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:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dax Dasilva Talk:Datacommons.org Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Drama Juniors Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly 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:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Orit Ishay Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Chris Kubecka Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:Squishmallows Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Wikimedian of the Year Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Sanctioned Suicide

• Sanctioned Suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kevinsanc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel the need to call attention to this single-purpose account that is infatuated with our article on Sanctioned Suicide and seems intent on whitewashing it as much as they can get away with. Examples:

• 15 February 2023
• 15 February 2023
• 1 March 2023

They are also unjustifiably concerned with the naming of WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, attempting to change it to pseudonyms or remove them altogether:

• 20 February 2023
• 10 February 2023

––FormalDude (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

While I did register to edit Wikipedia primarily because I had an interest in this article, I was unaware of many of Wikipedia's policies. I was made aware of the topic when I watched a Youtube video on the subject and when I saw changes being made to the article that didn't match the source or greatly distorted it, I felt the need to jump in and edit as well. As I said the other day, I don't have any CoIs.

I don't consider my edits whitewash, but previous edits made by others on the article seem to be made by a number of sockpuppet accounts and IPs that have been blocked, and I was trying to get the article back into a place where it was more neutral.

I am still learning the ropes, so you will probably have to be patient with me there. Kevinsanc (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The article was created on February 10, Kevinsanc was created later that same day. Every of their edits are concerned with Sanctioned Suicide. Their username is Kevinsanc, yet they deny any involvement with Sanctioned Suicide. I myself came across Kevinsanc when they removed properly sourced information on Megan Twohey, which they considered "Poorly source and written by a blocked user, doesn't directly relate to this article." soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about the focus on Sanctioned Sucide by Kevinsanc, but they've been editing for only a little over 4 weeks - it is not unusual for a new editor to be focused on a single area of interest when they start editing, and I wouldn't tend to sanction for that. I don't see any evidence to show that they have a COI, although certainly they are involved in some way with Sanctioned Sucide. They may have a COI, but they also may just be a member, which isn't necessesarily a problem in itself. I do think Kevinsanc shows a clear bias, though, and because of that is at a high risk of tendentious editing, and at the very least should consider stepping back and working on other articles for a bit, as this probably isn't the best article or situation to learn your way around Wikipedia on. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Kevinsanc's edits can be read as WP:SEALIONING, although it is a bit early. It should be noted that Kevinsanc has disruptively removed reliably sourced material from the article, has engaged in watering down material in the article (insistence on adding 'alleged' in front of encouragement of suicide, adding false balance through unreliable sources, etc), and has frivolously requested citations for obvious or well-known information (such as stating that the .com and .net urls are accessible in Australia). I think it may be helpful for the editor to take a break from the article for now. :3 F4U (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Taking a break would be good. That said, he account is 4 weeks old - learning the ropes is always difficult, but it is certainly easier if it isn't in a topic you are passionate about. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a good compromise would be for his edits to be approved by a NPOV user before being added

Perhaps get him to make a sandbox he can work on? Trade (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's unfair for an user to be accused of CoI for bringing up perfectly legitimate BLP concerns. For the other parts i do not really have a opinion on.--Trade (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They have no legitimate BLP concerns... ––FormalDude (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well the inclusion of the names defintely raises legitimate BLP concerns as was discussed at BLPN. Whether or not we end up including the names, anyone who doesn't recognise this needs to be quickly learn that and be topic banned widely construed from BLPs if they don't. That is definitely a far more serious issue than whether Kevinsanc has a CoI, as shown by the fact that BLP is a WP:CTOP area. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

With their names included in a multitude of reliable published sources, there are no legitimate BLP concerns in naming them. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Being named in some sources doesn't mean that they are not still private individuals. Their names being public is a necessary condition for naming them in an article, but it isn't a sufficient condition in and of itself, as our BLP requirements for naming or not naming an individual are not necessarily the same requirements used by sources. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: Kevinsanc gave no reasoning for removing the names and there are no immediately apparent BLP concerns in naming them in the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there was an extensive discussion of the issues here. - Bilby (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I made my case for the removal in the BLP discussion. Kevinsanc (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd give the benefit of the doubt for the edits about the names, as the first time they removed the names without any justification was their third ever edit. (How can you expect someone to understand how to bring up BLP concerns when they've only made two other edits?) The only other time they removed the names was after a series of edits by a sockpuppet. Regardless it's not the individual edits themselves to be concerned about, but the pattern that emerges when looking at the big picture. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion about including the names on WP:BLPN that didn't have a particularly clear consensus. There certainly are legitimate BLP concerns (which you can read about in the discussion) with the inclusion of their names. Those concerns may be right or wrong, but they should definitely be seriously considered. I don't consider the fact alone of being concerned about the inclusion of those names to be good evidence of COI (without commenting on whether or not they actually have a COI, or their conduct generally, either of which I don't currently have an opinion on) Tristario (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

One of Kevinsanc's first contributions was to edit-war to include a citation to a pro-"Sanctioned Suicide" thesis paper in the article's lead,[1][2][3] When I look up a link to that thesis in Google Search, I get two results: the university's website, and a Sanctioned Suicide forum thread, where someone posted that link 3 weeks before Kevinsanc's edits. That forum thread is about a YouTube video, presumably the same one Kevinsanc references in the first reply here. There are more issues with Kevinsanc's editing, including slow-motion edit warring,[4][5][6][7] and false edit summaries (removing sourced material while incorrectly claiming in the edit summaries that the material wasn't in the source). Shells-shells already noticed a few instances of that, but there are more: diff1 (reverted), diff2 (reverted), diff3 (reverted), diff4 (reverted), diff5 (reverted). Along with a few which haven't been reverted yet: diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9. The issues go beyond potential COI. DFlhb (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with everything you've brought up having interacted with them repeatedly since the creation of the artcle. It does not seem likely that Kevinsanc is or has a close relationship with any of the owners/founders/administrators of the site itself (and no evidence has been brought up suggesting that they do), however the pattern of edits mentioned above and elsewhere do suggest that Kevinsanc is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I think its highly important to note that Kevinsanc created their account less than 17 hours after I published the SS article and immediately began removing sourced material from the article. I also find it highly unlikely that the YouTube video Kevinsanc references is actually how they found the article, as the video in question does not name the site. To me, it is more likely that Kevinsanc is an ordinary member of the site who found the article through search results or the SS thread made on the article. Being a member by itself shouldn't mean anything, but when combined with their edit history, it gets more and more difficult to believe that they aren't here to WP:SOAPBOX. Kevinsanc's edits have in large part consisted of whitewashing of the article [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], removing reliably sourced material critical of the site [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], adding false balance [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], and silently reverting edits without reason/while giving false reasons [25] [26] [27]. While my perception before combing through their edits was that Kevinsanc's edits were improving and getting less disruptive, a closer examination reveals that the only change has been that their persistent disruption of the SS article has become more subtle. These disruptive edits make up the majority of Kevinsanc's edits in article space, and make up the vast majority of their significant edits.

Kevinsanc's sole edit in mainspace outside of the SS article [28], consisted of blanking a section of Megan Twohey's article having to do with the site.

• When I look up a link to that thesis in Google Search, I get two results: the university's website, and a Sanctioned Suicide forum thread, where someone posted that link 3 weeks before Kevinsanc's edits. I remember looking it up when Kevinsanc first added it and I remember seeing that too, completely forgot about it myself.

-----

Side note: On my part, I'm sorry about participating in the edit-warring on the Master's thesis. Creating the article was around my ~200th edit so the only understanding I had at the time of "edit warring" was the occassional "You are engaging in an edit war" warning message I'd see on other people's talk pages (which led me to mistakenly believe that up to three reverts were generally allowed and that Kevinsanc and I could't have been edit warring because we were being polite in the edit summaries). Funnily enough my misunderstanding of WP:EW/3RR would lead me to make the post Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#Preventing_an_edit_war... arguably after we had engaged in an edit war, but at least the edit summaries and the final message on the talk page led to some sort of a consensus. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that if there is a connection to the site it seems much more likely to be a user of the site (which I don't think alone constitutes a COI, since just using a site seems like an overly broad definition of a COI), rather than someone with a close relationship to the owner or admins.

In terms of the conduct of Kevinsanc, from what I'm seeing in the linked diffs is mostly not that egregrious. Some of the things they are saying aren't supported by the sources is strictly speaking true. eg. for this diff this source does not mention the subject of the article, for this diff saying that Galante and Small self identify as incels is arguably WP:OR and fails WP:V because the source supporting that does not say that using their real names. This article does still need to comply with Wikipedia's policies, and in parts I'm not convinced it does. I don't think that Kevinsanc's edits appear to have been particularly bad

There may or may not be some argument for sanctions (the edit warring isn't good), but at least right now I don't think I'm seeing a need for anything like indefinite blocking, there seems to be some good faith there Tristario (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Top 10 Wikipedia Page Creation Services to Look for in 2023

The headline works quite well here, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Whether you need help researching sources or just want someone to write the content for you, any one of these organizations will be able to assist in getting your page up and running quickly and efficiently. So, if you’re looking for an easy way to get on Wikipedia without having to worry about all the details involved in writing a page yourself, look no further than these top-notch Wiki creation agencies!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh brother... It's not like as if we don't play whack-a-mole with them. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me that this is one company pretending to be ten different companies so that it can create an illusion of the reader having a number of options from which to select. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if a person paying any of these entities for services found their money disappearing with nothing to show for it. BD2412 T 11:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Similar articles have been reported here before, sadly. Given that several companies listed are presumably controlled by the Abtach creation farm, I wonder what incentive blogs like this gain from producing this brand of churnalism. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Some money? Traffic? For me, it's currently #6 at [29] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

+1. Though in some cases, I think it can be a monthly payment thing, since you have to pay them to guard your page when it's up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Then again, it could be a least partly separate whatevers. Wiki Counsellor seems less grammatical than the others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

And then there is this posted at AfC. Different name than any listed in this article but website looks similar. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

St Christopher School, Letchworth

• St Christopher School, Letchworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Richardatpalmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:C7C:6AB7:F000:A039:1EF9:A2D8:BBD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user suggested an edit to the article in question. The requested edit was to replace a person's surname in the article with their first name, which does not meet the relevant style guidelines. After asking about it on their talk page, an IP user responded. Apparently, this user 1. is aware of the relevant COI policies, as I mentioned them multiple times in the discussion, and 2. has no intention of following them. I understand that their requested edit is not particularly substantial, but I am worried that they show no intention of following relevant guidelines. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Actualcpscm, these edits look like a joke, where somebody is pretending to be a former headmaster. As the school article is semi-protected and the account and the IP only edited on 17 March, I don't think any further action is needed. TSventon (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

TSventon Thanks for your reply. I had assumed that this kind of statement would be taken at face value, since COI editing is quite a serious issue, but I understand your reasoning. Thanks again, see you around. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Actualcpscm, if the account is really used by the former headmaster, they are following WP:COIEDIT quite well. They have disclosed their identity through their user name and they have not edited article space directly. They have even showed other editors respect by keeping discussions concise. However the edits are somewhat incoherent and only continued for about an hour, which suggests impersonation to me. TSventon (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Amritpal singh (activist)

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.

---

• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Bremps
• Babbx47

Government is trying to build fake narrative about Amritpal Singh (activist) and using 'fake news' to build claims which are totally bogus. As of now, most of state sponsor media reported information which does not appears until end of last week. This fake information shouldn't be backed to support any claim in the article. Dilpreet Singh ping  00:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks to be an imported conflict from Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist). I think WP:DRN is the more appropriate venue to settle this dispute. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The DRN report was closed as the core issue is about whether a source is RS and is also recommended by the closer to approach WP:RSN. There's active discussion on that at WP:RSN § Baaz News — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There's more than that I have created a few topic on the talk page regarding that. Dilpreet Singh ping  19:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Issue with biased and one sided or pro state narrative and sikhs have a few resources who are reporting and state is propagting a false narrative. if it doesn't cover in conflict of interest in can create a WP:DRN CC. Mixmon ThethPunjabi Dilpreet Singh ping  19:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

choose the accurate noticeboard - if you have problem with content then start a discussion at DRN. If you have problem with the sources which are being cited start a discussion on RSN Mixmon (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (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:Tezaswiniisrani

• Welspun Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Balkrishan Goenka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tezaswiniisrani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. This is a SPA account for articles about this company and its chairperson. The editor has not responded to the COI requests. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Latter Day Church of Christ

• JTalong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scovington42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blood atonement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• John Ortell Kingston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paul Elden Kingston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Latter Day Church of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like some more eyes here. Both have denied a COI... At around the same time using pretty much the same language "My years of research on the topics discussed do not amount to a conflict of interest"[30] and "I do not have a conflict of interest regarding these pages, nor am I being paid to edit them. I have heavily researched these topics for years."[31] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, more eyes please! @Horse Eye's Back appears to have some compelling interest to remove one side of the information presented in citations, but not the other, even though both sides appear in reliable citations.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.... Scovington42 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I edit hundreds of topic area, I didn't even know that the Latter Day Church of Christ was a thing. The only COI I have is that I've bought a few things from Desert Tech over the years, excellent products so uh if there's any COI its not in the way you seem to think... Notice how I haven't edit warred with you? I've allowed every revert you and JTalong have made to stay. Not your enemy here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

JTalong is a friend of mine. The area of "fundamentalist mormon" research is a very small community, (probably 100 or so regular authors of scholarly articles). Attend any Mormon History Association conference, or Sunstone conference in Utah and you would know what I mean.

I received a call from JTalong informing me that many of their edits had been deleted by @Horse Eye's Back from multiple articles. They asked if I had seen the changes; and I discovered one of them once I logged in.

I reviewed one article and reverted @Horse Eye's Back changes because they do not match the citation, a news article from news outlet "The Guardian." If @Horse Eye's Back wants to say that my edit matching the Wikipedia article true to the citation constitutes a conflict of interest, I am very interested to see him back this with logic. Scovington42 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a conflict of interest. Would you describe this [32] as presenting both sides of an issue? How about this [33]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm taking the time to familiarize with these....

The first article you linked appears to have 3 sources. Although the first article mentions one of the same men as the original posted assertion, the articles assertion does not match the citation. The OP assertion could be considered defamation.

The other two citations seem unrelated, do not match the assertion in any way. A drug related double murder that was highly publicized, from a mainstream Mormon family. Scovington42 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Second article you posted is debatable.... Is this a page about a corporation or a living person?

Some dubious sources. Scovington42 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Disclose.tv

• Disclose.tv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DiamondPuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user appears to be a single-purpose account, with most of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article. Last November, they vandalised the article and its talk page after the website reacted negatively to the article, prior to being warned on their talk page, which they subsequently removed. This month, they accused me of attacking their credibility when I mentioned on the article's deletion discussion that Disclose.tv had shared a Substack post that the user posted on the discussion. Isi96 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for the length. However, given the complexity of the issues discussed I believe it is justified.

@Isi96 I value the importance of fostering a collaborative environment on Wikipedia and addressing concerns raised by fellow editors. While I understand your perception of my account as single-purpose, my edit history clearly demonstrates my contributions to various articles throughout the years, covering diverse topics from film, towns, and television [1]. I am committed to learning and upholding Wikipedia's principles and policies, most specifically The Five Pillars.

At every turn, I have done my best to communicate openly and address any issues that have arisen. However, I have encountered resistance and unfounded accusations from you, which raises my own concerns and can be disheartening and counterproductive.

The past incident you mentioned, involving a misunderstanding of the deletion processes resulting in a vandalism warning, is already resolved after consulting with administrators in November of 2022, and the warning was archived as it is a settled matter. You may review the edit history and the archived messages here. It is unclear why this is being brought up again, as our focus should be on addressing the article's content and maintaining a constructive dialogue.

Regarding the connection between Disclose.tv and Thacker's Substack article, it's essential to evaluate the source on its merits rather than de-legitimizing it based on who has shared it. When Disclose.tv cites a Bloomberg headline, am I to question the reliability of Bloomberg then? Or what about a Reuters article? Or Aljazeera? Or the International Criminal Court? The issue here is not the reliability of the source but rather the unfounded assumption that sharing a source diminishes its credibility. Our goal should be to discuss the source's value and merit, not to discredit it through Ad hominem attacks or disproportionately disregarding its merit. It is crucial to engage in a reasoned debate over sources without resorting to guilt by association or recklessly dismissing their credibility.

More importantly, the critique on my character is how you refer to me as a single-purpose account (SPA), "@DiamondPuma seems to be a WP:SPA, with several of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article, including vandalism, for which they previously received a warning from @Liz. Isi96 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)". With due diligence, it is evident that I am not an SPA, and bringing up the previously settled warnings from another editor as a direct response to my contributions is attacking my character and credibility, rather than addressing the points raised in the discussion. Furthermore, to reiterate, "...several of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article..." suggests what exactly? That, according to SPA policy, editors are prohibited from contributing to a single article on multiple occasions? It's important to acknowledge that you have been the primary contributor to the Disclose.tv article, frequently preventing other editors from resolving the evident neutrality concerns, despite numerous references on the talk page and even an AfD now opened against the article because of this.

Moreover, it's self-evident I am not an SPA, so why are you trying to malign me as one? These are Ad hominem attacks. I find myself repeating that it is crucial to evaluate the content on its merits, rather than questioning motives or unfoundedly attacking credibility. It's starting to border on WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and WP:ETIQ which is concerning, but I remain hopeful that our exchange will amicably resolve itself, and we will establish consensus on the matter. I am confident that the Wikipedia community will make the proper judgement.

Furthermore, I'd like to boldly and clearly clarify my position with reference to the COI policy, which states that a conflict of interest involves "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships" (WP:COI).

In the case of the Disclose.tv article, my actions have been driven by the desire to ensure that the content aligns with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, notability, and verifiability. I have no personal, professional, or financial relationship with the subject matter, nor am I connected to any party that may benefit from my edits. My focus is solely on improving the article's quality and maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Even if I were an SPA, it is essential to differentiate between SPAs and COIs and not assume one implies the other without concrete evidence.

Moreover, I am willing to work together, address the core issues at hand, and ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality and notability standards. But, I am often met with resistance and attacks on my character instead of engagement with facts and ideas. Despite this, I still believe that by engaging in a collaborative and respectful manner, we can uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia and present reliable, unbiased information. DiamondPuma (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep spamming the deletion discussion with long walls of text with the same arguments over and over (like you've done here as well), and you've made barely any edits unrelated to Disclose.tv. Isi96 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@DiamondPuma: Funny, I didn't even know about this COI discussion when I asked you if you could have a COI. I can understand why you think people are ganging up on you when this concern and the SPA are brought up repeatedly. We are not. We just have came to the same conclusions based on your actions on Wikipedia. OrestesLebt (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if I were an SPA (which I am not), or tagged as an SPA (which I am not) an SPA raising valid points cannot be simply dismissed. I will repeat, I have and continue to contribute to various topics other than Disclose.tv. I do not believe that Isi96 or yourself are acting in good faith. Thus, I am choosing to disengage you both in this COI discussion pending administrative review. Nothing productive is coming from these conversations. My words are continually and blatantly being misrepresented, and my points raised are not being addressed by Isi96 or yourself in any reasonable fashion. This is concerning as it's a blatant disregard for the collaborative process that is a core pillar at Wikipedia. DiamondPuma (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Philosophy Documentation Center

• Philosophy Documentation Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gleaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been editing for over 13 years (xtools), using Wikipedia for adding information about his business, adding mostly uncited content (using what he knows?) rather than adding citations to third-party sources. User had earlier exposed, but not 'declared', his connection though years later denied "being paid". Despite having edited within Wikipedia for so long, including 174 mainspace articles, and having been notified about COI policies, user has never seemed to read, understand and comply with COI disclosure requirements which, along with his 2019 denial, in my opinion places him firmly in the UPE class of editor over an extended period of time.

User was notified of UPE policy July 2019 @ User talk:Gleaman#Philosophy Documentation Center affiliation when he used "our site" in an edit summary (to which he replied he was not paid), and in January 2022 @ Talk:Philosophy Documentation Center#COI tag (January 2022) for COI policy based on similarities of his username to a company official (which he didn't respond to). User has continued to edit and I see no instances of them ever having declared a COI on any article, talk page, or their own user page or user talk page.

Additional COI evidence

• User edits only during typical business hours for the same time zone (eastern time zone US) as the company's headquarters (xtools timecard)
• User has edited only on the same topic as the company's business (SPA) (xtools articles edited)
• Of over 2,500 edits, user has only ever made 6 edits on article talk pages and 16 to a user talk page (2010-2013, +1 in 2019), but those include:
  • In 2010, "We are orienting these pages on what we find elsewhere in Wikipedia from journal publishers. We want to cooperate with efforts to use best practices to make them more useful."
  • In 2010, user attests to being the author of texts published on PDC's website
  • And finally, the smoking gun, hidden on someone else's user talk page in 2012: "edits to Philosophy Documentation Center page ... our field ... our listing ... We are a team here and I'd prefer to have my name removed if the leadership team cannot be listed. I've tried to make my role in making changes to the site transparent by choosing my name for my user name, so I don't see how adding me but not the other members of our team is clarifying."

Affect on Wikipedia

• User's top three most-edited non-stub articles are comprised of 88%, 82%, and 91% of this user's content (per WP:Who Wrote That?)
• User has created 69 articles (xtools):
  • The earliest one is the company Philosophy Documentation Center; the latest one is one of the journals PDC publishes
  • Checking only the first half of the list at Category:Philosophy Documentation Center academic journals, 26 out of 45 articles (57%) were created by user.
  • One of user's creations was deleted per AfD in 2015, and they recreated it in 2018.
  • User has created pages without any citations, which today still have no citations; three examples are here, here, and here.
  • Some of user's created articles have been tagged with Template:Notability; samples here, here, here, and here
  • Some articles have been tagged for other verifiability problems; sample here

• Checking one of the B-level articles user edited we find two edits adding wikilinks to another journal-by-PDC article created by this user.

• Checking one of the C-level articles user edited, we find 9 edits, all of which relate to PDC, and one edit which interestingly downgrades a PDC competitor.

Grorp (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And if you look at the username and the staff list on the website, you can see exactly the connection they have. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Alliance of Reformed Churches

• Alliance of Reformed Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alliance of Reformed Churches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just found and reverted edits at Alliance of Reformed Churches by Alliance of Reformed Churches (talk · contribs) from June 2022. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, Thebiguglyalien. I left a warning about their username. Normally I would report them to WP:UAA but the account appears to be stale. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

E-commerce in India

• E-commerce in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ExpoBazaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user added "ExpoBazaar" along with a link to the article. It appears to be an advertising-only account, judging by the username. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Relingnat

• Czech Republic–Israel relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tomáš Masaryk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of the Jews in the Czech lands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Slánský trial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Relingnat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been focussed entirely on adding a specific reference to as many articles as possible, usually without contributing any other content whatsoever. Here are some related diffs: 1 2 3 4 5. This request caught my eye as they are simply asking for the source to be added, only later requesting the addition of content along with that source. This is unambiguously a single-purpose account, and they clearly have some connection to the author or publisher of this source they have been adding. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Crickdunia.com

User talk:Harshilcrickdunia continuously adding links of his blog/website to multiple Cricket related articles despite suggested to stop. Its seems he is the owner of the website or its employee. He should be banned from editing. He added his website external links at Brijesh Patel, Narendra Modi Stadium, 2023 Indian Premier League and at many more pages.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

User has been blocked by Courcelles - problem solved. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Steven Harris Ramdev

• Steven Harris Ramdev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Indiantalentnews123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPA editor, who's only work is on this article. There are some of the usual signs of UPE that NPP patrolers look for. When the COI template was placed on their talk page, rather than responding, they simply deleted it. Another indication of UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 The deletion was by mistake. For your kind information, the article has been approved under the articles of creation and graded as c class. It has passed all the requirements of notability guidelines and has enough press to substantiate the article. The changes addressed by the user has been take into consideration. The grammar for the same is rectified and written from a neutral point of view. Kindly remove the COI template, if you are satisfied with the changes. Once again, the articles meets all the standars with respect to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That in no way addresses the issues raised in the post you deleted. Do you have any external relationship (personal or professional) with Steven Harris Ramdev, and have you received any form of payment for your edits to the biography in question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump No. I don't have any kind of external relationship (personal or professional) with the entity. I am writing articles that covers Indian talents in specific. I am new to wikipedia as an editor, and I am still learning a lot of things in Wikipedia. Also, I have not received any form of payment for the edits to the biography. It was only through research, and news articles, publications and magazine. I hope, your question has been addressed. Thanks. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You have no connection to this individual, and yet your entire editing history concerns him? Why the emphasis on one person? Are the no other 'Indian talents' you could be working on at the same time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Yes, this is my first article. So I am making sure I have all the information about the entity added. i am trying to refer to as many news sources as possible. On a parallel note, I am also researching on other individuals and I will be creating articles for them as well, very soon. Since I am new to this wikipedia editing, I am still learning. Please understand my thoughts and give me some time for my research. I will surely be creating articles for other individuals in a few days. I am not emphasizing on a particular person, I am making sure I have covered everything about the entity that's required. In a way, it would be easier for me to create articles for other individuals, considering the experience gained from editing and creating this one. I hope you understand. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Indiantalentnews123 - How did you obtain the photograph you used in the article?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 I obtained this photograph from the person who clicked it. It was shared by the photographer through mail. I have given the credits for the same. The image is used with the permission of the photographer. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So you do have a connection with the subject, you are in communication with their photographer. This would be an improper way of uploading an image- the photographer should be the one to do it. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a connection with the subject. I communicated the photographer through research. The entity had shared information on their social media regarding the same. I got this information, communicated the photographer and updated the image on wikipedia. This is in consent with the photographer. Also, the photographer doesn't know the technicalities of uploading an image on wikipedia. I have added the same on the photographer's behalf and consent. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How do we know that you have the photographer's consent? Did you post it somewhere? The photographer is free to learn the process just as anyone else is. The vast majority of the time the photographer must be the one to upload an image if they want to release it for use under Wikipedia's license(which allows for reuse for any purpose with attribution). So the photgrapher took the image without this person's knowledge? 331dot (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition, what is your relationship to the photographer?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No personal relationship with the photographer. We engaged in conversation on a professional note. The photographer has received consent from the entity and in turn, the photographer has given his consent for uploading it on Wikimedia. As per your guidelines, I will instruct the photographer to upload the same from his end, if possible. Thank you. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Indiantalentnews123, which three of those 35 sources are the ones you're using to support a claim of notability? Because it looks like a lot of them are from affiliated sources such as WorldSkills. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

User:BrandonAvi at David Butler (footballer, born 1945)

BrandonAvi (talk · contribs) has claimed to be the grandson of David Butler (footballer, born 1945), and is now repeatedly adding unsourced content to that biography. Assistance welcome. GiantSnowman 17:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

sorry, as i've said it's not my intention to add unsourced content. i'm seeking assistance from you; now that i've made an obvious mistake on how i can source it.

today i went round to my grandparents house - sat down and wrote it with him as it hasn't been updated in a few years and he'd like to add more information to it. BrandonAvi (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people - essentially this means thinks like newspaper articles, websites etc. GiantSnowman 17:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This might be useful, as a quick search. GiantSnowman 17:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

okay. so are you telling me i'm unable to update his page unless his life story is already in a newspaper article or website lol? BrandonAvi (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

we're talking about events that happened 40/50 years ago? there's limited information online.

the best source is himself! BrandonAvi (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect, BrandonAvi. Interviewing your grandfather is original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You must use published reliable sources. This is mandatory and not negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

okay. thank you for clarifying, i didn't know that.

i will not revert the edits and work on getting some more sources BrandonAvi (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

now that issue has been resolved; can this section be deleted? BrandonAvi (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This section will be archived in due time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

alright, have a good weekend BrandonAvi (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Joanna Forbes L'Estrange (musician)

• Draft:Joanna Forbes L'Estrange (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alexander L'Estrange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cecilia McDowall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JoFL'Evocals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fialsop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

COI seems pretty clear in connection with these Oxford composers, and an association between the two accounts is possible. The most recent draft is problematic as a promotional resume. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note: Joanna Forbes L'Estrange is married to Alexander L'Estrange as stated in the biographical details of draft wikipedia entry. I do know both musicians. As I am not an experienced wikipedia editor, would welcome some advise on what steps I need to resolve/address the COI? Fialsop (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Fialsopsee here: WP:COI and here: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fialsop, and User:JoFL'Evocals, PLEASE read those guidelines and declare your COI properly, on your own user pages and on the talk pages of the articles/drafts. Fialsop, I don't think you are JoFL'Evocals, but it seems clear to me that y'all discussed the matter, given the similarities between the two articles/drafts. Please note that I removed an enormous set of "External links" which don't qualify as such (see WP:EL) and which only added to the promotional/resume-like tone. Overall, what these need is more neutral writing, and less primary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

PowerBook

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

Linked to their website, with an edit summary that included "we found that there isnt an easy to digest Apple specification site, so we built one", but otherwise no disclosure of paid editing or acknowledgement of COI. Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:AlanD0192

AlanD0192 (talk · contribs) has added entries cited to AlfredDeakin.com dating back to 2016. Their user page implies that is their website and the name they added on their user page is the same for contact on the website. 120.154.8.215 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User:JonWilliquette

@JonWilliquette has openly admitted to having a financial relationship with the subject of an article he has edited continuously, Creation Museum. He has been warned multiple times and shown no intention of adhering to relevant policy. His edits have shown clear bias and gone against long-established consensus. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. I currently am employed by the organization, thus have a deeper understanding and knowledge of the organization to make credible edits to the information pertaining to the organization. Thank you for your consideration and respect. JonWilliquette (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want 'consideration and respect' for yourself, you need to demonstrate the same for Wikipedia/WMF policies and guidelines. Starting with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirements. You are obliged to make an explicit declaration regarding this matter when editing Wikipedia content to which it applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

User's name was changed to JonWill; they are now blocked for WP:NOTHERE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Cesare Angelini (author)

• Cesare Angelini (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FabiusCesareAngelini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LitteralContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FabioMaggiAngelini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The original Cesare Angelini (author) article has been extensively created and edited by FabiusCesareAngelini, who has stated on their talk page and at the article's talk page that they are a curator of Angelini's writings, so they have extensive knowledge of the person and his "scientific publications".

I and other editors have attempted to tag the article as COI, but the tag has been removed repeatedly. After more discussion with the editor, they seemed to have disappeared, and another editor LitteralContributor has appeared in their place with a lot more continuing edits as well as removing the COI tag again.

COI tag removal #1 [34] "icresead category, my username is the same of author because in Italia I contribute of Cesare Angelini scientific pubblication. I dont'see problem about that."

COI tag removal #2 [35] "I'm curating form many years (since 1995) his pubblication. Scientific pubblications. I'm not directly connected for apolgze to the subject. The contributions are neutral, only of a cognitive nature."

COI tag removal #3 [36] "(I added "cutural conflict of interest" topic in tak Article and Talk User. Thanks. If I'am curator of Cesare Angelini's writing I think this is helpufilly for write also neutre article. Where is the problem? I devolve my know-out to Wikipedia, in free and I got nothing in money or glory. Thanks for comprension.)"

I have tagged FabiusCesareAngelini for connected contributor, and added LitteralContributor to the list after observing the types of edit comments made are similar to FabiusCesareAngelini's.

Need to know whether the COI tag should stay and whether sanctions should be made on what the two editors can do to the article going forward. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Now there seems to be another editor FabioMaggiAngelini that is starting to get involved. The editor shares the same name as the subject's references. Also, since the original editor has declared themself as a curator, need to know how to apply WP:CURATOR on their editing. Do they still get to edit freely or do they need to make edit requests? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been studying Cesare Angelini (author) for a lifetime, it is my passion. I don't make money. I work for free just to bring his knowledge a little into the world of literature. I declared my COI in the talk of the article. But even though there is COI, i.e. since I am linked to the author, I don't see any problems of neutrality as stated in the warning. In the article I didn't make apology for Cesare Angelini (author), I only reported his life, works, with the support (see bibliography) of people recognized in Wikipedia. I don't think the warning of non-neutrality is right, if you think it is, leave it. What I have to say? Thank you. FabiusCesareAngelini (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Mara de Oro Awards

• Mara de Oro Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has created an article about the awards (whose notability is dubious to say the least), which reads like an advertising piece. The problem is that he has not disclosed a potential conflict of interest as it seems that they received an award from Mara de Oro in November 2022. The article was created one month later. See: [37] [38]. User has disclosed their full name in their own user page. Please also note there is a checkuser request on Commons which may relate this user to other potential conflicts of interest, as they may be a paid-for user for non-notable artists related to (including but not limited to) Farandula Records and Paisclo. Bedivere (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Ayuda/2022/11#Premio_por_ser_Wikipedista

Before generating any kind of problem, I consulted with colleagues in the Spanish Wikipedia cafe. There they told me that there were no problems in receiving this type of award. At this point, it is shown that there is no conflict of interest or remuneration, I have only created articles that were not on Wikipedia and that I considered relevant. Thanks. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChuchoVCJMuzik Do I understand correctly that you received the prize for your contributions to Wikipedia?

@Bedivere What makes you say that the notability of the prize is dubious? It has been awarded since 1955 and according to this it is the most important prize in Venezuela (no idea whether there is any truth to that). And it may be relevant to know that Chucho wrote the Spanish article on the prize in July 2022, so before receiving the award. [39]

I have no position on whether receiving an award creates a COI for that award. I see arguments for either side. Of course encyclopedic tone and neutrality are a must, but that is independent of any COI.

Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 I appreciate your intervention. How can I improve this article? The Mara de Oro has been awarded effectively for more than 70 years, I even created it on Wikipedia in English because many Latino artists received this award, which in Venezuela is one of the first (fifth on the list). I don't think this is promotional, it's informative and encyclopedic. The Mara de Oro also recognizes many arts, skills and professions, therefore, I don't know if another creator will receive this recognition as Wikipedian of the Year next year. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bedivere Regarding the information I have on my user page, the same day I asked about the Mara de Oro, if I could put that on my page, several users recommended that I remove content from my user page because it seemed promotional. After removing this content, they told me it was fine.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:ChuchoVCJMuzik#P%C3%A1gina_de_usuario ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not about the Spanish Wikipedia and that thread does not say much anyway. You created an article about the awards after being given one. You should have declared here (you did not) you had a conflict of interest. Don't pretend you don't have one: you publicly received an award from them! Bedivere (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to go on with this, Bedivere. You've been following me for more than a week now: my articles in English, in Spanish, in Commons, anyway.

The evidence is here, let others decide. Whenever I try to defend myself, you refute everything I say and I'm already running out of this. I love Wikipedia, but I also have a life, a family, church activities, and I need to rest. Thanks for the investigation. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

COI, may be removed? May someone remove it?

• Cesare Angelini (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FabiusCesareAngelini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FabioMaggiAngelini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LitteralContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Everyone,

I created the Cesare Angelini (author) article.

I have been studying Cesare Angelini for a lifetime, it is my passion. I don't make money. I work for free just to bring his knowledge a little into the world of literature.

I declared my (cultural only) COI in the talk of the article.

I don't think there are problems of neutrality as. In the article I didn't make apology for Cesare Angelini, I only reported his life, works, with the support (see bibliography) of people recognized in Wikipedia.

But some users thought they put the COI warning in the article. The non-neutral notice discredits the work.

Given the neutrality of the article, the great work I did writing it, all in favor of Wikipedia, can anyone other than me remove the COI warning from the article?

Thanks Everyone for your attention. FabiusCesareAngelini (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be multiple conflicted users there User:LitteralContributor , User:FabioMaggiAngelini and User:FabiusCesareAngelini so I think the tag can stay. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem.

FabioMaggiAngelini has a disclosed COI on Italian Wikipedia (it:Discussioni utente:FabioMaggiAngelini) where he identifies as Fabio Maggi, the subject's great-grandson. I can see that in the last six months, he was warned about it-wiki's COI rules and, at one point, was blocked one week for edit warring.

FabiusCesareAngelini identifies as Fabio Maggi on his userpage. If he is the same individual as the one above, then he definitely has a COI, but is also engaged in sockpuppetry.

LitteralContributor is a new single purpose account that has not responded to any notices yet. No comment on whether they are connected to the other two.

@FabiusCesareAngelini: As you were the one who posted to this noticeboard first, we will give you the opportunity to disclose if you control either or both of the other accounts, and whether you are the same Fabio Maggi as the account "FabioMaggiAngelini". Depending on your response, I may decide to escalate this to WP:SPI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I created the account FabioMaggiAngelini by mistake, because I couldn't access Wikipedia. In fact I only used it for 2 digits, then never used it again. However, there was no COI purpose in using this account, just wanting to continue making changes. Then I let it go.

LitteralContributor it is another who studies Cesare Angelini.

Thank you. FabiusCesareAngelini (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe all three to be the same person, as is the IP 2001:B07:AD4:666D:2E02:41D8:911E:2A8A. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Is LitteralContributor associated with Fabio? Do they work with the same organization or have correspondence with Fabio outside of Wikipedia? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Same person Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

off-wiki evidence

So I've been given off-wiki evidence (an instagram post by the article subject containing a memo from some sort of PR firm called Premium Content Writing) that proves UPE on a BLP. Can I post that to the talk of the article? It's not a current issue, this happened in 2019, the article was deleted in 2020, and I've just recreated it.

Somewhat tangentially, the memo states that the "we...are writing scholarly articles about (the subject)". This was pretty terrifying; the best source for this subject is a journal article. The journal does exist, the author does exist. But jeez... Valereee (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: Is there suspicion of present-day UPE activity on Woni Spotts? I see evidence of a WP:SPA since you recreated the article. If a connection between that account (or any others) and the aforementioned PR company emerges, then I would say yes - that is evidence of both past and present UPE. But for now, I don't think past evidence of UPE is relevant.

I looked at the journal publisher (SAGE Publishing) and it looks to be legit. I also checked the list of predatory publishers and they weren't on it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Drm310, yes, I saw that SPA come in. Highly likely they're part of Spotts' PR team, or maybe just a rabid fan who saw a social media post somewhere, but they didn't add anything bad so I'm just watching. Other than that there's no current suspicious editing, and I'm going to give myself a w-ping to make sure I check both articles every week or so for as long as it seems necessary. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)