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:Roy Bahat Talk:Monica Behan Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Shmuley Boteach Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Harsco Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Elham Kashefi Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Masdar Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Mark Isaacs

• Mark Isaacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Maisaacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:F4F6:A73A:AAAA:3F62 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:IMPERSONATE. User claims to be Mark Isaacs and has stated that he will be providing verification of his identity. If he is confirmed to be who he claims, then some education about WP:COI and WP:OWN will be needed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, I'll request a subject specific block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

An update: user has been granted a name change, and is now Walton22 (talk · contribs). Their talk page is protected because of unrelated vandalism (!), but Mr. Isaacs is lobbying RickinBaltimore to be unblocked. The only interest appears to be a return to WP:OWNERSHIP of the biography, at least to remove maintenance templates that are still relevant. A mere name change does not exempt the user from COI and all the fun stuff that goes with it. If unblocked, I'm requesting a topic ban for Mark Isaacs. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your talk page response, Walton22. This is an admittedly ungainly way to communicate, but per [1], if uninvolved editors feel the COI issue has been resolved, they're welcome to remove that template; there's still much that is inadequately sourced. As for coming to a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, the best way to evidence newfound respect is to walk away from the article. Even your most recent comments make it clear that your interests here are for one purpose only. At any rate, this is rather academic. A misstep after an unblock would prompt another block, anyway. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the probationary period granted me, in that the topic ban requested by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B has not being granted. Have undertaken a small number of, I hope, non-controversial edits to COI page (just one technical slip thus far). Have in fact taken out some material known to be true via COI, but not able to be sourced adequately. Contrary to assertion by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B please note re "only interest" comment above that I have edited other non-COI articles, both since block was lifted, and previously. COI templates are in place on my talk page, and talk page of relevant article. Plan to do my best to abide by rules here. Walton22 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The edit history speaks for itself--once unblocked, where did you go? NinjaRobotPirate, I've never seen a blatant WP:COI cut this much slack. But it ain't my call. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I received advice on my talk page from A09 predicated on me doing some very careful editing to COI article post-block. It isn't the only place I edited. I have edited three other articles in the few days since being unblocked, as you know since you reverted one of my edits. COI editing is not forbidden as I understand. Re what I have done to COI article, I *removed* unsourced material, and fixed a verification failure on a citation (material and citation not put in place by me). You choose not to mention the uncontentious nature of my COI edits. Btw, I was not blocked for COI editing, it was just flagged here. I was blocked for possible impersonation, to *protect* me, not punitively. I appreciate your concern, but I wish to demonstrate I can be a good Wikipedian. Walton22 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And it's great that you're determined to edit constructively. That is not the same as signing off on allowing you to, in effect, be the caretaker of your biography until you make an obvious COI error. In part, your promises while blocked evidence that the determination to return to your bio is stronger than your resolve to stay away [2]; [3]. Likewise, the persistent claim that you're here to edit other articles has been belied by the edit history--you haven't been especially productive, but in over twelve years, something like 75% of your article space edits have been to your bio. With that history, that you're permitted to resume editing at Mark Isaacs is something I've never seen here before. It's not the place to show your penance, which can be amply demonstrated at other articles. Having made a half dozen 'clean' edits doesn't change the inherent problem. I'm disappointed that administrators are okay with this, but that's where we are. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Those few administrators who know me, I'm sure that in light of this discussion, you'll be okay with me going into my Wiki bio and making 50 to 60 edits to update content. Rest assured they'll all be perfectly neutral. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're on my case in a forensic way, and also on the case of administrators it seems now. I'm fine with that. It's not my own place to question administrators, maybe it's yours. I intend not to abuse any goodwill. I haven't made anything like "50 or 60 edits" since being blocked (I was not blocked for COI, as I said), and you have no evidence that I intend to do so. I have already been cautioned for COI, so it's not like I have had a free ride. Maybe they are assuming good faith, maybe you are not? As I understand it, the former is WP policy. I've made many mistakes, but it seems redemption is possible. I'm sure they are watching me as much as you are. I haven't actually added any material since the block (apart from fixing a broken citation and adding a citation to another editor's material that needed to be there). What I have done is *taken away* unsourced COI material *that other editors missed*. So I have been stricter with my own previous COI edits than others have been. If this does not constitute responsible and permissible COI editing, I don't know what does, but it's not for me to say. Anyway, this post is too long: we can leave it to the administrators now I think. "Over and out", with respect, and if you don't mind. I can't help feeling you're policing how I am being policed, and that's surely not your role? Walton22 (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, in view of WP:Conflict of interest which says "When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes.", it is no longer my wish that my identity be revealed, even though I initially revealed it. I am entitled to change my mind, and ask you to now stop making references to my personal identity. I have made public and permanent COI declarations of a "close connection", and that is all that I am required to do. The only reason I outed myself was because the block was for suspected impersonation, so it seemed the only way at the time. I am applying to have removed permanently references on Talk pages to my identity being associated with this username, that is if "against my wishes" includes a change of mind, as I imagine it fairly would? We'll see: if not, they'll have to stand. Walton22 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If that's the way you want to go you should avoid the topic of yourself altogether and find something else to edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Samral

• Draft:Elkhan Ganiyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Narmin Knyaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Samral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of paid editing disclosures at the Azerbaijan wiki:

• Elkhan Ganiyev disclosure
• Narmin Knyaz disclosure

This user has disclosed, on multiple occasions, that they're a paid editor on the Azerbaijan wiki where they also happen to be a former admin. They've failed to disclose this when creating those same articles on the English wiki. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked them on February 3rd at their talk page to make the appropriate disclosures. On the same day, I also noted on Draft talk:Elkhan Ganiyev that the creator had a COI as a paid editor, to which they responded to and confirmed yesterday. They did not respond on their talk page or add a disclosure to their user page. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Akhilesh Pandey (scientist)

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.

---

• Akhilesh Pandey (scientist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SCIART23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 157.45.230.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Institute of Bioinformatics, Bangalore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See Talk:Akhilesh Pandey (scientist). This is a new article created by a new editor and moved to article space by another new editor. There were multiple instances of plagiarism, which User:Diannaa cleaned. (I cannot see the edits which were oversighted, nor the names, but they appeared to be connected.) I placed multiple tags on the article as the sourcing is not adequate and the sources appear to be closely connected with the subject. Could an administrator look at the edit history prior to the oversighting of copyright violations? Perhaps AFD is the appropriate remedy. Kablammo (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

no response; further copyright abuse; moving to ANI. Kablammo (talk) 14:55, 14 February 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.

Continuing UNESCO COI issues

• John Cummings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lisa Rechelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A.mart82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• C.recalde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of you will likely recall past discussions about UNESCO employees adding large amounts of verbatim text from open-licence UNESCO publications to articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Children in emergencies and conflicts and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 156#UNESCO content), linked to projects such as meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020. Despite numerous promises to resolve this issue, I'm still encountering UNESCO editors who don't seem to have made the required paid-editing declaration, such as Lisa Rechelle, A.mart82 and C.recalde (unless the statements on their user pages are sufficient?). See also the discussion at meta:Grants talk:Project/John Cummings/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2017-2018/Final. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe we're also still waiting for the list of articles created/edited by Besalgado, promised here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: To me, their userpage statements seem too vague for WP:PAID to be adequately satisfied. They're supposed to state who is paying them and list which articles they are editing on behalf of their employer. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at just one of these articles Global Education Monitoring Report and the bulk of the content was blatantly copied from their websites. Not acceptable, nor is the lack of specific disclosures under WP:PAID. Melcous (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be two separate issues: one is the disclosure on user pages that needs to be completely transparent. The other one is that text written by UNESCO is - I assume - unsuitable for an encyclopedic content if it's blindly copied in big chunks and might not be written in a language that our target audience can easily understand. Overall, I have nothing against utilising materials from UNESCO that is under a compatible licence but it has to be done properly, i.e. be encyclopedic, summary-style and easy to understand, no jargon. Do we have examples for good and bad cases that we can examine? What needs to be done exactly to address your concerns, Cordless Larry? EMsmile (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all! I am in contact with some of the UNESCO employees pinged above. They want to do everything correctly and I and trying to convey best practices and what they should do specifically to fulfill the guidelines of the community. Like EMsmile I think it would be interesting and helpful to understand what you think should be done (except than editing user page in line with WP:PAID and providing list of edited articles) to properly adress your concerns. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions, EMsmile and Eric Luth (WMSE). Most of the problematic articles can be found in Category:Free content from UNESCO, and it's the articles there that have been created from scratch by copying content from UNESCO documents that are the most problematic. Take this revision of an article I subsequently gave a significant trim as an example - most of the middle section wasn't about the initiative that's the subject of the article but was rather an essay full of UNECSO POV presented in Wikipedia's voice.

In the past, John Cummings's response to complaints about these problems has been to expand on the instructions at Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia to highlight the need for editors, including those from UNESCO, to declare paid editing and list the articles they've contributed to on their user pages, and to adapt the imported text to be compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and in particular to attribute POV within the text. However, it's clear that these clarifications haven't had an effect. UNESCO editors continue to edit without making the required declarations, and we still have articles that are essentially essays presenting UNESCO's POV as fact.

Cleaning up existing articles has largely been left to volunteer editors such as me and Drmies; I've not seen much evidence of UNESCO editors trying to fix their previous mistakes. What would be appreciated in this regard is a contribution to that clean-up effort.

I also think that any future WMF/UNESCO collaborations should drop the aim of adding open license text to Wikipedia. Other aspects of the collaboration may well have been highly successful, but this aspect simply isn't working - the WMF is essentially funding the creation of a mess that volunteer editors are left to clear up. I also object to the apparent characterisation of these clean-up efforts in the grant report as "Wikimedia community members complaining or actively stopping our work, including harassing people we were working with, deleting their work, their user page etc.".

Finally, we need to get UNESCO editors to comply with the paid-editing disclosure requirements (no more empty promises on this). Many other editors in similar situations would have been blocked by now. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I just want to add that I, personally, am not at all interested in this free content donation etc. I see no good reason why we ("we", whoever we are) should be happy to have access to free documents from inside an organization. What concerns me, and I've said this many times before including in deletion discussions, is that the bulk of these articles, and I mean both "many of these articles" and "much of their content" is just completely organizational, directory-style, etc. information. It's not encyclopedic material. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree Drmies, if donation of free content simply means that we end up with an encyclopedia article that is a duplicate of an organisation's website, then what is the point (no matter who the organisation is)? Melcous (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the previous statements. Overall, the topic of this discussion is not so much about conflict of interest (I think that is a minor issue and would be easy to rectify on the user pages). The issue is more of "poor editing practices" / editing that is not in line with Wikipedia editing and manual of style policies. Perhaps this is better discussed elsewhere (where?). One gripe or concern I have is how the open access sources are mentioned under "sources" - disconnected from the added text - versus adding them more clearly as in-line citations. I've written about it here on the talk page of "Adding open license text to Wikipedia": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Adding_open_license_text_to_Wikipedia#Suggestion_to_change_the_guideline_about_the_sources. EMsmile (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"I think that is a minor issue and would be easy to rectify on the user pages". You'd think so, EMsmile, but even where we've previously been reassured that this is being rectified, there are cases where the declaration was never made properly. E.g. at User talk:Besalgado#March 2020, John Cummings wrote "User:Besalgado has now added the disclosure to their page", but if you look at User:Besalgado, you'll see that's not the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I am reading and taking note, and will no matter what work as well as I can with them so that they comply with WP:PAID. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Begsalgado will add the list of articles she edited and/or created to her user page. We thought it was enough to add them to the table on the project page, this is why we did not do this until now. Thank you for your patience. C.recalde (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I have given further information about my work on my user page along with the list of edited and created articles. Thank you. Besalgado (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have given further information about my work on my user page along with the list of edited and created articles. Thank you. Besalgado (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that editors involved with this project, or these projects, simply are not really seasoned Wikipedia editors, or en-Wikipedia editors. That's evident in the recent history of Futures of Education, and here we have another COI creation, International Bureau of Education, with a promotional tone and not a single independent secondary source: that is not in keeping with practice. Eric Luth (WMSE), I appreciate the addition to Among Gnomes and Trolls, but I hope you understand that the lack of editing experience of some here (not John Cummings, obviously) makes me wonder how much practical knowledge is available among the editors and overseers of this and other projects. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, thanks for sending appreciation. Just to clarify – I haven't been involved in or overseen this specific project previously, but as they reached out and asked what to do to follow the rules and fulfill the requirements from the community, I am trying to support the best I can. The specific edit you are referring to was made from the wrong account, I am not editing Wikipedia articles from my staff account (due to internal rules). You can in all transparency see my private account (used in my free time) linked on my talk page, but I don't think it is that relevant for this conversation perhaps. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Eric Luth (WMSE), that makes me feel a little better; I see that you have some experience on en-Wikipedia as well. Sorry, but I do think that's relevant, since COI problems often involve different kinds of entanglements, from sourcing to tone. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I see what you mean. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Eric Luth (WMSE), can I check whether you're in contact with the UNESCO editors as you suggested you would be above? I'm just wary of this discussion being closed but the issue drifting on unresolved - as has been the case when it's been raised in the past. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for slow reply, @Cordless Larry. Yes I am (and as you can see below they are also aware of the conversation). Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

C.recalde has now updated their user page. Is this sufficient to meet WP:DISCLOSEPAY? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Could you please share the list of problematic articles according to you? We will do our best to re-edit them to fit the community standards. Thank you very much. C.recalde (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Your engagement is appreciated C.recalde, but with respect, your request here seems to me a bit backwards: the onus should not be on Cordless Larry to list articles for you. Under WP:PAID, paid editors are required to disclose employer and client with respect to any such contributions. I would understand this to mean the onus is on those who are working for UNESCO to clearly list which connected articles they have contributed to. I would also note that both paid and conflict of interest editors are asked not to directly edit affected articles but rather use talk pages to request changes, so saying you will "re-edit them to fit the community standards" does not seem to demonstrate an understanding of this. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A good starting point for identifying problematic articles would be to look through Category:Free content from UNESCO for those that have maintenance templates at the top of the page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be an overhaul in rules regarding "donating contents" to introduce contents that can not be directly introduced into Wikipedia article by posting it somewhere else as CC-BY-SA contents, attributing to it and introducing it. That happened with this one family member memorializing guy. @Melcous:, I think you're familiar with that particular one. Graywalls (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Great point Graywalls and yes I am familiar with that example! The category Cordless Larry pointed to above gives a really interesting set of articles that can be divided for purposes of this discussion into two different kinds:

1. Articles about a broad topic, e.g. Education in Colombia, where the UNESCO free content provides data to give insight into the topic. That to me seems good and exactly what this kind of 'donation of content' is designed for.
2. Articles about UNESCO reports/groups themselves, e.g. Global Reports on Adult Learning and Education, and so the free content essentially is the article and it becomes self-promoting. This to me is problematic. Melcous (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Northern League (Independent Minor League)

• Northern League (Independent Minor League) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dwbork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has edited the page several times and renamed it three times. The edit summaries used include "The owner is asking me to do this. Maybe he can contact directly." and "The owner Don Poparvak says this should be labeled as such." The quality of the edits seems more promotional than accurate, appearing to be an attempt to remove the league's history as Midwest Collegiate League and create a false history connecting it with Northern League (baseball, 1902–71) and Northern League (baseball, 1993–2010). -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The user has also added incorrect COI notices to that page in their edits, yet continue to make edits, while clearly knowing they aren't supposed to. The user has also made many disruptive page moves related to that article, which is currently located at Northern League (collegiate summer baseball). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Following up, the page was moved back to Northern League (collegiate summer baseball) and all changes were rolled back. The user has taken no action with regard to his apparent conflict of interest. He sent me unrequested contact information for the league owner who apparently directed his actions, which seems to me to be just more indication that he doesn't get the point. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible citation spam

• 79.155.167.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 79.155.178.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 79.155.231.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 157.157.164.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I've noticed a few IP editors seem to bulk adding citations to Yoav Tirosh sourced to academia.edu. For example: Special:Diff/1137384418 and Special:Diff/1133429484. I'm not really sure what to think of this. Citations to his work are being added to articles about sign language, fermentation, cult films, deaf history, and medicine. On one hand, it's good to see what seems to be academic sources being added to Wikipedia. On the other hand, Special:Diff/1137768716 seems a bit gratuitous. The statement was already sourced. If anyone needs input from me, you should probably ping me because I'm not going to remember that I started this discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: As you say, it is a bit of a mixed bag - some contributions are adding reasonable content and other authors, but others are just adding references where they aren't needed and where it would be undue to include them even then. I've looked through all of those contribs and reverted where I felt it was spammy. There are a few older instances included in this search which appear to be added by the same person, but which I find it harder to judge. SmartSE (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

sorry, my bad! I did want to spread the word on Old Norse relevance to these topics (mainly milk related stuff and deafness), but I clearly went about it the wrong way. I keep losing access to my wiki account but will try and edit from there here on out so it will be clearer who the editor was 79.155.167.119 (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by random volunteers, so the articles skew toward the interests of whomever happens to write them. However, we need to keep in mind due weight. Citing the same source repeatedly can also come across to others as citation spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible UPE

• Upendra Maharathi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• M Jaiswar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editing pattern of this user looks like UPE. Not sure though, need some experienced eyes on this. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That article doesn't look too bad to me. Some of their other contributions look a bit more suspicious though, so more eyes would be good. SmartSE (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the morning. scope_creep^Talk 00:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The editing pattern is highly suspicious. A day or practice flights and already flying combats which doesn't follow the organic Wikipedia learning curve. Graywalls (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

People

• Yogesh Mehta billionaire, long list of awards/achievements
• Anaida Deti Albanian dentist and entrepreneur, long list of awards and recognition
• Bindu Menon doctor
• Vikram Khurana chef
• Tara Prasad Bahinipati politician
• Jayantilal Parekh politician
• Jaibhagwan Goyal academic
• Rajesh Kumar Mishra (born 1967) politician

Books and entertainment

• Nautanki Saala And Other Stories
• The Vault (TV series)

Companies / orgs

• Avaada Group At AfD
• Extramarks private school
• Join Ventures redirected
• National Institute of Solar Energy

More suspicious creations, with descriptions, above. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Citinewsroom and user Uprising Man

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

User discloses on their userpage that they are a journalist, and cites citinewsroom.com as a place where they write. They submitted Draft:Jonas Nyabor, the subject of which was (or possibly is) a journalist with Citi FM/TV which is an affiliate of citinewsroom (owned by Omni Media Group). They also included a link in that draft to citinewsroom. I started a discussion on their talk page but then searched and found they have been adding links to various pages from citinewsroom.com such as here, here, and here (the last link is from citisportsonline which is affiliated with citinewsroom – owned by Omni Media Group). Replies from user seem kind of contentious and they have editing since my last question so I wanted to bring it here since I don’t feel a discussion on their talk page will have any benefit. I do not know the reliability of the publication being cited as I cannot find anything at WP:RSN, but it appears there are several hundred links to that publication being used on Wikipedia. CNMall41 (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Does your concern mean that Wikipedians who are journalists cannot be impartial in editing when their editing history proves it?

I am tagging some Ghanaian Wikipedians who understand the scope of verifiable sources in Ghana and the media landscape. You can engage them @SAgbley @Robertjamal12 @Owula kpakpo @DaSupremo @Gkbediako @Dnshitobu @Jwale2

I will reiterate that:

• All my edits are made from a neutral point of view as stated here. My edit history states that I've only added available credible sources to every edit I make; this includes any verifiable links available.
• Just like journalism ethics stated by Kovach and Rosentiel, my obligation is to the truth and the essence of my work on Wikipedia is based on verification. I've been independent [not being seduced or coerced] to make edits.
• How can an advocate of Wikipedia consciously breach the rules that govern the platform? I've never had any Conflict of Interest and derive no pleasure in doing that.
• In relation to adding those links, I thought you will raise concerns like:

- Why add unverified and fake news sources to the edit which is a violation of Wikipedia referencing ethics?

- Why add lots of link to an already properly sourced information?

• In this case, I never faulted but only made edits based on links conforming to Wikipedia reference guidelines. If you have alternative sources which I didn't find, I will appreciate that you update the articles.

Uprising Man (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

My concerns were clearly stated on your talk page and above. I believe you have a conflict of interest. This doesn't mean you cannot be impartial, but you will not even acknowledge the conflict so anything else would be moot. I also do not need to engage Ghanaian Wikipedians. That's an argument from authority and I am not sure how they would be able to address your COI. We are here at the noticeboard because your responses seem more defensive than corrigible. I think its best to have community input at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I tagged some Ghanaian Wikipedians in relation to your feedback that "I do not know the reliability of the publication being cited as I cannot find anything WP:RSN" but not in relation to your comment on COI. Nonetheless, aren't they eligible to share a feedback on the issue since you posted it here too?

Your comment "I also do not need to engage Ghanaian Wikipedians. That's an argument from authority and I am not sure how they would be able to address your COI" seem to suggest that you are only interested in the admission of being complicit and what happens after.

I never undermined your work as an administrator. Do you suggest I only accept your comment and not share feedback on your judgement which will inform my work as a journalist?

I have been training new editors who are student journalists, communicators, among others, and they will most likely encounter this same issue. So, I am very happy you raised this concern because it will inform in my next training sessions with the students.

Thank you. Uprising Man (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you are correct, and I apologize. I re-read what you wrote and they most certainly should weigh in on the reliability of the source(s) being discussed in this thread. As far as your COI work, not necessarily. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your feedback and together we can help bridge the knowledge gap on Wikipedia from our various professions. Looking forward to seeing the article revised and improved. Have a great time. 😊 Uprising Man (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Once it can be determined here if you have a COI or not (which you still feel there is none), we can start a discussion at RSN about Citinewsroom. It seems to be used a lot in Wikipedia so I would be curious about its reliability. However, that is a discussion for a different noticeboard as stated. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding to the numerous discussions that have gone on here yes User:Uprising Man is a journalists but his work as a Wikipedia editor speaks for itself. And to your Citinewsroom reliability, I have been a long time editor and community leader in Ghana and its been one of our go to sources. They are one of the few relevant and credible media organizations in Ghana so their reliability is never in doubt. Owula kpakpo (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether their work "speaks for itself" is not the issue. The issue is whether their work constitutes a COI. As far as the reliability of the source, again that is a different discussion but since it is being brought up yet again maybe we should do RSN prior to this discussion being closed. Would likely benefit the community as a whole to have a consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP that there is a potential for COI where an employee of a media outlet adds links to articles on webpages under the control of that outlet. I'm not saying that's happening here, but it is a circumstance that requires reasonable scrutiny. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alessandro Monterosso

• Draft:Alessandro Monterosso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mamuta Shakieya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clear indications of UPE/COI, refuses to comply with the procedures as outlined in WP:COI or WP:UPE. Even admits its COI, without complying with procedure.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Blablubbs has blocked them after finding CU evidence that they had another account (Harttyny). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's some more, per CU:

• Harttyny (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zernahas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Alpharett (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It seems very clear that none of these were their first account, but CU can't really tell what was. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Powerfultample is one of the stronger candidates for a potential previous master, but I'm very far from certain. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Paid editing on multiple pages by user Fu-Lank

• Christel Loetzsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Simon Wallfisch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Joanna Wallfisch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Raphael Wallfisch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tim Thorpe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Patrick Vogel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fu-Lank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possible paid editing by user Fu-Lank. All these articles were listed as proof of work to promote paid writing. Articles in the German and French Wikipedia are also listed. OrestesLebt (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Note, user has been blocked by Blablubbs for undisclosed paid editing and articles tagged, so now in need of clean up. OrestesLebt has made some good starts and has some experience in the area, but perhaps could do with other eyes more generally? Melcous (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Melcous. Simon Wallfisch is cleaned up. It might take me a while, but I will get it done eventually. OrestesLebt (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks OrestesLebt - great work! Melcous (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Christel Loetzsch is cleaned up. OrestesLebt (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

North Dakota State University‎

• North Dakota State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paigemjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor likely has a clear and direct conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing relationship with this university. Other editors have left warnings on their Talk page and this editor has not responded in any manner. ElKevbo (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Loose canon, Cornell College and Convergence Movement

• Cornell College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Convergence Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Loose canon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First Wikipedia edits since 2020 focus on a Continuing Anglican/Convergence bishop (see first diff with Cornell College). Continuous drafts for Bishop Lumanog articles have been rejected per User talk:Loose canon. Reverts information on Convergence Movement article regarding Lumanog and his relation to this religious movement, and claims I am someone I am not, putting the name of an uninvolved person on Wikipedia and claiming this information constituted a personal attack against Bishop Lumanog who was a Canon of the ACNA. Went back and forth confusingly on the article talk page, and they tried to revert a rollbacker (they did apologize for that though).AndreasMar (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Blackfoot (band)

• Blackfoot (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rock Never Stops Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2603:3015:300:BC00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Detroit IPs have been inserting the website of a talent agency in the biography article about the band Blackfoot (band). The history of the band includes a legal battle over the band's brand, and the band's current talent agency is rightly concerned that the old band website is not listed. But the talent agency website is not a band website, and it should not be shown in the infobox in place of a band website. The IP range also threw their own name into the article about the Rock Never Stops Tour, trying to get their agency name into the wiki. All of this combines to show that the IP range is trying to promote the talent agency. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP range was blocked for a year for spamming. Done here. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

AHujeirat

• Lambda-CDM model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AHujeirat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An obscure scientist (see google scholar for their weak citation record, much of which doesn't have anything to do with astrophysics) who is vain enough that he deserves to be mentioned by name in the article for the Lambda-CDM model. He created an autobio as his userpage, which has since been moved to a Draft. Draft:Ahmad A. Hujeirat. He's also trying to whitewash the predatory publisher SCIRP, which he has published on at least a dozen occasions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to annullate me.

I am Prof. Hujeirat and will be most happy to discuss the matter directly with you.

Are you ready? AHujeirat (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:

Please have a look in:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/q=Hujeirat&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc&p_=0

Please don't annullate me personally: I didn't undermine you as a person or as scientist... Please don't do that...

Concering SCIRP: The editor have working hard to advance the image and quality of Journal of Modern Physics. Every article is peer-reviewed by at least two referees... If they did something wrong the past, should we punish them for ever...

These strategy doesn't work in world we live in.. we have to approach each other to solve problems ...

Concering the LCDM: just read carefully about the inability of the model to compete with modern observations and my note was that we should stick to the Friedmann matric which about 100 years old... All scientist agree that we need another model... AHujeirat (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As you see I am new here. If you are experienced wikipedian and feel that I am not welcome here, and making incorrect contribution, then please arase my membership and my contributions alltogether... AHujeirat (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to be fair: I myself and other experts which I know have reviewed article submitted to JMP and part of them was rejectd. All my manuscripts have been carefully reviewed

and published after considerable corrections and modifications.

So let us be careful not to out established scientists easily.

Nevertheless I will be happy to discuss the issue in details, and if you wish also per zoom. AHujeirat (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Finally, I am willing to organize a zoom-conference to discuss the matter in detail:

Please invite another two Wikipedia experts, and I will ask two renowned experts in astrophysics and cosmology to join the discussion.

You appear (provided you are a cosmologist) to stick to LCDM as if it were a holy model. However, a new article in nature has shown that these old and consortium-re-push models are barriers to innovation. AHujeirat (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Jean-Yves Duclos

• Jean-Yves Duclos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 205.193.94.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP is registered to Shared Services Canada, which is a Canadian Government agency. The IP appears to have removed the signature of Jean-Yves Duclos, Canada's Minister of Health, from our biographical entry on him. I've reverted it, because the signature is fairly standard in an infobox, and there is no edit summary explaining the removal. The IP appears to have a history of editing articles related to Canadian politics, such as Dominant Party System and List of endangered languages in Canada. WP:COIPOLITICAL notes that Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics, so this IP (an the range, more broadly) should probably not be editing an article on a Canadian government minister. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

While there is obviously a broader issue with COI editing from this IP, in my view the restoration of the signature was a poor edit on BLP grounds. The subject isn't a celebrity, artist, or head of state whose signature is widely publicized and noteworthy in itself. The signature is at best trivia and at worse a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation. Spicy (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We have this sort of thing in the infobox of Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Pierre Poilievre, Jason Kenney, and various other high-level government officials.

I don't see why this common practice violates WP:BLPPRIVACY; why do you think this is the case?

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPSIGN while an essay, suggests we should remove signatures if we receive a request. There's at least one case where there was consensus to remove based on a request Talk:Stephen King/Archive 1#Removal of signature image - request for comments. A new signature was added again sometime later, I don't know if this new version allays the concerns or Stephen King just no longer cares or gave up fighting it. In any case, I don't think a random removal from a government IP counts as a request however I agree with Spicy that the signature is basically trivia so there's no harm in removing it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Jian Wang Refspam

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

This user only seems to be here to add references to one researcher's works. They were warned about refspamming in 2018 but carried on regardless. Unless they promise to stop, I think we need to block them. There is a lot of clean up required. SmartSE (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

ok, we promise to stop adding new references, thanks for notifying us about this rule. Mrbigtoe (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mrbigtoe: Who is "we"? Does more than one person have access to your account? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:安狄

安狄 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); I was recommended to post her by an admin.

There have been four reverts of concern by the user across two days. Day 1:

(1) The first was my adding of the inaugural logo to the 2021–22 T1 League regular season article. It was removed without explanation.

(2) The second was my clean-up of the T1 League article's lede of redundancies, adding contextual information (by cross-referencing related Wikipedia pages, and more-established pages like NBA), and changing some table headers to better English conventions. This too was reverted without explanation.

Based on the user's edit history, they seem to exclusively revolve around the T1 League and very likely has a WP:COI. There might be WP:COI#Templates that should be added to their account pages. Nonetheless, the account is clearly engaging in disruptive editing and should be warned. Wikipedia isn't an advertisement or WP:SOAPBOX.

Then, Day 2:

(3) The logo was removed again, this time with the explanation: "Logo was not representing 2021–22 T1 League regular season."

(4) The T1 League article was reverted again, this time with the explanation: "Align the writing style as Chinese page."

The user's claim in (3) is blatantly false. See example footage <Game 3> and <Game 53>. The user's claim in (4) is more WP:SOAPBOX. There are many basketball and sports related articles on English Wikipedia for us to compare to, which I've read for well over a decade. Wikipedia pages across languages shouldn't be held back by the shortcomings of the other, and it certainly isn't a valid reason to disrupt productive editing. –DA1 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Compper

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

My Wikipedia site is not up to date . In the personal life rubric is written that I have two sons with my Wife Cathrin. We're separated for more than a year and the divorce is filed. I have a Video ready with verification of my identity, but i can't upload it. If someone could attend to this information, it would be appreciated.