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:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam 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:Datacommons.org Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken 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: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:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. 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

Éric Mickeler

• Éric Mickeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fareen Coora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Promotional biography of a commercial auctioneer, written by a SPA. Could use some heavy trimming. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

IP has deprodded with the nonsensical reasoning that he "probably passes WP:PROF", despite having never published a scientific paper. As such I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Éric Mickeler. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Crowdfunded vehicle article slash brochure

• Aptera (solar electric vehicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aptera 2 Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aptera Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fotoguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

People of the noticeboard might want to take a look at Aptera (solar electric vehicle). I just removed a section on options that was sourced to company brochures. There are other dubious WP:PROMO-ish things going on, especially section Configurations, also cited to the crowdfunding website or the brochures and/or press releases. The article's creator, Fotoguru received a PROMO warning on their talkpage. Their response to my inquiry about a conflict referenced an investment but I'm not going to dig into it; people reading this are welcome to take whatever action is appropriate next. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I started but got pulled away. Looks like it can be almost stubified once the unreliable, primary, or non-independent sources are removed. Too much cited to the company website or WeFunder. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Added another article, almost exactly half of the references are the corp site also. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Its mostly all references to the website, the ceo, or ask a question at company events type, WP:PRIMARY references. There is not going to be much left. Stubbed is the best bet. scope_creep^Talk 08:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Aptera (solar electric vehicle) was a mess. I had to research the company history to determine which vehicle was actually produced. After doing a slight update on Aptera Motors, I merged the solar vehicle there as I cannot see having a WP:CFORK for something already covered on that page. The Aptera 2 Series is the original vehicle that failed prior to the company going into liquidation (prior to the recent re-launch). Going to tag the company and the Aptera 2 page for cleanup. I think Aptera (solar electric vehicle) would be a good AfD candidate if un-merged. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Bri and CNMall41 has gone way too far trying to "improve" these articles about the notable Aptera EV and the company that designed it. They ended up removing most secondary citations, then declared the article didn't have enough! Then CNMall41 decided to delete the article!

At his request I added a "No COI" notice to my user page, but that made no difference. Can we restrict CNMall41 from making more destructive edits? Fotoguru (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote in the change history to the Aptera SEV article, this vehicle is considered significant by sources including MotorTrend, RoadAndTrack, the WSJ, Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, IEEE and more. Fotoguru (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Once all the cruft is removed, I think they'll be short enough to easily merge into one article. Graywalls (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Aptera Motors article (and their product articles) are being butchered by some folk who don't think Wikipedia articles should have much company information. Are these article butchers correct?

Please review the recent history of deletions. Are they proper? Should Wikipedia articles on notable companies such as this one be so sparse? Should they delete all factual primary information sourced from the company? Fotoguru (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Fotoguru (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Cortex Command

• Cortex Command (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There has been significant edit warring in the aforementioned page (pretty much all of the recent history is that), which I personally believe to be related to self promotion.

For context, there was a recent community schism. One half of the schism is not and has not attempted to link to itself in the wikipedia page, however the other group controls a page that has been linked for some time. I believe that consistently re-adding the link to this page constitutes self-promotion, and that most likely when it was originally added in this edit it was also self promotion then. I cannot prove this as both the original addition of the link and all following edits to re-add it were made by IP addresses, but I believe the high degree of engagement in consistently re-adding the reference in an otherwise relatively inactive article circumstantially implies this to be the case.

There was an attempt to discuss this in the talk section however the edit war has continued without much engagement there from either side. It was suggested by User:Deepfriedokra that a COI be declared and that involved parties stop personally editing the page. I have personally stopped editing the page aside from recently reverting a change made by another person in my community.

I did attempt to find and notify the involved parties, however the only individual who has an actual account was the aforementioned fellow from my own community.

Thanks for any review.

--98.97.138.195 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I will note that several of Cortex Command's developers have been directly involved with the CCCP. For example

Weegee and Cavecricket42 have directly contributed (as seen here they are listed on both the CCCP and original Cortex Command credits https://github.com/cortex-command-community/Cortex-Command-Community-Project-Source/blob/development/Resources/Credits.h).

Furthermore the project is linked as a pinned post by a developer on the Steam forums (https://steamcommunity.com/app/209670/discussions/0/3160957541890851455/)

As such, in my perspective the CCCP project is directly related to Cortex Command and it's developers in a way that mods are not. The existence of a project that's directly linked to both the original developers and is involved with the development process of Cortex Command itself feels like a significant piece of information, and does not strike me as self-promotional. Causeless1 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll note however that I'm directly involved with the project. I didn't add the reference to the project initially though, and have no idea who did. I initially discovered the project via the wiki reference. Causeless1 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The aforementioned original developers have not been engaged with the project for some time and their contributions are present in both forks. 98.97.138.195 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is no reliable, secondary source mentioning the follow up project(s), the Wikipedia article shouldn't have mention either. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2020/01/cortex-command-has-a-community-project-that-aims-to-keep-the-game-alive/

Is this a reasonable source? 2A00:23C6:BC86:D501:3117:A5CB:EA5D:5A9 (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Gamingonlinux.com appears on the video game wikiproject's list of unreliable sources, so I'd say no. MrOllie (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Peso Pluma

• Peso Pluma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peso Pluma discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Javierc25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is repeatedly removing the image on the page and/or adding copyrighted images claiming the artist's team does not want the image on the pages. They have continued making these edits after being notified of a potential COI and is claiming to speak for the artist. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked them 24 hours for violating 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bradypetersen

• Bradypetersen (talk · contribs · logs)

Only edits have been to add content to the Stacy Spikes biography, some of it promotional in tone (writing in Wikipedia's voice with no source that MoviePass is a vital hub whose events offer a unique opportunity for filmmakers and audiences, headed by a person whose work there prompted a reevaluation of the way audiences engage with movies in theaters), some of it publicity photos and scans of book covers, some of it copyvio text from promotional material. No response to multiple talk page messages asking about a possible COI, and they've failed to take on board a uw-advert2 warning asking them to write objectively. Belbury (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Pirateer

• Pirateer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bill Zacha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scottmartinpeterson2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Deeply WP:UNDUE edits, poorly sourced and self-interested. User appears primarily to be using these articles to settle personal scores. The only question is how much to revert. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked them: they continued their non-neutral spree after being asked to disclose. If they ever decide to respond, they can explain what they were doing. The bigger question for me, right now, is whether all their edits on both articles should be revdeleted for BLP violations. I cannot decide on that right now: it's been a long day and there's still a football game to play. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Zacha's been dead since 1998, so even though there's a lot of bile directed at him, it's not WP:BLP related. However, the lengthy spiel at Pirateer goes off about ex-wives who may still be alive, so I'm inclined to think all of that may fall afoul of BLP guidelines and merit rev/deletion. Good luck on the gridiron tonight. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • And board members. And lawyers. Pretty much anyone who done him wrong. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

1928 Institute

• 1928 Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• JumpingJimmySingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JumpingJimmySingh is blocked from editing India League due to a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#India League. Their editing continues to consist of attempts to establish that 1928 Institute is a continuation of the India League, and they probably should have been blocked from the latter at the same time as the other block. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm suggesting that we extend JumpingJimmySingh's block to include 1928 Institute. This would still allow an editor with a COI to follow WP:COIREQ. Pinging Drmies as the blocking administrator. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear a bit more evidence before I do that. User:Hemiauchenia? Drmies (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have any skin in this dispute. My removal was because I thought the addition was unencyclopedic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The main issue has been JumpingJimmySingh repeatedly trying to add claims that the 1928 Institute is a continuation of the original India League, when that's not supported by third-party sources. If you review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#India League, you'll see that JumpingJimmySingh had been asking about SEO, and there were some strange coincidences involving updates of the 1928 Institute's website to support their edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

...not to mention knowing personal, unpublished details about the organisation's founder. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Alan Jackson (businessman)

• Alan Jackson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jim May (chemical engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carey3146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has exhibited WP:OWN behaviour over these two articles for some time, including moving them into article space after they were rejected at WP:AFC. The editor's previous responses to questions about COI (with other articles) have been somewhat evasive and stretched credulity as evidenced here. They have now ignored a specific request about a COI here and continued editing. There have also been some discussions on Commons that Timtrent may be able to speak to.
I want to abide by WP:OUTING (and please let me know if independent editors think this is crossing that line), but it is not difficult to find from the sources provided that the two subjects are connected in that they have children who married one another and thus they share grandchildren. Much of the content, and some of the photos, that the editor has added, are not publicly available and strongly suggest a family connection. Melcous (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Question: @Melcous: Does this mean that you consider this to be a small WP:Walled garden? The discussion should include the short lived article Esme Adelia Jackson, deleted by editor request, and Draft:List of honorary fellows of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, a declined AFC submission with relevance to Jim May.

I have been discussing on Commons matters of copyright and licencing, not having researched into this level of detail. I do believe we should consider c:User talk:Carey3146 in this discussion, even though I believe it shows a simple determination to upload pictures there without choosing to be aware of the laws surrounding copyright.

My own concern has been of an editor remarkably impervious to advice, with articles on people who are likely to pass WP:BIO, but whose referencing is of such "unusual quality" and text is so cluttered as to obscure notability, coupled with an unusually strong determination to preserve every detail by that editor. Indeed, I have become so concerned that I have asked elsewhere for other eyes on my discussions and actions in case I am incorrect. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Timtrent, I think that both subjects are probably notable, so not so much a walled garden, but this has all the hallmarks of COI editing, including some comments the editor has made on Commons about where the photos are coming from, and I think they should be required to use the talk page rather than edit the articles directly, and to give space for non-conflicted editors to clean up the trivia and memorial-type content. Melcous (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Melcous Your thoughts make sense; I believe the editor started with goodwill and enthusiasm, and probably believes they have retained both of those things. If self restraint is not something they are willing to use (history suggests limited use) then mandatory restraint may be the sole choice remaining, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Some evidence of potential COI might be inferred from their comment at C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr James May in the late 1980s.jpg where the ownership of a printed out copy, then digitised, suggests the relationship with May needs further scrutiny. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Timtrent this edit made after the discussion had started here suggests both that the editor is aware of the COI issue despite not responding, and I believe makes clear exactly what the connections are. @Carey3146: you should disclose your conflicts of interest and stop editing these articles directly, using the talk pages to propose edits instead. Failure to do so, or indeed to engage in this discussion, could see you blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Melcous It is hard to continue to maintain an assumption of good faith. They are evasive, they dissemble, and they bluster. To me that edit is crystal clear.

  I often marvel how wise I have been not to take on janitorial responsibilities here, lest I make a unilateral blocking decision in such circumstances. I am torn between seeing massive COI and seeing NOTHERE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  In defence of my recent actions, I have been too busy to contribute to another conversation until now. However, your searching of my personal sandbox I find slightly disturbing. Nevertheless, I will remove any confusion hereafter about my alleged conflict of interest.

  I have a conflict of interest, for the Wikipedia pages of Carey, Alan Jackson and Jim May and nothing more as I have made no articles other than of these two men. As some have already explored my sandbox, that will only reinforce what I have said. I respect and submit officially to the understanding that I will no longer be able to edit any of these three articles and that I will only have access to the discussion pages, not the articles themselves. As such, I respect any action undertaken by Wikipedia to remove the risk of my editing on these three articles from now on.

  Despite acknowledging my many faults, what I have done in my 9 months on Wikipedia have had the full intention of advancing Wikipedia, not hindering it. Now, I recognise that my methods have been improper and my referencing is one thing that I can and have improved on. Yet, some individuals insistence that all that I have done has been incredibly damaging is ignoring what I have done in full. In conclusion, I am unreservedly sorry for my mistakes and I hope that despite this, both articles that I have created, will remain, not based on my actions but by their individual merit and notability which has thus proven to be worth keeping.

  I came to Wikipedia hopeful and encouraged to provide more facts to articles, and I now leave defeated and shocked in both how I have behaved and how others have subsequently treated me in my short period on Wikipedia. Carey3146 (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I will leave it to uninvolved editors to decide how to respond to this procedurally, but just to note @Carey3146: that there is nothing "disturbing" and your sandbox wasn't searched - all contributions made to wikipedia are public, and the fact that your first edit after this discussion was initiated was to delete that page rather than to respond here is what alerted me to it. You were asked back in January if you had a conflict of interest with Carey and you repeatedly denied it. You also specifically said "Will do" when asked to disclose any other conflicts you had. I'm sorry you are feeling defeated, but you should not be shocked as you were warned explicitly and all this could have been avoided had you taken that advice (and wikipedia's policies) seriously back then. Melcous (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Carey3146 I find much about your response to be distasteful. It is hardly surprising that some editors have scrutinised what you have done, pushed back on it, criticised it. Your behaviour, something you now state yourself to be "shocked at" and now, finally, with your metaphorical back against the metaphorical wall, apologise for, leaves a repellent taste in the mouth. It is patently clear that you have been caught out. This all reminds me of people of apparent stature who attempt to bludgeon "lesser mortals" by asking "Do you know who I am?"

Paradoxically, I am sorry that you have chosen to leave. You are, if you abide by the rules, a good and useful editor. You have much to contribute. All you had to do was to take the advice you were given. Your lack of that led directly to the slow escalation, and where you are today, feeling shocked at your own behaviour.

As with Melcous, I feel that other, uninvolved editors will consider what further action to take. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like Jim May passes NPROF criteria though. If good sourcing can't be found, the article can be trimmed down to as short as 2-3 sentences whether or not the creator likes it. Graywalls (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I've just went through the Alan Jackson article to stubify it. I don't think there is any doubt that there is a real WP:COI here. There is really fine detail in that article that is not covered by references combined the photo make it clear. Process isn't being followed. scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do you know why you have deleted over half of the article when most areas included were referenced? I understand the article was written mostly by myself as a COI. However, what was included was by and large referenced and thus most parts not deserving of removal. Carey3146 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I also know some parts included significant parts about the companies he worked for, yet that was included as it was completely related to what Jackson was doing at the time. Carey3146 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I believe this editor editor is NOTHERE they've been editing with clear conflicts of interest on a significant number of articles, when they are questioned about it by other editors they are elusive and obfuscate, myself and others have had to decipher tedious layers of obfusction get the truth out of them - I personally think that kind of deliberate obfuscation is a clear sign of an editor acting in bad faith.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  • another example of this editor being anything but transparent about a COI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carey_Baptist_Grammar_School

  Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I removed all primary references from the article, most of them were WP:SPS sources. A lot of them were very poor and were unsuitable. It is a biographical article. The general daily minutiae of company operations, finances and so on, are unsuitable for a biographical article. The amount of the detail is problematic and because it indicates you having a WP:COI. The more I edited that article past the family block, the more I was sure that there was something wrong. scope_creep^Talk 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that you removed primary sources but you also removed independent and secondary sources. Such examples included the BTR takeover of Nylex in 1995 which Jackson played a major part in. This information has been completely removed. Also, since when was lots of cited information a problem on Wikipedia? Carey3146 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Carey3146 you are, once more, exhibiting behaviour that you have stated ...shocked in both how I have behaved... about. My prior thoughts that "I am sorry that you have chosen to leave" no longer hold good. Your arguments remain that of a paid editor, whether paid or not. Your COI is large and you are not showing repentance. I see you as WP:NOTHERE and feel it a strong probability that your stated decision to leave will be made firm by an administrator observing this conversation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed,I have made a formal proposal to that effect below. In my view WP:ROPE has shown us that rehabilitation is not possible. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you please stop being defensive for a harmless and respectful question asking your reasoning behind your edits. I have not edited an article since I said I have ‘had enough’. However, I do believe that there is nothing harmful in asking a simple question as you have asked me questions in the past. So, I invite you to respond to my question, rather than dismiss it and reiterate my COI, in which I am not even editing the articles I have a COI of anymore. Carey3146 (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Carey3146: Is this question directed at me? scope_creep^Talk 12:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No, this is towards @Timtrent thanks. Carey3146 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Carey3146 I had strong hopes you would progress from your stance to starting to become collegial. It seems I was mistaken. No matter. And I see no question directed at me, so have given you no answer. I will not, however, enter into question and answer ping pong with you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That is up to you if you want to answer my question. However, I stress this question was not posed in a negative light but rather a collaborative one. Nevertheless, I respect you opinion. Carey3146 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

That Carey3146 be blocked indefinitely from the English Language Wikipedia as WP:NOTHERE and as an editor with a strong WP:COI whose arguments in favour of their edits are deceptive, who obfuscates and dissembles when questioned, and is not displaying the attributes of a collegial editor despite strong encouragement. This behaviour has been exhibited since the start of their editing here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

• Support as proposer 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think that is something for AN/I than here... Graywalls (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support No good can come from their editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose as this seems like an overreaction and not a just punishment for my COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carey3146 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal

Generic discussion about the COI itself should continue in the section above the proposal. This section is purely for the discussion of the proposal itself.

Epesi

• Epesi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ktylek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jtylek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Epesi is an article that has a lot of promotional language in it. Also, it has very few sources; most of them are just reviews. This report coincides with an AfD nom.

Epesi was created multiple times by User:Jtylek under a few names and speedy deleted. Jtylek's edits account for 81.7% of the article. The creators of Epesi are Janusz Tylek and Karina Tylek (who also appears to have edited the article with User:Ktylek). They haven't edited in at least six months so I have not warned them. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Jtylek has admitted to being Janusz Tylek and thinks because he donated to Wikipedia, we should keep the article. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Jtylek has started to edit the article again. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 00:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Sean O'Connor (Producer)

I've been advised to set up an account in order to have some material removed on the page relating to my work. The headline paragraph of the biog draws attention to two actors who left EastEnders during my tenure there. This is hardly noteworthy in a public forum other than, perhaps, to big fans of the series. In the context of my thirty year career, it's pretty insignificant. The suggestion here is that it was SO important that I left the BBC because of it. This is simply not true.

At the same time, citations in the body of the article relating to this eg an interview with Dominic Treadwell-Collins, simply say that he was sad that characters he created left the series. The editor has implied that this is 'evidence' of Dom being critical of me. other 'evidence' is cited from Digital Spy, The Sun and Hello- hardly secure sources in anybody's book. As a soap producer Dom is well aware that this is just the natural churn of soap. These additions have been removed from this biog before but are continually added, despite various editors agreement for them to be removed. So I'm not sure how that can be resolved?

• Sean O'Connor (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Birkenhead01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Birkenhead01 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This request would probably be better placed in the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User Stravensky

• Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sanford Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Janice Bryant Howroyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Earth's Call Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stravensky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Highly promotional editing across the board, often using unreliable sources, often includes sizeable amounts of unverified content in BLPs, and often WP:OVERCITEs. Admits to a COI with the four articles listed above. Has created 43 articles, of which 11 have been deleted. Most of the remaining articles have serious problems. Hipal (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The most recent two article creations are for GaS Digital Network and the co-founder, neither of which seem to be notable and are now at AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth's Call Fund and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Ray. Jfire (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think many of these will eventually make it there. I looked at both you nominated and neither come close to meeting notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced and apparently connected edits by Steven.Valentine

• Earlham College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• American Friends Service Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Americans United for Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Earlham College people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Steven.Valentine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Steven.Valentine has edited multiple articles - not all of them are listed above - to add unsourced material that includes or explicitly focuses on "Steven Valentine." They have not replied to the message left on their User Talk page or even used edit summaries. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted some more blatant and egregious self promotion and left a warning, after which it simply continued. I have reported at WP:AIV for spamming as I thought that might get more immediate attention? Melcous (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Chambers Management

• ChambersMgt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EGCM1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:ChambersMgt received a soft username block this week for making very mildly promotional edits to biographies of clients from https://www.chambersmgt.com/artists

User:EGCM1 appears to be the new username the company selected, but they haven't acknowledged or followed Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest and paid editing. They've also moved up a notch to creating promotionally-tinged draft articles about their clients (Draft:Dee Allum and Draft:Reuben Kaye so far) and adding a client's podcast as an example on another article without disclosing the professional connection. Belbury (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

License laundering is obvious. photos identical to those uploaded by those users have been found in published, copyrighted materials that dates prior to when the files were uploaded. Copyvio CSD submtitted to Commons. Graywalls (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If they're the management company then they may well own the rights and be genuinely willing to release them under a free licence, which would be useful. If they're ignoring COI notices here then they may not be reading very closely when agreeing to licence a photographer's work for commercial reuse on Commons, though. I've started a deletion discussion on Commons for the remaining four photos. Belbury (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It's all too common for these public relations editor to launder license but the actual copyright owner/photographer is not willing to fully release them under CC-BY-SA for any and all use, including modifications and commercial use with no restrictions whatsoever. The release means the photo is also released for irrevocable release for any uses the users see fit under CC-BY-SA. All too often, the copyright holder try to only allow it for "Wikipedia page publicity purpose". Graywalls (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ashot Khachaturyants

• Ashot Khachaturyants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CN Digital Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CN Digital Work has made repeated efforts to add material regarding Khachaturyants' philanthropic work (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6].) In all cases, CN has added notes about arts projects that Khachaturyants has financed, but provided links that do not verify such financial support. CN has been warned about this several times, but has not engaged in any discussion about the matter. The nature of the user's edits (they have made no edits other than to this one article), as well as the user's name, lead to the conclusion that they are working on behalf of Khachaturyants. The user has been notified of this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello WikiDan61, unfortunately my english skills are not the best. First of all, my name is CN DigitalWork, because I am involved in many areas of digital life (web, graphics, photo, installations etc.) I do NOT receive any money for updating Ashot Khachaturyants site. Since I like AK's philanthropic work and this benefits all arts, I think there is nothing wrong with it. I have tried to take my enthusiasm out of the changes and briefly, succinctly state his stations in the theater. How can I specifically give appropriate references if they only exist on posters, posters? CN Digital Work (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@CN Digital Work: If Kachaturyants' philanthropic work has not garnered coverage in independent media, then perhaps it is not notable enough to mention here at Wikipedia. I would also note that you have been contacted several times by multiple users regarding your edits at this page; you have ignored all such contacts until now. At Wikipedia, when other editors question your edits, it is best to engage in those discussions rather than ignore them, in order to reach proper consensus. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Organizational citizenship behavior

• Organizational citizenship behavior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Definitivezeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.89.62.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can't quite figure out the motive, but is suspicious and appears to be intentionally evading scrutiny and a potential sock situation in topic area (industry/organization psychology) that has historically seen sock activity. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue as to who the Sockpuppeteer maybe. The account was created, made one large contribution over 10kB an hour after the account was created and disappeared. The very next day, an Auckland, New Zealand IP 219.89.62.146 added about 7,600 bytes. This happened at the end of September 2023 and neither of them have any other contributions and have gone dormant. These two edits are definitely someone with fair bit of editing experience. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Massive edits to that article in March and April 2011 by several SPAs are also suspicious. One SPA did a 25kB add. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. This page was updated as part of a Master's course on People Management. OCB was on a list of suggested topics that were underdeveloped or under-referenced on Wikipedia. Two of us added contributions to this page; neither of us has ever updated Wikipedia before (and aren't likely to again; I'd create an account if I thought I would continue editing). There is no conflict of interest to the best of my knowledge. We were simply satisfying course requirements, and did our best to maintain neutrality supported by research. On that note, I've never been on this noticeboard before, either, so I hope my response is appropriate. 219.89.62.146 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@219.89.62.146:, In academic sphere, "original research" is acceptable where you review multiple sources and imply an idea by putting the sources together. On Wikipedia, any ideas and conclusion presented that can not come from simply looking at the sources and require analysis to come up with the idea is not allowed. This is explained in WP:SYNTHESIS. Is the contributed content 100% verifiable by published sources or was there part of it that was the inference and original research of students themselves? Graywalls (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous post provided for transparency: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Burner_accounts_doing_massive_contents_drop_in_I-O_psychology_relevant_articles Graywalls (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Attempt to puff article by paid editor

• Michael Serbinis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Delorean2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor came in last, brought 13k article to massively puff the current one. scope_creep^Talk 06:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor has admitted they have a coi. scope_creep^Talk 13:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Viatcheslav Kantor

• Viatcheslav Kantor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kaplans2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Николай Эйхвальд (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Additional articles

1. European Jewish Congress
2. Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance
3. European Medal of Tolerance
4. European Jewish Fund
5. European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation
6. World Holocaust Forum
7. International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe
8. Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery

My colleagues and I published a Russian-language investigation about Vyacheslav Kantor. You can use Google Translate.

The main idea is that since 2009, Kantor’s PR people have been closely involved in his articles in Russian and English Wikipedia and have pushed many articles about organizations associated with him. The main account, Acvec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked in 2019 for copyright violation. Then the account accidentally admitted that 'we are the PR department of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation'

After Acvec was blocked, they not only actively edited as anonymous, but also decided to look for experienced Wikipedians and involve them with their reputation to work on the necessary articles. In particular, from November 2021 to May 2022, Николай Эйхвальд (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the most famous and titled authors of Wikipedia in Russian, an eleven-time WikiPrize winner in ru-wiki with 137 thousand edits, took up articles about Kantor. For Kantor's sake, Eichwald returned to English-language Wikipedia, where he had made only 7 edits over the previous 6 years. It detailed Kantor's public activities, removed references to his ties to Putin, and created a new article about the ridiculous concept of Secure Tolerance that Kantor and his PR consultants came up with back in 2011.

Also, in September 2023, as part of a campaign to lift sanctions against Kantor, a new editor, Kaplans2007, appeared in the English-language article. He said that Kantor is not a Russian entrepreneur at all, is not connected with Putin, and the sanctions were imposed on him unfairly.

My request is the following:

1. What to do with all the articles written in Kantor’s interests all these years? How can I mark them with templates?
2. What to do with Николай Эйхвальд (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?
3. What to do with Kaplans2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?
4. Should all articles related to Kantor be protected from anonymous edits? Gruznov (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)