Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spongie555 (talk | contribs) at 05:30, 3 June 2021 (→‎Bảo Đại: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (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-wp@wikipedia.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
    User talk:174.57.42.161
    Talk:A Time Called You
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Rania Al-Mashat
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Brookfield Corporation
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Carbon Trust
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Slaid Cleaves
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:DISA (company)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Dogwoof
    Talk:Double Union
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King School
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    User talk:Lvhjr
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nintendo European Research & Development
    Talk:David Nirenberg
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:OneHope
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pinger
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Stephen Schlesinger
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Milton Shedd
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:SSENSE
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Peninsula Hotels
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Edward Trobaugh
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:Turo (company)
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Thomas Albert Work
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Colorado Government IP users User:165.127.14.x and associated accounts

    Articles

    Users'

    These are IP user registered to a State of Colorado government computers, likely in the legislative offices in most cases and perhaps some others. The user contributions logs (especially from the .14. block) include several edits to various Colorado politicians, which is almost certainly one or more undisclosed COIs. I would propose banning the addresses from editing anything having to do with Colorado politics, but as it's an IP user it seems difficult to enforce a selective ban. There are likely other IP addresses involved as well, and also probably more pages, but I have not identified them yet. In addition, many if not most of these pages also have edits from named/IP users with potential COIs, which likely could be investigated further by looking at other users who edit from these IP eddresses. Frankly, the more I look at these pages the more I find with regards to implicated users and articles. I would consider a blanket ban on IP edits from this IP block if possible, and further investigation. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 14:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And what is with Template:Infobox Colorado Legislation? The only other US states that seem to have similar templates are used on articles for actual pieces of legislation. (see here for example). Adding these to a stack of politician's articles looks like promotion to me, listing their achievements by detailing every bill they have sponsored - that seems the kind of content that belongs on their own websites or on the legislature's website, not in an encyclopedia. Melcous (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good point -- I have listed the template at WP:TFD (see the discussion) to discuss. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 12:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow that is a lot of article these people have edited and from the few I have looked at they were poorly made. Guess I found myself some work to do :) Just give me a day to finish my work on Robert V. Cullison and I will get to work on fixing these articles. Jon698 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathmitch7: @Melcous: I have been working on these pages for the past few days, but had to stop for a few days to deal with some In The News candidates. So far I have fixed the Randy Baumgardner, KC Becker, John Buckner (politician), Greg Brophy, and Nathan B. Coats. Jon698 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for looking into the individual pages! - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanaway

    I'm highly suspicious that this is an undisclosed paid editor. The username appears to be a shortened form of "Cleanaway Content". Example edits such as this one and this one are highly suspect. They even state openly in an edit summary that the edit was undertaken based on Cleanaway's investor advice. The account has been editing since 2018 and has only ever edited Cleanaway. Reviewing the edit history it would appear as though Cleanaway have employed somebody to monitor their article here. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    P-blocked from Cleanaway to see if we can get their attention. No objection to anyone unblocking them once they've agreed to disclose and stop directly editing, but the username may also be problematic. —valereee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Valereee: Thanks. It being late night in Australia and the weekend, it may be a few days before we find out if that had the desired effect. Fingers crossed. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The username is enough to compel me to list it at WP:UAA as a WP:CORPNAME role account. Appears to be attached to some kind of PR/marketing role. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And now blocked for the username. Cleanaway looks a lot different now than it did after their most recent edit, so we should be on the lookout for the editor noticing and returning. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been renamed to Pce1984. They've requested an unblock and been given guidance regarding WP:PAID disclosure. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting, they confirm they are indeed employed by Cleanaway to edit the Cleanaway article. However, they did promise to only make edit requests from now on. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an interesting edit, showing the two accounts editing the page within a few hours of each other. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, jumping in to clarify that I have no account other than this one (pce1984). I do not know who Mags1984 is but now I am regretting using the year I chose during the rename. I admit I did make the edit only as a consequence of Mags1984 adding in the information and it was really coincidental that it was a few hours apart. Pce1984 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC) (Re-signing because I didn't realise I wasn't logged in, sorry!) 202.185.172.177 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pce1984: Fair enough. We do have a policy here to assume good faith and your explanation of a coincidence seems plausible. (Still think they were a disgruntled employee, mind you, but I'm guessing they won't be back.) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Hawks

    I know the British comedian Tony Hawks as a casual acquaintance in my local pub, and we've chatted occasionally. A few months ago (pre-lockdown) we were talking about Wikipedia, and he mentioned that his page had a very old and low-quality photo, and that it showed the wrong date of birth. I told him that I had an editing account, and that I'd be happy to update his details. This clearly wasn't a matter of urgency, since his PA has only just sent me an email today with a new photo and his correct DOB. In the interests of making Wikipedia more factually accurate, I've edited his page with these new details, but a much more experienced editor has given me a warning about a possible COI. I'd like to make it very clear that I do not work for Tony in any capacity, I have not been paid, nor do I expect to be paid, for making this edit, and Tony will only benefit from it to the extent that he'll probably get birthday cards on the right date from now on. I'm not very experienced at editing Wikipedia, so I hope I haven't committed a major faux pas here, but my intentions were pure. Cliffsmith23 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cliffsmith23: Thanks for your forthright honesty. This does not strike me as a big deal, especially since you have taken the time to write the above. Please use the talk page to request edits in future, and include sources with the request. You could tell Tony and his agent that advice as well. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliffsmith23, this doesn't strike me as a big deal either, but in the interest of WP:Verifiability the DOB should be published by a WP:RS (a primary source like http://tony-hawks.com is okay for DOB) and permission from the photographer (Jay Williams) for the photo should be mailed to WP:OTRS. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliffsmith23, an internet search suggests that the original year of birth in the article was correct. TSventon (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TSventon, The amended date of birth - Feb 27, 1965 - was provided to me in an email from Tony's personal assistant, along with the recent photo, and is definitely correct. I would be happy to provide you with a copy of the email upon request. Cliffsmith23 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliffsmith23, doesn't help, forwarded mail can be altered and the integrity can't be verified unless the original mail was signed. (but email is rarely signed) Either have that PA mail it to WP:OTRS directly or (preferably) get it published on http://tony-hawks.com/. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliffsmith23, what I found was that The Encyclopedia of Popular Music says Tony Hawkes was born on 27 February 1960[1] amd the other mebers of his band weer also born in 1959–1960. The Old Brightonians website says he was in the sixth form from 1976 to 1978,[2] which is consistent. TSventon (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ The Encyclopedia of Popular Music: Morricone, Ennio - Rich Kids. MUZE. 2006. p. 4. Morris Minor, ( b . Tony Hawkes , 27 February 1960 )
    2. ^ Hawks, Tony (25 June 2018). "Tony Hawks (Al. 1976-78), OB of the Month, June 2018". Old Brightonians. Retrieved 27 May 2021.

    Massive UPE spam sock farm: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marek.kapicak

    54 accounts found, about 20 articles remaining after deletion and quarantine. I'm sure there's more, but they must have evaded the checkuser data window. MER-C 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MER-C: What kind of help would be helpful? Can drafts and articles by the sock accounts be G5'd?--- Possibly (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's already done. What's remaining is to look through the 25 or so articles that couldn't be immediately removed, which I will paste below. MER-C 17:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at Iymen Chehade and am inclined to send it to AFD but wonder what others think. It's borderline. --- Possibly (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Run n Fly are connected with Khorkuto serial

    I was observing Run n Fly since some days. And i have noticed one thing, when Run n Fly completed the article, Alivia Sarkar aded the wikipedia link in her instagram bio withing 5 minute. So after my observations i am sure Run n Fly have some connection with Alivia Sarkar. Apart from this Run n Fly is edition much about Khorkuto cast. So there is some connection with Run n Fly with Khorkuto Serial as well as Alivia Sarkar. Bengal Boy (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from WP:ANI. Fences&Windows 12:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @TryingToDo and Fences and windows:, I declare that I have no WP:COI or is a subject of WP:UPE .Its a mere coincidence only. I have no idea of the actress adding it in her profile. I am expanding/creating articles as a part of WMF that has been encouraging coverage of Indian women, including Bengalis through WikiGap Kolkata. See the article in The Indian Express
    I am also going to create/expand articles of actresss if they passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG as a part of WikiGap Kolkata and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Regarding Khorkuto, its in my watchlist and I am a regular viewer of the show on TV and perform edits from a fan point of view and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I created articles of some well known Khorkuto cast only who are notable per Wikipedia standards per WP:ENT and WP:GNG only as a part of WikiGap Kolkata. I do not encourage paid editing and do not work for someone because its against the ethics of Wikipedia project itself. It was really a surprise to see myself listed at WP:COIN and WP:ANI. Run n Fly (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TryingToDo: now let me tell you how and why I thought of creating Alivia Sarkar. I was uploading movie posters as per WP:NFCI for films listed in List of Indian Bengali films of 2021 and found Tonic (film) and Ei Ami Renu did not had ones that time. So I uploaded posters. Then, I found that all cast of Ei Ami Renu had a wiki article except Alivia Sarkar. So after some Google search I found her to be notable per WP:ENT and went ahead to create the page. I hope it clears all the doubts. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Run n Fly About Alivia Sarkar, How can it be conincidence? Because no one goes to Wikipedia every day and searches for their own name. And usually when people search on Google and find their name in Wikipedia, they visit Wikipedia. But how does coincidence happen within 5 minutes of creating the page? Now let me talk about khorkuto, u watch many show except khorkuto like movies, webseries, tv shows. But you didn't create a article about another person. You chose Khorkuti. Bengal Boy (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Run n Fly And one thing you said that you are a regular viewers of the show that is why you started editing. But at the very first day you knew that what is the rule, what is gng, what is wp:nactor. And who is admin. And also knew that Ambarish Bhattacharya has deleted previously. And at the very first day you stared creating article like a pro. I definitely appreciate your work. But I must say you had an account previously that is why you know every single rules and you know how to edit that is why you did a fantastic job in the very the day of your editing from this account. Bengal Boy (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TryingToDo, No because everything cannot be notable in Wikipedia per WP:N guidelines and I follow the show Khorkuto. Its a personal choice and no point in discussing why here in public at Wikipedia. No, I do not watch so many shows. I have neither ever created any movie, TV show, or web-series pages. I only correct things or upload posters, logos per WP:NFCI. You can verify from User:Run n Fly I have mentioned everything I created the biographical pages. I will definitely try to create others, but there are high chances of being deleted as they lack WP:RS. Also, many other cast in Khorkuto do not have any article because they fails WP:ENT and lacks WP:RS. Thank you.
    If I had WP:COI or WP:UPE I would have avoided editing those pages or added {{Paid}}. See I know the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. This is encyclopedia and not a place for WP:PROMOTION . I follow Ten Simple Rules for creating the pages.
    Also stop your WP:KNEEJERK behavior by adding back maintenance tags from pages I created without convincing reasons. I have explained everything in details. What can I do if someone adds Wikipedia link in her social media account. In that way you yourself would also be subject of WP:COI if someone does the same for you created pages for e.g politicians pages you created. Please try to understand. If you still add back the tag I will inform about you behavior at WP:ANI
    @Fences and windows: for help and intervention. Run n Fly (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TryingToDo: you can also become a fantastic editor by following WP:YFA and keeping this guide Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines while resolving issues. Run n Fly (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bengal Boy, please let others comment - you've made your points. However, first please let us know what your evidence is for this central claim: "i have noticed one thing, when Run n Fly completed the article, Alivia Sarkar aded the wikipedia link in her instagram bio withing 5 minute". How do you know that was when she updated her bio? Fences&Windows 18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fences and windows i was observing Run n Fly because Run n Fly was creating article about Khorkuto show. So I saw Run N Fly was editing about Alivia Sarkar then when Run n Fly removed the tag Under Construction after 5 minute i checked her instagram and i saw Alivia added the wiki link in her instagram bio. I don't have evidence because I didn't capture any screenshot and I didn't make any screen video. So I have no evidence. Bengal Boy (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fences and windows, This is a strange allegation. Its looks like a fabricated allegation. Does Instagram notifies when anyone updates profile? As per this its not possible. TryingToDo is now justifying his/her actions by false stories. This is really bad. Run n Fly (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks Bengal Boy. Please don't edit war over the COI tag on Alivia Sarkar - it is a cleanup tag and not a badge of (suspected) shame. It is unclear what cleanup is needed as it is a bland stub article.
    Run n Fly, they didn't say they got an alert, just that they saw the link in her bio immediately after you created the article. I don't think it's a smoking gun of a COI myself, but please both of you let others comment. Fences&Windows 18:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds much more like an inter-editor dispute rather than an actual COI issue.--- Possibly (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Run n Fly:, please stop editing comments that have already been replied to. --- Possibly (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I am not the creator of Khorkuto. See the logs here. TryingToDo should get their facts right. Run n Fly (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Run n Fly i am not giving any allegation. I have just said my point view, What I investigated Nothing else. And Fences and windows as you said I am not going to do edit war. And as you said let other to comment here. So I am not going to comment. I'm letting other to comment. Bengal Boy (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This, as an allegation, is rather unusual, and should not be taken seriously. A coincidence like this is not sufficient evidence. This link-in-bio thing is not sufficient evidence. Even if Run n Fly is affiliated, this is not sufficient Semanticz0 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Aidong Zhang

    Aidongzhang (talk · contribs), who I believe to be the same person as Aidong Zhang, has initiated WP:BLPREQDEL deletion proceedings against the article, as is her right. However, after repeatedly being told not to directly edit the article and being pointed to WP:AUTOBIO, she also refuses to stop editing the article directly (diff on my talk). I believe this needs to be enforced with a targeted block (or, if that fails to work, semiprotection) but I am too WP:INVOLVED to do it myself, so I am bringing it here with that request. Will notify. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They seem to be really upset about having an article here. I asked on the article talk page what exactly the problem is. This diff was all about her emeritus status at UBuffalo; is that the reason for all this? It's quite curious.--- Possibly (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Users including have posted on her talk page eight times; yet only one has shown an iota of sympathy or given advice on dealing with her legitimate concerns about content about her on Wikipedia. We can do better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the life of me, I can't see anything on the page that would be worth getting upset about. There's nothing negative, and nothing that an interested party couldn't find out by searching the web for this subject. BD2412 T 18:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you can see anything that would upset you is imaterial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing that would reasonably upset an article subject whose profession already places the information in the public sphere. Since there is no limit to what can unreasonably upset someone, I find unreasonable responses immaterial. BD2412 T 03:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    only one has shown an iota of sympathy or given advice on dealing with her legitimate concerns about content about her on Wikipedia This is ... flatly false. DE's first post advises her on the correct venue in which to raise issues; Possibly solicited a clear indication of what information she wanted to remove; Russ Woodroofe didn't comment but immediately removed the one piece of information that was incorrect; and I copied her comment to the correct venue and tried to give some further advice. Also, her last edit was over a week ago, and both issues she raised (namely, that she was incorrectly labeled "founding editor in chief" instead of "editor in chief" of a journal, and that she didn't want her birth year to appear) were corrected before then. --JBL (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on requested

    Moved from Talk:COIN. --- Possibly (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For the last few weeks I have been trying to assist a determined Paid CoI who registered two days before a net 5,300 byte change (with a sizeable deletion of sourced prose) to an article based on a business, Manor Property Group.

    At my request, a CoI declaration was made, confirming that the business had contracted Chelgate Local, a subsidiary of Chelgate to "to ensure the factual accuracy of its Wikipedia entry", "review the current entry, fact check and correct any factual errors", and "to add new content to create a comprehensive entry and include more up to date information on the organisation and its projects."

    After considerable Talk discussion, this new editor has submitted a revised proposed change at Talk:Manor Property Group#Draft under two new subheadings. As I am the only contributor to Talk, I am requesting comments to form a consensus, and also to avoid any suggestions of WP:OWNership on my part. Until seeing this CoI contribution, I had only edited a caption, and this is my first experience of a paid contributor.

    One aspect includes the development of a free App for Android and iOS; I have no experience of such software hence unable to conclude if this constitutes WP:SPAM?

    Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rocknrollmancer: First, the edits I saw suggested under the "draft" section on that page were very promotional and I would decline them. Second, the COI editor could be using the WP:REQUESTEDIT template, which will summon lots of other users to look at the edit. Third, pay heed to WP:PAYTALK which basically says that one can waste a lot of valuable volunteer editing time talking to editors who are paid by the hour. If an editor is making easy to execute neutral edit requests, great. If they are making complex promotional requests that require unpacking to be made neutral, nothing is preventing you from clicking the watchlist button to work on another page, or getting up to make a cup of tea and checking back in three months. We are volunteers after all. --- Possibly (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there was consensus by neutral editors that the latest edit request was not justified, so have I added the proper template and closed it.--- Possibly (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ThanQ Possibly for your input. I am aware of PAYTALK and quoted it, 26 April 2021 in this diff. I also mentioned COIN 20 April. I was targeted for determined (unwarranted) attack recently by a new user, so didn't want to seem harsh in this instance. .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Maryland, Baltimore County

    This editor has solely edited the articles listed above and has not answered questions in his or her User Talk page asking if he or she has a connection. ElKevbo (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed for WP:UPE – did not respond to ElKevbo's request for disclosure on 10 March, but continued to edit these articles. UPE isn't the only possible explanation of that (incompetence/inexperience would be another), but seems the most likely. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Satyadeo Prasad Singh

    The user has the same name as the article above and even has a userpage similar to the article itself. Has stated that they "know about this person very much" and instructed others to not edit the article. [1][2][3] —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 05:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The COI here is pretty obvious, and these pages look like they belong on Myspace in the 1990s. There's only a single source, so as a start I nominated them for CSD G11. Is there any encyclopedic content there? I am hard pressed to find it.
    After that, it seems plain that this user is WP:NOTHERE and needs at least a pblock from editing Satyadeo Prasad Singh, if it still exists in 12 hours.--- Possibly (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: the user was blocked, the article rolled back to a neutral version and the userspace draft deleted. --- Possibly (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarabod99 and MoMA promotion

    User Sarabod99 is apparently an employee of MoMA' and has been adding MoMA projects and links to articles for several years. The recent addition of external links in batches (like this and this and this and this and this and this, which added a the MoMA youtube, MoMA Coursera course, MoMA magazine and MoMA calendar) isn't cool. No response on talk page; I rolled back one set of links and had it reverted by Sarabod99. They have continued to add links despite reverts and talk page messages. All that's needed here is a proper talk page disclosure, and a commitment to be a lot more sparing and judicious when adding MoMA info. Pinging @Theredproject: as they would likely be able to help. --- Possibly (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly, They may be busy. There's an edit-a-thon today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Black_Lunch_Table/MoMA_blackness_architecture_2021 Vexations (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vexations: I think it's more likely that they don't know how to use their talk page, which they have never edited in six years. --- Possibly (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, we could ping some of the other participants who do know how to use a talk page, and ask them to approach her and mention that she ought to respond, though perhaps not today. We sometimes block people to get their attention, but doing so during an event they organize would be disruptive. Vexations (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not urgent... I'm sure the external links and disclosure will get sorted out in under a week. --- Possibly (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, I sent an email over. Theredproject (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Roeber

    I strongly believe there has been undisclosed paid editing at the page Rick Roeber by the user Barefootrick. The most obvious way I know this is because of this edit summary: [4] For over a decade now [5], this user has inserted content promoting Roeber into articles, including WP:REFSPAM of links to Roeber's website into the external links section of Barefoot running: [6] Most notably, this user's recent edits were to remove content regarding a child sex abuse allegation against Roeber which recently led to him being expelled from the Missouri House of Representatives: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Please look into this and block if necessary. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @AllegedlyHuman: is Hatersandbullies the same user on Rick Roeber? --- Possibly (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not noticed that user previously, but I very much do not think they are the same, based on the negative content additions Hatersandbullies made to Cheri Toalson Reisch, another Republican, and the fact that Hatersandbullies' edits to Rick Roeber seem to be saying he wasn't a well-known runner and is, in their words, a "possible child abuser" [12], as opposed to the promotion and whitewashing Barefootrick did. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @AllegedlyHuman: Barefootrick has only made 7 edits in 14 years; at that rate it maybe a grin and bear it situation as they can be easily reverted. Or you could ask for a pBlock, seeing as the only thing they are doing here is apparently COI editing. The cited edit summary, "I don't want my age listed", does not imply paid editing, but autobiography. --- Possibly (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Barefootrick has not edited since warnings were given on their talk page in December 2020; their most recent edits were promptly reveretd. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockfarm attacking Kuwaiti BLPs and orgs

    Overview
    Users
    Articles

    This (likely UPE) sockfarm was focused on adding negative coverage (sometimes BLP violations) about certain Kuwaiti people and organizations. MarioGom (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I didn't go in-depth on all of their edits. Apparently their edits to some of the subjects are positive POV. So each article and contribution should be reviewed in context. MarioGom (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Centre for Chinese Contemporary Art

    I first came to this article to update it, as many of the sources cited in it are self-published. Whilst researching the subject, I found information that leads me to think that the primary editor of the article named above is closely related to the subject, and maybe a senior employee at the organisation. The user has no disclosed conflicts of interest, and I have raised the issue on their user talk page. The user has denied any COI. I noticed that over several years most of their edits appear to be on BLPs with a connection to the Center for Chinese Contemporary Art. The user's edits also predominantly rely on self-published sources by the subject of the article, and they have declared in the article talk pages, that they had the intention of removing information which was considered critical or negative, in favour of information from self-published sources. The article has previously and remains tagged for containing promotional material.

    I also took a look at other articles that the user has edited, as they have been a long-time editor. Other edits, for example to the article for the Institute For Education, were also predominantly to list notable members of staff. I have found information which leads me to think that when these edits were made, they were also an employee of the subject of this article. Their user page indicates that they are an archivist by profession. There is a publically available online profile that matches the educational background declared on the user page and that also details close links to the subjects of many of the other articles listed by the user as created or significantly edited - granted, it may be a coincidence but seems unlikely. I cannot share any details from this without the danger of outing. Can this be investigated? --ArchivesandLetters (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    --- Possibly What do we do if the user in question does not respond? Can we assume a COI and tag the article? I can work on addressing the issues in the article and make a note on the talk pages in case others want to help.ArchivesandLetters (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware of current COI guidance until it was flagged up by ArchivesandLetters on my user page. I have now made adjustments to my user page following guidance for Making uncontroversial edits and current advice for editors who work in the GLAM sector and cultural sector. At the time this post was made on this page I had stated that I have never been a paid advocate, but I was taking time to familiarize myself with current guidance on COI before I felt I could fully respond. I have now responded to the request on my user page and confirmed that I do have a conflict of interest & I will now stick to the guidelines mentioned above. K8tmoon (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so to sum up, after two editors asked repeatedly, and after one denial, K8tmoon admits to being based at the Centre for Chinese Contemporary Art. Not really the way to generate trust. --- Possibly (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good summary @Possibly. I must say that whilst I do support the principle that experts should contribute their knowledge and resources to Wikipedia, I cannot support a claim that editors in the GLAM sector can freely edit articles about either their employers or their own organisations. @K8tmoon's edits over the last 3 years appear to have primarily been on the article about their organisation, or associates who have previously worked there. Most edits to BLPs were simply to add the fact that they had previously worked at the Centre for Chinese Contemporary Art. There are few edits from what I can see which have contributed specialist knowledge beyond promoting the organisation. @K8tmoon if your edits are part of the work you do as a paid member of the organisation, then I think this constitutes paid editing. I see you have also removed the article from your list of significantly edited articles. ArchivesandLetters (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I realised that my previous comment may be misunderstood. All the edits I have made to Wikipedia have not been as part of the work I do as a paid member of staff of the organisations I have worked for. Therefore I believe I have never been a paid advocate as I have never received anything for my Wikipedia edits. Now being aware of current COI guidelines, I will modify my Wikipedia contributions in future. I did not deny that I work for the Centre, I only stated that I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia. I only edit Wikipedia in my spare time as a hobby.K8tmoon (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    COI found

    Hello, i have found an editor who is doing coi work. At first the editor moved the Dibyojyoti Dutta to Annwesha Hazra (see here [13]). Then he/she tried to create the page in different name and user:CommanderWaterford declined the draft (see here [[14]]). Then the editor tried the article in different name(see here [15]) and when I saw the subject was written like a CV/Advert then I tagged the article with CV and ADVERT and after checking the history of the user's talk page i added a tag COI and the user removed the tag. So I must say he/she has COI in this article Annwesha Hazra. Bengal Boy (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Mynameisparitoshmandal just deleted this post, which I am restoring now. That might say something. Why do people think that will work?--- Possibly (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bengal Boy: When finding potential COI, I would suggest first tagging the article as {{Advert}} (if applicable) and warning the user with {{uw-coi}}. That's usually a better starting point except for blatant spam or blocked sockpuppeteers. MarioGom (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom:Well, I admit that I have an interest in Annwesha Hazra because I was paid and am still being paid to make a wiki page for her. And I have also declared that in the talk page of Annwesha Hazra. (see here [16]) Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom: i had tagged as {{Advert}}, but the editor Mynameisparitoshmandal removed the tag. And when 2nd time I added the tag Mynameisparitoshmandal again removed the tag. That's is why I thought that he/she have some connection with Annwesha Hazra and I have reported it here. And now the editor himself/herself is telling that he/she is paid for this subject. As I don't support paid edit So I would request admin to take action. Bengal Boy (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TryingToDo: You might not be not supporting paid edits, but as I am paid to edit, I cannot deny them. I have disclosed everything, to the most extent that I can. (see here[17]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mynameisparitoshmandal: the disclosure looks good. There's no furhter problem with that. Please, do read carefully all relevant guides related to paid editing. You can start here: WP:PAY. There's a few things you did here, such as adding a {{pp}} template (diff), removing maintenance templates (diff), removing comments by other editors (diff) or by-passing the Articles for Creation process for a previously declined draft, that taken together with your paid status can easily get you blocked. So you really need to back off, read WP:PAY and act more carefully. MarioGom (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MarioGom: well, thank you for alerting me, actually I am a new wiki user and don't know how to lock pages, so I thought that thepp template would do the trick. And please remove the page deletion from Annwesha Hazra. I really don't think it is in advertising language. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mynameisparitoshmandal: Pages are not protected at will. Administrators will only protect pages that, for example, are under very persistent vandalism, which did not happen here at all. I cannot remove the deletion discussion, and you cannot do it either. There is a deletion discussion to determine if the article should be deleted or not: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annwesha Hazra. Please, do not try to remove it, and do not try to remove other editors' comments there. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom: First you all said that I have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and the page should be deleted. Then when I admitted it you are saying that I am promoting her. I really don't understand which way I should go.Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I put it up for AfD as the timesofindia.com "ETimes" sources are just paid garbage. I'm going to see if we can get those blacklisted perhaps, as they're blatant paid sources. Mynameisparitoshmandal, were you also involved in getting those published?--- Possibly (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly:First you all said that I have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and the page should be deleted. Then when I admitted it you are saying that I am promoting her. I really don't understand which way I should go. And who on Earth told you that Times of India publishes rubish. It is one of the best newspapers in India. And why don't you go and check other bengali Wikipedia pages!!!!! They have lots of Times of India citations. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mynameisparitoshmandal: I would suggest (again) that you read carefully both WP:PAY and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You are welcome to ask questions if you have any doubt about any of the relevant policies. You're currently not helping your case, at all. MarioGom (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarioGom: Well, I read WP:PAY, and as it says I have already disclosed long ago. What should I do now?Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mynameisparitoshmandal: Disclosure is the first step. Next is respecting other editors. The article should have gone through the Articles for creation process (as you initially did) instead of being published directly to main space. There's not much you can do at this point other than waiting patiently for the deletion discussion to be resolved. MarioGom (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Hey but their are loads of articles on Wikipedia that has citation from Times of India, then do you mean to say that all of them would be deleted?????If not then why would my page be deleted. This is really unfair, you as an Wikipedia administrator, can't do this. Thanks and RegardsMynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mynameisparitoshmandal, Don't blame me, blame the people who decided at the RfC linked. Consensus does not always work in your favour. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Well you know what, I have already told a lot of things to them. One just deleted it from the talk page. (see this [18]. And you cannot also blame me , I just created a page. One of them said that it looks like an advertisement. Now can you tell me, in Annwesha Hazra, which word in that page looks like I am advertising Annwesha. I declared that I am paid to edit about her, and now they are saying that no one in Wikipedia cannot be paid to edit. Then how can be there an option 'I am paid to edit', while creating a new page. And knowing all these things, you as an administrator, should not have supported users like (user), (user). Instead what you did was remove the television section from my article. [19]. Now please don't say that you are not guilty. As an administrator, you could have locked the discussion and could easily have taken off the delete tag from Annwesha Hazra. One user is asking me to cite from Times of India, while you are saying that it is not right. (see this [[20]])This is just not done. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found three recent drafts for the same topic under different names, and listed them at the top of this post. There are two other accounts responsible for the drafts. Started an SPI.--- Possibly (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: Well she paid many people to create a page for her. But none of them were accepted. And that has nothing to do with my page. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mynameisparitoshmandal: if the page you made gets deleted, will you be editing other topics on Wikipedia, or are you just here for Hazra?--- Possibly :(talk) 14:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    {re|Possibly}} Well, since I have created a Wikipedia account, I would also be editing other wiki pages, but I will give the pages more priority for which I am being paid. Annwesha paid me this time, so I made a page for her, and now Iam in so much trouble. When another person pays me, I would make a page for him / her. But, I would also create pages at my own will, without anyone's influence. Thank you. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gilmour (businessman)

    Hello,

    I am David Gilmour writing in concern of legally false information on the page about myself.

    I edited the page to reflect the correct information but it was reverted right away

    What information from me do you need to revert these changes as to not have misinformation spread about myself.

    David Harrison Gilmour O.F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Business Research and Development (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Business Research and Development: Hello David, please, read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. You may request changes in the talk page at Talk:David Gilmour (businessman) or at Wikipedia:Help desk. You may also email to info-en-q(at)wikimedia.org. MarioGom (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    M. Balfas

    User claims to be the article subject's "favourite child" and "the pride of his life", and keeps ignoring requests to adhere to NPOV and to cite sources for his additions to the article - which include repeated accusations against the article subject's last wife, allegedly a "jewish" "home wrecker" who "chased and trapped" the article subject, causing him to abandon the user's mother even though she was his "true love". Most recently this is also veering into WP:NLT territory [21]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI may have been a better place but no matter, I have blocked indef as NOTHERE, noting also the potential BLP violations with regards to the wife, Wendy, and the possible legal threat. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Malcomxl5.--- Possibly (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DasSoumik socks

    This is related to the above Annwesha Hazra report, which turned up about a dozen socks in two different investigations. The reporter in that thread (above) was blocked and these are the articles made by their socks See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DasSoumik for more. These may need tagging and checking. --- Possibly (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly, I can help a little. See below. Run n Fly (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The above films are released and passes WP:NFILM and film reviews at various WP:RS are available. {{UPE}} tags is sufficient.

    The above persons passes WP:NPOL and are elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) of West Bengal Legislative Assembly with adequate WP:RS. Nearly all of them are stubs and clean up requirement is negligible. No comments for remaining others. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! merged into list at top. --- Possibly (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, Misty Das ultimately now redirects to Draft:Bhojo Gobindo Run n Fly (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again! Feel free to edit list at top. --- Possibly (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    not your usual COI issue, and not for the faint of heart

    For those that may not be familiar with the term, "zoophilia" was/is commonly known as bestiality, so yes, we're talking about humans having sex with animals. My concern here is that there is an observable pattern across these articles that seems to be attempts to normalize such activities and/or to suggest they are explicitly legal in certain places, when in actuality whoever wrote the material is either interpreting the law for themselves, mis-characterizing the content of the source material, or basing it on questionable sources. One editor is asking fellow "enthusiasts" on Twitter to help them with sourcing certain claims regarding the legality of having sex with animals in Germany. I won't share the link per WP:OUTING but it's pretty obviously the same person. So, my concern is that our coverage of animal rape is being influenced by people who think raping animals is pretty great. More attention from people who don't feel that way might be helpful in bringing this content into line with Wikipedia standards. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation you have described is not a conflict of interest. Gay men and lesbians might be be motivated to edit our articles about homosexuality, history of homosexuality and LGBT rights by country or territory. No one would consider that a conflict of interest. Zetablocker (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Zetablocker blocked as NOTHERE. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's a strawman, the correct parallel would be WP:CHILDPROTECT. We don't tolerate advocacy of abuse. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bank robbers might be motivated to edit articles about bank robbery for that matter. The simple facts of the matter are that bestiality is ether explicitly illegal, or considered morally repugnant, almost everywhere, but some who have edited such content in the past have seen fit to use Wikipedia to promote a viewpoint suggesting otherwise. And done so in a manner entirely incompatible with multiple Wikipedia policies, to the extent that at least one of the articles listed above is best described as a work of fiction, in my opinion. And I think that comparisons with LGBT issues are dubious for multiple reasons, and should be avoided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a clear parallel between how LGBT people have been treated in the past and how zoophiles are treated now. It is possible to edit articles about your sexuality without having a conflict of interest. It is possible to discuss the merits of articles without insulting the people referred to by the article. Zetablocker (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Zetablocker blocked as NOTHERE. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really can't express how infuriating the "it's just like being gay" argument is, but that's another issue. I realize this is not what COIN is normally for but I don't think we have a "advocacy for illegal abusive sexual practices" noticeboard. The obvious attack sock above was kind enough to go straight to ANI though, (hence the block) so some more eyes may be on the topic because of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest editing

    Conflict of interest editing whereby the article creator had the photo on the article as their “own work” but did not disclose a COI. Furthermore they have displayed a battle ground behavior by removing relevant warning templates pertaining UPE and has thus far exhibited an WP:IDHT attitude. Furthermore the subject of the article is possibly the worst non notable article I’ve this year. The creator of the article has also been engaging in refactoring comments made by other users. As an anti-spam editor that I am, I can affirm that this is undisclosed paid editing. Celestina007 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please hold all final judgements until User:Celestina007 case is resolved at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ANI board. User:Celestina007 is currently being reported for rude behavior, threats, false accusations. Horizonlove (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you're blocked for a week. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I declare CoI from 5 years ago?

    I'd like to know how I can disclose CoI edits that I have made about 5 years ago. During my work at a former employer, Unwired Labs, I have edited the articles: GSM Cell ID and OpenCellID. I'm not aware of edits to other articles at the moment, but history might reveal some. I have not actively received any payments for my edits, apart from the monthly salary for my work at the company. However, edits to Wikipedia is not part of my job resposibilities. The article GSM Cell ID was used for promotional purposes, to the best of my knowledge during my work. I could not comment on further advancements after I parted in November 2017.

    I was not aware of the CoI requirements in the early days. As I progressed over time, I learnt more and has thus mostly refrained from editing. I might have edited, but couldn't recall. I have added {{Update}} (Special:Diff/786780889) and {{Advert}} (Special:Diff/800745380) templates to OpenCellID and {{Primary sources}} (Special:Diff/788141583) to GSM Cell ID, for which I was reprimanded. In 2020, when I knew better, I have noted the CoI in the edit summary (Special:Diff/961037277) as per policy.

    What are the next steps that I should follow? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientific contributions of Nike Dattani

    Articles

    Article of lesser concern

    Editor Dr. Universe seems to have created the page Nikesh S. Dattani sometime before 2014. It was deleted in 2014 (deletion discussion here). They recreated the page under a different name of Nike Dattani somewhat later; the different name had the effect of avoiding a swift G4. It was recently deleted (2nd deletion discussion here).

    In addition to the persistent efforts at a biography page for Dattani (with possible attempt to evade G4), the editor has added prominent mention of Dattani to a large number of pages, and has resisted attempts by other editors to remove these. The pages above all include prominent, and I believe in most cases WP:UNDUE, mention of Dattani. Indeed, it would be surprising if a scientist for whom AfD regulars saw little sign of WP:NPROF notability had contributed so substantially to 10 different problems. Diffs of particular concern is:

    There seems to be a larger pattern of adding prominent coverage of Dattani, sometimes while removing other references. Examples from Dr. Universe include Special:Diff/800349616, Special:Diff/657025573, creation and promotion of Dattani on Morse/Long-range potential, creation of page and unbalanced mention of Dattani at Robert J. LeRoy, Special:Diff/746821298, Special:Diff/617019234, likely others. IP editors have also added references to Dattani (with the appearance of promotion), including Special:Diff/921951064 and the series of diffs beginning here. Some of these may even be WP:DUE, and most of the edits are not independently so problematic; I find the pattern concerning.

    The editor disclosed, or appeared to disclose, some form of COI in the 2nd article for deletion discussion (where several editors expressed COI concerns), but the disclosure seemed to misunderstand the nature of COI on Wikipedia. I am not comfortable unilaterally adding connected contributor tags, and I'm not sure that it would help. The editor has a 10+ year history at Wikipedia, with a bit over 1000 edits in their history, some of which are helpful and positive. Edits to these pages where I have COI concerns do comprise a significant portion of their edits - already, their 48 (!!) edits at WP:Articles for deletion/Nike Dattani make up around 4% of their publicly visible edit history. This sure looks to me like a WP:DUCK with a conflict of interest.

    I am bringing this to COIN now following a particularly unhelpful discussion on my talk page. I think this needs eyes other than my own.

    I had earlier asked XOR'easter for an opinion (as a physics expert) on the Morse/Long-range potential article, which I was uncertain justified a standalone article. I will also leave a note at Wikiproject physics, as some expertise may be helpful in untangling the situation. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Russ Woodroofe: Well spotted. scope_creepTalk 11:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject of the discussion replying here:
    • Even though I've had an account for 13 years, this concept of a "noticeboard" is very new to me, as is much of the terminology being used here. I find this extremely overwhelming.
    • The top says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." Russ only replied to me once on his talk page, and did not reply to my response to that reply. Even though it looks like my response was much longer, Russ had done a few other things in between which I found to be very harmful, so I wanted to address those things too. I would very much appreciate if we can try to resolve this on a talk page first.
    • Russ has accused me of re-creating an article "with possible attempt to evade G4", but that is extremely deceiving, and Russ knows that because in the recent AfD discussion, an admin already investigated the difference between the 2014 article and the 2018 one, and determined that they were substantially different. Russ said the second article was created "somewhat later" even though it was 4 years later and was a totally different article (as an admin already determined). Russ was thorough when it worked against me, but vague by saying "somewhat later" when it could make it look like I violated some rule about G4 (which I'd never heard of before, by the way!).
    • There has been no basis given for the claim of WP:UNDUE mentions (though I just learned that term recently from Russ, and I still have to read up on it), and it seems like Russ Woodroofe taking revenge against me for suggesting that he made undue mentions of Michael Woodroofe (an article created by Russ Woodroofe).
    • "Partial reversion of content-removal by AfD closer at Timeline of quantum computing and communication" is I think an unfair characterization of what happened. The AfD closer removed the "[[ ]]" around all mentions of the deleted article so that the text would appear in ordinary black rather than a red hyperlink, but on only one out of 14 articles that she did this, she removed more than just the hyperlink and removed substantially more. I thought this was a mistake because it was only done in 1/14 articles, and it wasn't even done properly (the first part of a sentence was removed, but the part containing the reference was not, so the article looked bizarre with a lone reference floating around). Furthermore, "quantum computing" is not a topic for which the admin was an expert, so removing an entire entry from "Timeline for Quantum Computing" seemed to be an "overly" bold move, especially since they only removed "[[ ]]" from the other 13 articles (not removal of the entire sentence). When Russ reverted my reversion, I left it at that, and didn't touch it anymore, even though I did think the removal of an entire entry from the timeline was a bit extreme.
    • It's true that in 2018 I added to the Hierarchical Equations of Motion article, mention of the person I wrote a biography (which also by the way was in 2018). But that article has changed a lot since then, and I'm happy with the article remaining as it is with minimal mentioning of the person I wrote the biography about. I think the last thing I did was change "Wilkins" to "Wilkins and Dattani" because the citation was to a 2-author paper published in Journal of Computational and Theoretical Chemistry.
    • I don't see why I'm being called a "DUCK" and why it's such a big deal that 4% of my edit history has been on one AfD discussion, because it was my first AfD discussion ever (except for the one in 2014 for which I only made one small edit and clearly didn't know how AfD worked) because it was the first time an article that I created went to AfD (I had some other articles deleted almost instantly in the past, but this one was exceptional because it was nominated for AfD after being up for almost 3 years, and person who nominated it was a single-purpose-account which appeared to be part of a sockpuppet and became part of this sock puppet investigation). Many of those edits (leading to 4% of my total edits being on the AfD) were because I was trying to raise attention to the sockpuppet-like behaviour, and I didn't know that an investigation could be opened like the admin did.
    • The article for Robert J LeRoy was made by someone else.
    • The list of articles given here by Russ is a bit deceiving. For example, I've never made any edits to the "Pseudo-Boolean Optimization" article, even though Russ's comment in the AfD discussion incorrectly accused me of doing so. Russ has also removed a citation (to the person who's biography I wrote) in that page with an edit summary saying "non-reliable source" with no justification for why it's an unreliable source.
    • Russ has also removed an entire example (having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion: Nike Dattani) from this Wikipedia article without any discussion on any talk page, despite admitting on XOR'easter's talk page that he's not familiar with the article's topic. When I mentioned that deleting this paragraph was destructive to the overall project, he didn't reply but instead created this Noticeboard discussion.
    • I would very much like to try to resolve this with Russ on a talk page first, before getting a long list of accusations against me made here. It would be appreciated if we could do that! Dr. Universe (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Universe: very few editors have time to read the walls of text that you have pasted here and on Russ Woodroofe's talk page. Could you just answer in a sentence or two (not five paragraphs) whether you know Nikesh S. Dattani, you worked for them or are connected to them in some way?--- Possibly (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: if someone says "I think you are connected to XYZ" and you reply with 870 words that do not include "no, I am not connected", then it's a pretty good reason to bring things here, as you seem to be obfuscating the issue.--- Possibly (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: Please be a bit more gentle with me. Russ has been "hounding" me for over a week and it's been bothering me a lot. I didn't know the procedure for noticeboards since this is my first experience on one. I was never trying to obfuscate anything, I was just trying to reply to Russ's initial post because a lot of it is deceiving (for example an admin already determined there was no G4 violation, and Russ already knew that, and the article was written 4 years after the previous one was deleted, so why is he trying to insinuate that I was "trying to evade G4"?). I do not know the subject personally, nor have I worked for them. Russ said that I "disclosed a COI" but that's a bit deceiving too: I said "As the article's author I have a COI" in an AfD discussion about an article that I wrote (meaning I was biased towards !voting for "keep", but that doesn't mean I have a COI with the subject of the article). I became interested in the subject due to being a fan of his academic supervisor Robert J LeRoy (who's article was written by someone else, I only added to it). There was a profile about LeRoy mentioned in my Grade 11 chemistry textbook (the same textbook for all students in Ontario). Also he never said "I think you're connected to XYZ" he said he had concerns about COI which I thought I addressed in my first sentence of the reply on his Talk page. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Universe: OK thanks for that. I will take that as a statement that you have no conflict on these articles. In future a statement like "I am entirely independent of the subject of this article, and have no conflict of interest" is really all you need to say.--- Possibly (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: I appreciate that a lot. I still have to read the articles about COI and I thought I had a COI at least for the AfD discussion because I was the article's creator (I spent a lot of time on that article), but that's different from having a COI with the actual subject itself. I would really have appreciated if this could have been sorted out in a talk page rather than opening up a 14-day investigation about me right after a 7-day AfD discussion on an article I created. I'm always willing to talk. My comments on Russ's talk page were indeed long, but there was a lot of things going on and a lot of accusations thrown around against me in several different pages, and large pieces of the articles I contributed to were being removed for no apparent reason (even a paragraph that had nothing to do with the subject of this COI discussion). Dr. Universe (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Universe: This discussion stays open until it is closed by a bot, which happens automatically. The discussion here is about COI only, so be aware that you may still find your edits related to Nikesh S. Dattani challenged within articles. Have a good evening.--- Possibly (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm confused by the bulleted list of grievances on the HEOM talk page that is started by an IP from U Waterloo (a place Dattani is/was employed) and continued by Dr. Universe and a second IP (from the greater Toronto area, who had also added references of Dattani to the pseudo-Boolean function) in exactly the same format. There's also this bizarre invisible text at the bottom of this comment:
    <!--- I was at the dinner table which was seated by: Tanimura, Dattani, Coker, Mukamel, Petrucionne, and whoever else (I'll have to look at the photograph) the night before Dattani's talk. When Mukamel asked Dattani ---> That snippet, plus the familiarity with Dattani expressed earlier in the same diff (Tanimura was in the audience (actually he had a flight to catch and stayed just to see Dattani finish his talk and then he waved goodbye to him and left immediately after)., make me very skeptical Dr. Universe doesn't personally know Dattani. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Universe... why did you write that you were at dinner with him at the same table (diff above) and then today write that you "do not know the subject personally"? Do you know him professionally?--- Possibly (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: That quote sounds like it was about a conference dinner the night before a conference talk, but I don't remember writing it nor why it was left commented out like that. You said this section stays open until it's closed by a bot, but can Russ not withdraw?
    @JoelleJay: You accused me of WP:HOUNDING for writing just 2 comments on your talk page which were meant to be friendly, and for writing an 8-word reply to you in another AfD, and you COINcidentally find this COIN page and dig up that level of detail on my edits? Anyway there's a lot of U Waterloo IP addresses in the picture, remember I also told you that there was a U Waterloo IP address from "Lila's macbook pro" that made an edit that just removed Lila Kari's name from the article about Dattani. I too have used University of Waterloo computers in the past, though not for a very long time. Anyway that HEOM article is one that admins looked at in the past, for reasons including the fact that an account with username User:NikeDattani came up and removed 2 references to Dattani's papers: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hierarchical_equations_of_motion&diff=921150731&oldid=921105082. If you're worried about me or someone else having added Dattani's name there improperly, I've removed a whole section about him from that article just now: I'd like to move away from that article as quickly as possible, and have also notified admins about striking out some edits. Apart from that article, I think the other ones listed here have a benign edit history. I've had a bad experience with back-and-forth with you (Joelle) in the past, and I would really prefer not to go through that again. To allow myself to be freed at last from all the scrutiny I've been getting lately, I may just remove mentions of Dattani across all pages where I added it, and if it really should have been there, someone else may add it later. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Universe: again, you fail to give a straight answer to "do you know him professionally". I'm going to leave this discussion now, as it's really frustrating to get a straight answer, But I do now think Dr. Universe has a conflict they are not clearly disclosing.--- Possibly (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: I don't know him professionally but I'm a subject-matter-expert in a niche field of science. All articles Russ listed had to do with physics or some type of maths that is related to quantum information. I didn't add anything to the Wikipedia articles about Dattani's other work in bioinformatics. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Universe, I don't find your answers credible as you have given contradictiry answers too many times, but thanks for replying.--- Possibly (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "contradictory answers too many times" ? I've been asked 2 questions which were both yes/no. If you think my answer to the second one was contradictory, then you shouldn't have asked it since you already knew the answer! I have not given one contradictory answer. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To address your comments, in order:
    • Re: HOUNDING me:
    Extended content

    Your comments on my talk page were in the midst of our AfD dispute; along with being completely unsolicited and unnecessary, I took them as a not-so-subtle accusation of misrepresenting myself and a "warning" that you had scoured my user page (and in particular my personally identifying information). The Wagner AfD comment came not long after this, and your single comment in the Methi AfD was a condescending admonishment not to badger. You've also made multiple comments referencing my participation in previous AfDs; these things together gave me the strong impression you'd been combing through my contribs specifically for things to harass me over. After I brought up the HOUNDING, you revisited my TP to contest someone else's note of appreciation for me (and I now see you've complained about me multiple times on that user's talk page), resurrected a 1.5 month-old WP TP thread I and another Dattani !voter were heavily involved in, and found your way to a discussion on a different WP TP I was in very soon after I made my first comment there.

    • I have the physics wikiproject watchlisted and saw the COIN notice there.
    • The HEOM page was linked above, so I read the talk page and noticed the IPs, and in the process of collecting the diff where you discuss the 2014 conference (indicating at least professional familiarity with Dattani) I noticed the invisible comment.
    • The existence of some group of COIs and sock/meatpuppets advancing a negative agenda re: Dattani doesn't excuse doing the opposite. Off-wiki academic rivalries, or whatever all that is, should not be brought onto wikipedia.
    • Please, for the time being do not add or remove references/content relevant to this discussion. These should be addressed by completely uninvolved editors (if at all) while the COIN thread is open. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your accusation of me HOUNDING was completely extraordinary. How on Earth does this edit have anything to do with you, other than the fact that you participated earlier in the conversation? I voted "keep per others". I participated in dozens of AfDs in the last 2 weeks. It had nothing to do with you. On your talk page it was meant to be a friendly gesture followed by an attempt to call a truce on the AfD we were in. You're mentioning several AfDs but you accused me of HOUNDING when I'd only replied to you in one, and it was well before I even knew what HOUNDING was let alone that it should be avoided. I am a far more inexperienced user than you and I would appreciate if you would not be so aggressive towards me. You have personally attacked me too many times, for example with the words "absurd", "baseless", "extreme", and "Christ" and I have told you many times that I don't want something like that to happen again. Now you show up at a discussion about me and accuse me of knowing a subject personally based on 2 IP addresses 112 km away from each other and you didn't mention that there was 22 other IP addresses involved in that discussion until now. You also made destructive edits on some of the above articles, for example when you said "It is indisputable that the MLR was introduced in the 2007 paper" when there was a June 2006 paper introducing the same MLR, meaning that it's not "indisputable". Can we call a truce and stop interacting with each other on discussions/articles including this one (I can also go to the extreme of not participating in any AfD where you have written a vote, if you would like that, since you've accused me of HOUNDING after I replied to you in one AfD and wrote a comment independent of you in another AfD that you happened to comment on much earlier)? Dr. Universe (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    off-topic (response re: HOUNDING)
    HOUNDING does not have to involve specific interaction with the other editor. Look at it from my perspective: you suddenly show up at an AfD (on a 1950s Norwegian speed skater -- so nothing to do with physics or academia) I previously commented in, after having repeatedly brought up my participation in AfDs, just to chastise me. I now see this was your first-ever AfD comment (outside Dattani), which makes it an even clearer case of HOUNDING. The next edit I see is a veiled accusation on my talk page (I am well within my right to assume bad faith with that), and not long after you leave an opposing !vote on another sports AfD I was involved in. That you !voted in AfDs between the two (and made two NACs, under 24 hours after your first !vote -- you should not be closing even unambiguous discussions with so little experience, and especially not supervoting on contentious ones or closing AfDs you're involved in!) is immaterial to what it looked like to me at the time I brought it up, and anyway your subsequent behavior has only served to reinforce my assertion.
    off-topic (response re: "destructive edits")
    Your example of my "destructive editing" is my talk page comment stating it was indisputable the MLR was introduced in a 2007 paper. I addressed this in my next comment:

    The 2006 paper by Le Roy, Huang, and Jary does namedrop their new Morse/long-range potential form, but its reference is to the then-unpublished 2007 paper where it is actually introduced ("The present work presents a new potential energy function model, what we call the ‘Morse/Long-Range’ or MLR function").

    No, the destructive edit was on the main page, not the talk page. Your quote in green does not show that it's "indisputable" that MLR was introduced in 2007 because it was published in June 2006 and the 2007 paper that you're referring to had 2 authors, one which started working on the project in May 2006 (see the talk page). Dr. Universe (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The many other IPs and accounts making apparently anti-Dattani edits are being dealt with in the relevant SPI. It is, in fact, extremely relevant that there were U of Waterloo IPs making pro-Dattani edits and listing grievances alongside and in support of you/each other. How are we supposed to believe your claims of professional and personal independence from Dattani when you a) have discussed very specific events you both attended, including a pre-conference dinner where you were photographed together; and b) have admitted to "using U of Waterloo computers". You're a subject-matter-expert in the same niche field as Dattani, can attest to the specific roles each author played on a paper he was on, familiar enough with his research to dig up unindexed source code for a program released by Le Roy that happens to acknowledge him in a comment, and apparently even worked at the same university as Dattani, and yet you don't know him personally or professionally? JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mentioned one U of Waterloo IP and now you're saying "IPs" in plural.
    • I wrote here already that I don't know where that quote in 2019 about what seemed to be a pre-conference dinner, came from: It was commented out, and the sentence was cut-off suddenly without finishing. Please let's stick to evidence that wasn't commented out or incomplete. I really don't know what was going on there 2 years ago in the middle of that contentious discussion with 22 anti-Dattani accounts/IPs.
    • Me using U of Waterloo computers is something I wrote today here in this discussion, in the spirit of being open, not for you to use it against me: The university has about 60,000 members at any given time and probably millions of alumni and members of the public using their computers.
    • I never "attested" to specific roles each other played on a paper he was on: I went by the "author contributions" (which was brought up by you!) listing in the paper.
    • I told you in the AfD discussion how I found the source code, and you also managed to dig up some extremely specific information about him in that same discussion.
    • I'm not sure where it was said that I "worked at the same university as Dattani".
    • This is the last time I'll say it: I would like you to stop interacting with me on AfD and noticeboards since I have told you so many times to stop badgering me and sealioning me and I can no longer take the level of harassment. If "uninvolved" editors have concerns, they can chime in so you don't need to worry. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request I can no longer take the WP:Badgering and Sealioning from JoelleJay which has been going on for about 2 weeks, not just here but also in AfD. I have asked that user to stop badgering me over and over and over and over again with no success. I'd like this discussion to get closed early. If you want to make the consensus that I have a COI, then fine. You're free to monitor the pages listed in this article and my user contributions and perhaps even open a COIN against me in the future, but I'd like the peace of mind of having this closed no matter the outcome. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Unrelated question

    Pasted from the top of COIN, where it was mistakenly posted.--- Possibly (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC) @Possibly: Do you know why this is still up after 14 days? You said that a bot will archive it after 14 days? Dr. Universe (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dr. Universe: I believe Possibly probably meant 14 days from the time the last post was made, not from the time the discussion was started. The last post prior to yours seems to have been made on May 24, and 14 days hasn't passed since that day. Now, unfortunately, it appears that your post (and subsequently this response made by me) has probably reset the clock, which means that the thread will be archived 14 days from today as long as nobody posts anything further. There's really no rush to archive discussions; most of the time they just end naturally when people stop posting and thus will eventually be archived at some point (if automatic archiving has been set up). If they're not archived exactly after 14 days have passed, then it's not really a big deal; moreover, if the thread is formally closed before 14 days have passed, then it might even be archived a little sooner (which again isn't a big deal). -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Universe: Marchjuly's answer above is excellent. At my talk page you asked a similar question about how COIN works. As Marchjuly says, this will be archived a while after the last post to the thread. In general I think COIN is effective at getting at the core of COI issues as many people contribute their views. Your message on mytalk page sounded like this discussion is overwhelming for you. If that's the case, don't participate, unwatch the page and do something else for a few days. --- Possibly (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:James Dunn

    The submitting account appears to be in violation of the terms that they agreed to for an unblock about 24 hours ago. They were blocked for a promotional name, and were then unblocked by User:jpgordon for a rename, in which they said, "Confirm that it will not be used to promote any subject on Wikipedia or link to any website which we have an outside connection with." They have now submitted Draft:James Dunn, which I disambiguated to Draft:James Dunn (businessman). Maybe they aren't in violation, because the draft isn't about a business but about its late founder. If they are technically in compliance, they should nonetheless make a declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a misunderstanding. They did put a WP:PAID disclosure on their user page referring to this businessperson, so they're at least not trying to be deceptive about it. They probably don't view the draft as an effort to promote the individual they wrote about, seeing how they recently died. WP:NOTMEMORIAL might apply. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: The article is not to promote the business in any way, it is simply to state the biography of the late business founder.Jennajrdunn (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jennajrdunn: there was a lot of promotion in your draft (a half dozen watch brands were mentioned, including two comapnies related to your family and the jrdunn.com web URL) but I have removed that from your draft. You seem to have deleted Ivanvector's comment above, but I have restored it.--- Possibly (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: My apologies, thank you for correcting the comment. No problem about removing those, the draft is great with your revision. I did ensure to place the disclosure on my user page prior to this draft. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. The intent is not to promote the business. Thank you.Jennajrdunn (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jennajrdunn: others might have comments to add, but I think you are OK there. Sorry for your loss. --- Possibly (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bảo Đại

    Single-purpose account seems to be self inserting themselves into this article. After wack-a-moleing unreferenced edits they have provided a new edit which references a book written by the user in question. I am not sure if this is vandalism or a conflict of interest. However they clearly seem to be the self proclaimed "pretender to the throne" that they keep editing into the article without any third party sources. Spongie555 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1026594884"