firm Cogent Law Group, to "develop Wikipedia page" (this Short Form Registration Statement contains the service). The news website also says that the organization wants its communist ideology kept out of sight, because it wants to seek support in the United States. I am not going to point fingers at anyone, but I noticed that in the infobox "Social-democracy" had replaced commnism. For the time being, I added a reliable source to restore that certain part, however, I am writing this if any further action should be done. Pahlevun (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun, nice catch! I think this warrants inclusion of Cogent Law Group at Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies. Note that this document is proof of an agreement for paid editing, but it doesn't seem to proof that the project already started. So I would be careful before turning to any specific editor. I'll give it a shot at looking for more info. --MarioGom (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Please keep me informed. Pahlevun (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Philip Sheffield

• Philip Sheffield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Heliumsop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Helium soprano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.234.78.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Article Philip Sheffield created by Heliumsop in 2009 without any sources. Unsourced edits in 2012 from Durham University ip 129.234.78.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem primary sourced. Recent unsourced edits from Helium soprano suggest COI. All three seem SPA connected to Philip Sheffield. --OrestesLebt (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Almost certain from the usernames that Heliumsop and Helium soprano are the same person, but Heliumsop hasn't edited since 2009 and the IP hasn't since 2012 so this isn't a bad-faith sockpuppetry case (presumably either forgot about the previous account or lost the password). Definitely looks like an autobiography to me. Didn't turn up any significant coverage, so I'll go ahead and PROD the article (and if necessary take it to AfD). creffett (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, creffett. I came to similar conclusions, but couldn't present the best evidence for COI since it would out the editors. --OrestesLebt (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

72.83.15.95/scrc.gmu.edu

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

(prefatory declaration: I am COI with respect to the school in question as a former student/employee, so I'm probably taking it a little too easy on the editor I'm reporting)

IP editor 72.83.15.95 has been adding a lot of links to scrc.gmu.edu to a large number of pages, to the point that I am very confident that the IP editor is connected to it in some way. It's a legitimate GLAM site (if I understand correctly, it's George Mason University's "rare documents" archive), and it's presumably well-intentioned. The problem here is that they're not declaring that connection - I left a COI template on their talk page last week and added a personal note encouraging them to declare their connection and to register an account, but they have continued editing the past couple days without response to the COI warning, so I'm bringing it here. creffett (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I did 3 IP looks ups. [14] [15] [16] all show the IP adderess located in the state of Virginia. Oh hey, George Mason University is located in Virginia. It's a high change of a COI. It could also be some random person in Virginia wanting to spam links to a university they live close to. So it could be a COI, but this is certainly WP:LINKSPAM. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Juniatta (Iranian Monarchist Party)

• Draft:Juniatta (Iranian Monarchist Party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Juniatta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article name is same as username. Idan (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I saw this too and messaged them (Juniatta) directly on Instagram and they said that they had absolutely nothing to do with the article. Vika messaged me back and said that it was probably her social media manager since they knew about the book and other insider things on the organization so it wasn’t a conflict of interest on the founder’s part but it was someone close to the organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.125.81 (talk • contribs)

Either way, it's looks like it's a conflict of interest, at the very least, and possibly paid editing, as well. I have placed the appropriate notices on the user's talk page, so let's see what their response is. In the mean time, they are to refrain from editing the article the draft, but may still edit the article draft talk page, while this remains outstanding. El_C 22:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked the username. I softblocked the user indefinitely pending a WP:RENAME. El_C 23:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The stuff is accurate though, I don’t think that there is a conflict of interest...I talked to the guy and he was genuinely confused. Thought that you needed your username to be the same name as the article you were writing...he seems so confused right now to be honest

Idk who wrote the above comment as they didn't sign it. Reminder: sign with 4 of these (~). Anyway, while it does have sources, how notable is it for wikipedia? Idan (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I mean it is fairly accurate as far as I can see, their resources seem good for the information that they have Tilly (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia

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

In Talk:OpIndia § Is this a coordinated Hit Job on Opindia?, 58.182.176.169 posted an extremely long statement that reads as if it were written by OpIndia's legal advisor. They claim "NO COI", but I am having a very hard time believing them considering the personal attacks and demands in the statement.

In case you are not familiar with the background, OpIndia was blacklisted from Wikipedia after the editor of OpIndia doxed a Wikipedia editor in early March in retaliation for their edits on a political topic, forcing them to vanish for safety reasons. The community showed consensus to deprecate OpIndia in a noticeboard discussion, and the resulting perennial sources list entry is at WP:OPINDIA. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No idea if that was written by a legal advisor, but...wow, that was indeed quite a read. I'm going to have to agree with you, this is pretty loudly saying COI to me. But maybe I'm just one of the cartelized wolves packing order. creffett (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Newslinger and Creffett, I am reading this this and still laughing hard, specially the "by OpIndia's legal advisor" is very funny, "wow, you overestimate my law skills a lot". Since you made efforts to make this post, let me address each concern.

1. I have nothing to do with law profession or journalism.

2. I know Opindia as source only recently. No loyalty of any kind. I do not care about them or their staff.

3. I have explained in my OP how I arrived at that article, then google search took me to couple of Opindia article, I do not know the people involved in those articles (journalists/writers, and other parties, nor I specifically recall having come across any of those journalists and editors during my editing on wikipedia). These are all strangers to me, beyond basic human compassion I have no love or hate for them.

4. I have not personally named or attacked anyone. How can I attack when I do not even know the people or the background. All I have done is I articulated my concerns after incidentally coming across Opindia wikipedia article and subsequently articles written by Opindia regarding some wikipdia malpartices,. In my OP, I copied and pasted the heading of the first article on google search as an example post written by Opindia staff. Thats it. It neither means I agree or know the facts/truth. But it raised my concerns. I can not recall who the people are in those articles as I have not come across them on wikipedia. I really have nothing to go on against any individuals. I have no agenda, no paid/unpaid mission, no axes to grind. I am not stupid to lose my peace of mind by picking useless wikipedia fights with strangers. I have no intentions to get into personal issues of historical tussles behind the issue.

5. After reading Opindia talk page (which I felt was too messy for me to comment, I did not participate in any ongoing discussion) and after reading couple articles written by Opindia, I was certainly alarmed. I listed my concerns on the talk page in the hope there is some centralised effort to look at the issues in holistic unbiased manner if there is something wrong going on. There is nothing more to it.

6. Are you two in anyway involved with this issue? If so, apologies guys if you felt my post was personal. Seems you feel passionately about the topic and very sensitive about it? I do not have any professional, legal, personal attachment to the issue really, I have nothing against you or anyone else. My post is meant to be "non-personal post" about resolving the bigger structural flaws in wikipedia process and how things work. Please focus on the concerns/issues, about the people I am not concerned because I do not know who is right or wrong in their past edit/block wars.

7. My post is not about the individuals (they come and go), but about the wider concepts/concerns of fairness, transparency, democratisation of power on wikipedia. If wrong things are happening at wikipedia at a larger scale, then it will slowly kill the wikipedia. Imagine all my and every body else's contribution being wasted if wikipedia is replaced by major nations by something else like China did. Wikipedia thrives only due to google search engine algorithm. The day its gone, our contributions will not appear in google search and all the effort will be wasted. After reading the articles, I have genuine concern about wiki becoming personal hegemony of select few and then being chocked to death. Let me know/assure me those concerns are either unfounded or if there is a mechanism to proactively identify and fix those issues.

8. I do not know if it puts your heart at ease, I do not really know what more to say, because your concerns of me being linked/COI to any of the parties are completely unfounded. Be assured.

9. My post is out of curiosity, not OCI/malice/game. Each point can be answered by posting a link to some thread where those discussions have already taken place. I do not think my concerns are invalid in anyway. I want to ask two questions: (a) are my concerns in the OP invalid? (b) I do not have any COI, but hypothetically if someone with COI raised the same concerns would not those still be valid. My focus is on issues, not individuals involved. I do not know any of them, I do not want to make it my personal mess either, I completely want to stay out of that aspect of the discussion.

10. Sorry, I am still laughing, I find this post strange and funny, because in every sense of the word I am far far far away from Opindia or other people involved with the issue.

11. I still thank you, because of you I got to know how this noticeboard works. Please feel free to voice more concerns if you have any, I will try to answer. Wiki being anonymous, I do not really have any means of meeting or showing I am not involved/related to Opindia, etc. I find it super funny though. I hope this puts your heart at ease. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please, note that COI or not, the IP makes extensive use of the OpIndia rhetoric against Wikipedia editors. This is a red flag, given the ongoing incident of doxxing and harassment of Wikipedia editors by OpIndia, which gives credibility and "real world" risk to any veiled threat. The IP seems to have a lot of concerns about the future of Wikipedia as a whole, but this looks to me like the extension of a harassment campaign (regardless of COI) that has nothing to do with Wikipedia as a whole. --MarioGom (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Am I crazy or is there a pattern in the articles the IP edits? I know that on their user page at [17] they say they randomly arrived at Muslim nationalism in South Asia, but AGF goes only so far. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I see it too. They used The Myth of Islamic Tolerance by Robert B. Spencer in the Supremacism article, which I've escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN § Publications by Robert B. Spencer. — Newslinger talk 15:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything actionable here, for the purpose of WP:COIN. --MarioGom (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it's probably not a conflict of interest. The initial message took was phrased and toned like a cease and desist letter, but it was most likely just a red herring. — Newslinger talk 09:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Avram Mlotek

• Avram Mlotek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mlotekfamily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L1manhattanl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Favsrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suzannemariegreene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page was created by a username that contains the last name of the page subject. Additionally, numerous editors on the page appear to be linked to the subject, having only edited this page in their wiki history. A quick Google search was able to further link editors to the subject. | MK17b | (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Listed Mlotekfamily at WP:UAA for a clear violation of WP:ISU. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You beat me to it by two minutes. creffett (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked as a username implying shared use. They are free to change their username and request an unblock, provided that the account is used by one person. — Newslinger talk 13:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wickety Wak

• Wickety Wak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wicketywak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi! I was doing some cleanup of the Wickety Wak page. Despite it being factually correct, it does not comply with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Any attempts by myself and other editors to maintain or expand article to compliance keep getting reverted by authors who have close connection to subject material, including removal of User:Talk entries and tags.

The authors have expressed defensive behaviour over these edits on my talk page, and use various different IPs to revert our edits.

We've had this article submitted for peer review, who have recommended we take this to WP:SPI We also suspect COI. Could we get some assistance in resolving this issue please? --LoofNeZorf (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This particular account should have been blocked for WP:ORGNAME years ago. Reported to WP:UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Blocked as a promotional username. They are free to change their username and request an unblock. — Newslinger talk 09:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Who is AJ Britz

• Draft:Who is AJ Britz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AJ Britz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Draft name is same as username. Non notable article and username policy. Idan (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am having a problem linking the correct user. IDK why Idan (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: You don't need to include "User:" in the {{userlinks}} template. I took it out and it links properly now.

Jimfbleak has already deleted the draft as WP:G11. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Kobe (artist)

• Kobe (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AlbinS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Promotional editing and COI issues. Editor says " am Albin Saelens, son of the deceased sculptor, artist Kobe (artistic alias of Jacques Saelens) and manage the website 'www.foundationkobe.com' (link). I would really love to keep this English Wikipedia page about my father" at the AfD for the page. Hasn't disclosed per terms of use at their user page. Continues to massively rewrite the page. Has been warned once, twice to steer clear. No reply on talk page. their edits have definitely improved the page, but that's not the point neutrality-wise. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For me it is not clear where to respond to the "conflict of interest". I have no experience with "talk page requests" (I have no clue where I can find that). Please give me all the necessary info of what I need to do. What do you mean with 'You need to declare your conflict on your user page'? AlbinS (talk)

I have changed my user page 'AlbinS' with information that I declare to have a conflict of interest with the page 'Kobe (artist)'. Is this sufficient so that the page about Kobe will not be removed? AlbinS (talk)

AlbinS, the deletion discussion always continues for one week. This ia about the fact that you continue to edit the page. You need to stop editing the page, as you are not a neutral editor, as you are a representative of an organization that promotes the subject. Do you understand?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

COI is disclosed correctly now. No further direct edits to the article since this report was filed. I guess there is nothing else to do here. --MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Château de Montbrun

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

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

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

Hem Chandra Chowdhury

• Hem Chandra Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikiu08372 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikiu08372 says she is a grandchild of the subject, describes herself as a mother in her 70s, and is very upset because we won't let her post a lot of personal information about the subject's non-notable descendants, their trials and tribulations. I advised her to concentrate on improving the article itself; she accuses me of cultural bias. It is also possible that others are using the same account. Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Healthfitns

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

Username of article editing article Idan (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user, as the draft was promotional and the username also. Bishonen | tålk 20:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC).

TAI Hürjet

• TAI Hürjet
• Hurjet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username matches most edited article. Apparently, all edits to other articles have also been about Hurjet. ^LetUs_NotLose^HearT 18:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious new articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National American University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheri L. Canon

Resolved

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

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

Ive seen stuff like this before, I thought Id post it for once,seems paid/coi. did notify on talk/[18] and pasted the notification above[19], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andreas Antonopoulos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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