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 Marketingcats (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 19 October 2022 (→‎North Dakota State College of Science: Reply). 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
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:British Gas
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Comcast
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson
    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:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:Monero
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:David E. I. Pyott
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Sartorius AG
    Talk:ShareFile
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Thomas Albert Work
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability

    User:Ovedc

    Those two, as well as other articles. The pattern of editing suggests that the user, who have had a run in for undisclosed paid editing seems to be under the impression that as long as they disclose they're paid, they're free to make promotional puffery and mold the articles to be more favorable to the clients than encyclopedic. Inclusive of, but not limited to this edit. I've reviewed many of their edits and I am seeing a clear conflict between encyclopedic goals vs doing advocacy editing in the best interest of their clients. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, but this only half of the problem. The other half is: he submit drafts and at least 70 percent of them don't approved and he submit PR stuff again and again, and the reviewrs need to work hard to check them, User:Ovedc exhaust the volunteers trying to check his drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FC:B2D2:0:0:B37:3CCD (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this edit very questionable where the COI/U tagged the code to make the contents they do not like invisible from public view. Graywalls (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who has dealt with Ovedc in the past, I find their tenacious paid editing & shoehorning of non-notable subjects into the mainspace disruptive. Would love to get some fresh eyes on their edits. -FASTILY 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The earlier articles seem a bit puffy but the later ones aren't. The newer article are tend to be eminent doctors and they are all notable with little puff. It might have been taken out, right enough. The last artist articles are notable and fine. The editor seems to be improving over time, with less promo content. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Konstantinos V. Petrides

    OscarKoryagin created both these articles, which respectively are about an academic and an idea concieved by this academic, with almost all of their edits relating to them. The article on the academic was created nearly four years ago in November 2018, with intermittent editing since by Koryagin, while the second article was created today. They appear to have a close association with Konstantinos per a 2018 edit in which they said By the request of Konstantinos I've added a "See also" section, as well as "External Links" section. Their editing around the subject and the idea look to be heavily promotional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse your interpretation of this as a conflict of interest, those articles look purely promotional and should probably be WP:G11'd once OscarKoryagin is blocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added 213.182.55.105 because they match the pattern at Konstantinos V. Petrides and use of "we" in edit summaries as in "We have checked..."[1] and "... we cannot find..."[2] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks y'all. See also the activity today of IP 2.96.64.65, which appears to be OscarKoryagin editing while logged out. I've added them to the above list. Generalrelative (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the suggestion that these pages be deleted as spam. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I G11'd the "Konstantinos V. Petrides" and its now gone. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Travis Banks

    Unsourced crosswiki edits, specifically, this wrestler’s career in Mexico and nothing else in both eswiki and enwiki. Also, several uploads to Commons.MexTDT (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr


    Persistent edit warring via multiple accounts to include promotional content, with copyright issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yip, both seem to be edit warring in concert, to protect the "Reputation" section of the article and enforce a promotional viewpoint which breaks WP:NPOV. Also acting in concert to promote their client list and clients. Both of them removed the "Advert" maintenance template which ethically they had no right to touch as its a brochure article. scope_creepTalk 14:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what it is about law firms and thinking they don't have to follow the rules but they're near the top of the list of industries that meddle in their own pages on wikipedia. I get the feeling that out "COI with extended legal warning" serves the opposite purpose of dissuading them because they generally get bolder after being shown it... Perhaps our "extended legal warning" is better at producing laughter than compliance. Added other likely COI users. Note that some early ones actually admitted to being "WH Public Relations" like 72.165.200.210 [3][4] and 64.125.175.43[5] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C has put it under protection, so that should put a stop to most of it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Kent Steffes

    User says they are the subject of the article here. Says they have been editing the article for "decades" and that their friends sometimes make joke edits to the page. Tacyarg (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was a Professional Beach Volleyball player in the 1990's. The sport is very niche and has few followers. Since at least 2008 I have made the majority of the major edits to the page which is about me. I understand the COI and believe I am operating within its guidelines. My previous username was Elstuf and I made edits under that username. I do not remember why or when I changed usernames but now it is Kentsteffes which is the same as the Wikipedia page. Anyone can see that the edits I make are from my username. Because the sport is so niche, I believe that I add value to the page by providing updates for example I was recently (2020) inducted into the USA Volleyball Hall of Fame as the All-Time Great Male Beach Volleyball Player and have provided a source from USA Volleyball. USA Volleyball is a very legitimate source as they are the Sport's National Governing Body operating under the auspices of the United States Olympic Committee. Other sources I have provided are from one of the premier online Beach Volleyball coaching resources in the sport as well as Sandcast the sport's most popular podcast which is affiliated with volleyballmag.com the sport largest US online magazine that covers the sport of beach volleyball. Another update I provided for the page is that I have recently published a book on the history of the sport with co-author Travis Mewhirter a noted sport's writer, journalist and professional beach volleyball player. I believe these and my other edits add value. Any possible editor of this page would need to not only be current in the sport of beach volleyball but up to date on its history as well. It is true that my friends occasionally add "joke" to this page but usually subsequently remove them. I have no control over these "joke" edits. Kentsteffes (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What possible benefit is there to a reader by repeatedly inputting the names and birth details of your children?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None, except if they're actually notable, which they probably aren't. Closest thing I got to a softball player whose name I will not say, in a Google search reveals no Wikipedia Reference result relating to the softball player herself. One of the first results on the second page is the Kent Steffes Wikipedia article. As for Kent, he is notable to an extent. DizzyTheMan (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my comment broke and published itself. Lol. DizzyTheMan (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The names and ages of the children have been on the Wikipedia page for years. Why were they removed only recently? Was there a change in policy? If people believe there is no benefit to the readers than I am fine with removing all mention of them although my daughter is a notable softball player at her High School and in our community but maybe not notable enough as I am not sure what is the standard. Kentsteffes (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no change AFAIK - it's just that some things jump out to some unconnected editors, whereas others will let it slide. You have reverted a deletion to promote your children - one editor cited WP:BLPNAME in the edit summary, and requested you to not do it again, so it was deliberate. Putting it another way, often, well-meaning members of the public rush-in to take newspaper article content (or more recently 'new' media online) to swell the Wikipedia content. We had one young lady (14 years old) putting herself into her dad's article (a TV presenter) with social media content including contact details at her user page that had to be removed (no trace remaining) by an administrator. Another recent episode was a professional media person "It’s now my main responsibility to manage the *** C****** Group’s social media accounts..., instagram, facebook, twitter, tiktok, linkedin" (from Linked In) trying to make changes to the Wikipedia article; that's the sort of thing regular editors have to watch for. Letting it slide can encourage others into thinking Wikipedia is another form of social media.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the child's name again. DizzyTheMan (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of you who are following this thread, he's now editing again on his page. DizzyTheMan (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rocknrollmancer: Just curious; what are the cases you are referring to? 49.144.200.165 (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have avoided details for good privacy reasons, but here is an example of a Single-purpose account adding details to a WP:BLP that should not be in an encyclopedia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Account is blocked now due to WP:IMPERSONATE concerns. If this person truly is who he claims to be, he can provide verification and be unblocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Account now unblocked because the user was verified to be the real-life Kent Steffes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Middle East International

    Thus is not a standard COI notification. In fa ct, I'm not sure that the user has a COI. However, I'm at a loss on how to handle this and perhaps somebody here can give me some advice. The issue is a draft for a defunct magazine (Draft:Middle East International). The editor who created this clearly has put a lot of effort into this, but the draft has been rejected by two different editors. The problem is as follows (and I assume that the COI is the defense of the draft): Apparently in an effort to show the importance of this magazine for WP, the editor has been "seeding" numerous articles with references to the magazine (see Draft talk:Middle East International#Do we have a problem). Whether those citations are pertinent/warranted is mostly beyond me, as I don't generally work in this area. Advice welcome! --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Randykitty, it is actually the other way round. I have a collection of Middle East International that my father subscribed to and I think they have pertinent information about places and events in Lebanon. Once I had started I thought some readers might want more information about my references. Hence the article now held in Draft. It has been an interesting six months and I don’t envy editors making the decisions on some of the oddities that turn up. I honestly think that my article is useful. I will continue using MEI as a reference until I am told to stop. So far none have been disputed or deleted. All the best. Padres Hana (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having edited with Padres Hana for years, I have no doubth that he is telling the truth, and that he has no COI wrt Middle East International. Padres Hana has made countless very good additions to the history of Lebanese villages/places, sourced to Middle East International, a work I hope he will continue doing, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kspoty

    Kspoty has mostly edited on Wikipedia to improve references and add short descriptions to articles of businesses and businesspeople. However, they recently created their first article, which is on a businessman by the name of Nick Wolny. I encountered the article during New Page Review and found the notability to be borderline, so I started digging into the sources on the page and looking online to see if this should be straight-up AfD'd. When looking through the sources added by Kspoty to the page in this edit, I noticed that they included five references to YouTube videos that were uploaded by Wolny ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Ordinarily this isn't a terrible red flag, but they are all unlisted at this moment and appear to all have been unlisted at the time of their insertion into the article (see: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]), which indicates that Wolny (or whoever runs the YouTube account in his name) would have to have revealed the url to whoever actually found it and then inserted it into the page. Moreover, one of the videos had a mere 1 view at the time it was cited in the article, which is strong evidence that the editor has a close connection with Wolny.

    I'm leaving this here because this appears to be obvious undisclosed COI editing in light of the YouTube links that the editor inserted into the article, but also because if they are engaging in COI editing about a businessperson then the remainder of their edits about businesses and businesspeople might need a check. One of the sources cited in the article on Wolny and inserted by Kspoty was a link to a podcast put on by marketing/ad strategy firm BigEye , so I have a concern regarding potential UPE extending into short descriptions and the like. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I got your message on my talk page and I have already responded regarding this on the article's talk page[16]. If you think the person is not notable then why you didn't nominate it for AfD? Every reference I used are available on Google search including his website where you can see his press and youtube links which have been there since 2020 as I could find using web archive[17]. If you click on those videos, you land on the youtube page. You don't have to search on youtube for these. And if I have any connection with him then I wouldn't be using this link[18] by a marketing/ad strategy firm. You could have simply flagged the link or send the article to AfD instead of moving my all work in draft-space. Anyway, I am going to submit the draft but if you have to add anything, please do so on the article's talk page, not on top of the article. Kspoty (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    userWay

    I am suspicious in this case because, having nominated the article for deletion, these SPA editors have appeared to defend it, which constitutes each of their only substantial activity in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    OfficialHSAKSA

    Hassa bint Salman Al Saud, a daughter of the Saudi king, and a sister of Saudi-Arabias "strong-man" Mohammed bin Salman; is, AFAIK, most famous for ordering the beating of a workman on her estate in Paris, an incident covered by CNN [19] [20], The Guardian [21], BBC [22], The New York Times [23], CBS [24], etc, etc. Recently, the article about her has been given a re-write, with headlines like: "Princess Hussa's contributions to the advancement of Saudi Arabia and its people",

    Worst of all, her conviction in a Paris court has been re-written as: "Princess Hussa bint Salman Al Saud, as head of the household at the time, was found accountable for not preventing an assistant from engaging in an altercation..." She was in fact found guilty of ordering the beating.

    The account behind most of this rewriting seem to be User:OfficialHSAKSA, comments? Huldra (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Verdis

    MicroSupporter, whom created the above article, has almost exclusively made significant edits regarding Verdis across multiple Wikimedia projects. MicroSupporter made a few gnome edits between June and July, but in August requested that Verdis and Free Republic of Verdis be unprotected. They added WikiProjects to the redirect Verdis (micronation) on 7 September, and added a wikilink to the Spanish entry about Verdis (which they created) to template:Micronations on 26 September. They are also very active on the current AfD for Verdis started on 11 October (which is the second time the article has been nominated).

    On Spanish Wikipedia, MicroSupporter created Verdis and Daniel Jackson (político) (the "leader" of Verdis) in September, has somewhat frequently edited Verdis on Wikidata since August, and created the Wikidata item Daniel Jackson in September. Additionally, all four of their uploads to Commons relate to Verdis (granted these are in fact sourced, to verdisgov.org). Their only other article creation is Carolyn Shelby, another micronationalist, which was created on 8 October. Perhaps this was created so that they would not look affiliated with Verdis?

    I felt the need to leave this here as Verdis was repeatedly recreated and edit warred in the past by IPs and sockpuppet accounts of SwedenAviator clearly associated with Verdis; see the first AfD for Verdis (December 2020) and AfD for the Free Republic of Verdis (July 2019). I do not know if MicroSupporter is SwedenAviator, but they are likely to be associated with Verdis or even know Daniel Jackson personally at least. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made edits to many micronations. Look at my contributions. I do have an interest in Verdis as I have found it to be the most 'serious'. I have also frequently made edits to articles surrounding Asgardia, Austenasia, etc. I am not that Verdis micronations President or even a citizen - I don't see a point in paying a fee for citizenship from a 'country' that will never be recognised. I do find it quite inspiring and satisfyingly interesting though. If it ever does seem to stand a chance, I will probably apply i dont know. i think they should just declare themselves an organisation like Flandrensis judging from their PoV on things. I recently made a list on wikiproject micronations on the articles i am drafting on adding to wikipedia soon. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of imaginary 'nations'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if they are imaginary. There are plenty of micronations and tongue-in-cheek countries on Wikipedia (Conch Republic for example). Doesn't matter if you think they are real or not, what matters is if they are considered notable enough to be on Wikipedia. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Neutral point of view matters. Articles presenting imaginary nations with populations of zero as having 'governments' etc violate this policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With that POV, you're saying every micronation on Wikipedia needs to be deleted. You do understand that a micronation is an imaginary nation, right? Most, if not all are fantasy. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Micronations are not in any way a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about replying to what I actually wrote, rather than something you imagine I meant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think the articles of micronations on Wikipedia are neutral enough, no one is stopping you from editing them up. You have already argued this with other people on Liberland's deletion page, who have also said micronations are not a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Personal opinion is different to notability. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not a response to what I actually wrote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a very clear response to exactly what you wrote. Can't say it clear enough. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Khowar Academy, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali

    Isn't Rehmat Aziz Chitrali and Khowar Academy notable enough to have its own article? Previous nominations for the deletion of the article have succeeded when sockpuppets and so-called "hoaxs" were made, but I believe these two topics are notable enough Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Scriptural reasoning

    Thelongview relative to WP:COI, states - "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Furthermore states, "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content". In accordance with policy, please would you disclose to administrators any apparent WP:COI relative to your editing pattern of the following inter-connected Wikipedia articles which are shown in your editing history, such as (for example) by reason of possible WP:COI due to possible current or prior employment/financial relationships, academic or work collegial/friends and other relationships. The relevant Wikipedia articles are: Scriptural reasoning, David F. Ford including your edits pertaining to him in other articles such as Scriptural reasoning to which he is publicly and financially connected, Oliver O'Donovan, New College, Edinburgh, CIP "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" edit which organization is also publicly and financially connected to Scriptural reasoning, Tony Blair Faith Foundation your edit relative to "Abraham House" and the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme". In the light of recent vandalism of the article within the last 24 hours by a new single edit/single use user account, in a rather similar editing pattern and style, it may be appropriate also to clearly confirm in writing non-connection in any way to this user Hands Frei.

    As per WP policy, this message also posted on the user's own page for information.

    Havruta (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Havruta: It is very unclear what the problem is - Thelongview has only made two edits in the last year and you've provided no evidence that they have a COI in relation to these articles. SmartSE (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    @SmartSE: Thanks for getting back to me, and I appreciate your time. The message was in the first instance addressed to Thelongview to himself (and as per WP policy also referenced on his user talk page) should he choose to disclose to admins any WP:COI issues in relation to his editing of the above Wikipedia articles which I have listed, some of which pertain to contentious issues, where editing by someone with an employed or remunerative or collegial/boss/friend connection to the article subject matter would be problematic and discouraged as per WP:COI. The context is that the subject area relating to for example, the article Scriptural reasoning is contentious and controversial with high quality reliable sources WP:RS on different sides of the argument. There is a body of criticism of Scriptural Reasoning published by academics from different faiths (Christian, Muslim, etc) and educational institutions. Unfortunately, those involved in promotion or advertising of Scriptural Reasoning for funding, financial, career advancement and other gain have previously been involved also in promoting it through editing of the Wikipedia article on Scriptural reasoning vis à vis WP:PROMOTION. There has also occurred removal of reliably-sourced published criticism of Scriptural Reasoning contrary to WP:NPOV. The user Thelongview previously removed reliably sourced academic criticism of Scriptural Reasoning and recently there has been disruptive editing by a brand newly created user and single purpose account Hands Frei following strikingly the same pattern and style. I will address this matter of disruptive editing elsewhere with admins, since WP:NPOV means that there be neutral reliably sourced academic criticism of Scriptural Reasoning alongside all the much more extensive material in the article which appears to promote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havruta (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thelongview removed one paragraph of criticism by Al-Hussaini. Whether the paragraph merits inclusion in the article or whether it is WP:UNDUE is a content dispute. I do not see any evidence of COI or PROMOTION. --SVTCobra 16:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Louis Barry Rosenberg

    About a year ago I made a COI report on Louis B. Rosenberg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Louis_B._Rosenberg_%26_Zoe_Rosenberg_%26_Unanimous_A.I.

    The consensus there was that sneaky marketing was afoot, and many edits were made, including the deletion of Mr Rosenberg's article. Well, he has returned! And someone no doubt connected to him has recreated his page under a different name Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist). I'm here to humbly propose salting every possible variation of this guy's name. BrigadierG (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was involved with the last discussion, I agree with WP:SALTING the relevant article titles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked the deleted version but it is substantially different to this article to ineligible for G4. I agree that the creation by Kazanstyle is suspicious, but it will need to go to AFD again if it is to be deleted. Slightly as an aside, it looks to me as if WP:PROF could be met here, in which case clean up is the solution. SmartSE (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm gonna take it to RfD and we'll find out. Last time the votes were 6 votes to delete, and one comment by a later-blocked sock.
    BrigadierG (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dmitry Utkin

    I’ve twice given an explanation of why I made my changes to that page. Editors Extorc and Mhorg reverted them without any comment or explanation why, even after I asked. Subsequently IP address 103.240.204.243 reverted them once more and user El C locked the page.

    Not only am I taken aback by the lack of explanation of what’s wrong with my changes and the repeated, blanket reversion of said changes, but also given some of the editors’ profiles (showing Russian inclinations) and some of the IP origins and/or profile locations indicating India (where in recent months many Russian troll accounts have appeared all over Twitter and the wider internet), I wish to raise the recent edit history of that page as a potential Conflict Of Interest. I have a suspicion (which I would be perfectly happy to be disproven of) that some of the recent reversions on that page were not made in good faith. Rather, I wonder if they are part of a whitewash effort made by bad-faith actors working on behalf of either the Russian government or perhaps one of its many agencies.

    I would like to raise:

    • Getting an explanation for why my changes were inappropriate.
    • The changes getting reapplied if that turns out to be the result of this discussion.
    • Unlocking of that page and re-locking after the changes are in place, if it really needs to stay protected.
    • An investigation into coordinated insincere efforts (Russian trolling, propaganda) on the part of editors (three) and IP addresses (one) involved.

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.227.0 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Fequiere Lucien

    All edits going back to May 2015 have been WP:SPA, adding the band and its vocalist to Wikipedia. The largely unsourced 'early life' section of the draft seems to confirm the likelihood of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or COI. And the username. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Vahaj Hanif

    I warned VahajHanif about a COI since he is making a draft article about himself. I noticed that he seemed to have logged out of his user account and started using IP addresses to continue editing the draft, seemingly to evade the COI rule. Both IPs are from the same approximate location. Maybe a CheckUser can look into IPs used by VahajHanif prior to logging out? RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted via G11. I don't see any of these IP editors actually edited this draft. scope_creepTalk 07:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Helene Basu

    The username of this contributor caught my attention, and unfortunately my attempts to reach out to them have gone unnoticed by them. I'm not entirely sure if their username is suggesting being a paid editor, or if they have a keen interest on the German anthropologist in question. BlueNoise (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Its been G11'd any so its moot. scope_creepTalk 08:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, they claim to be former students of Basu's, I'll provide guidance to them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Kazuyo Sejima

    A self declared staff member of Kazuyo Sejima has been adding in unsourced information in the article. for what they say is "Make corrections to the text ahead of a prize ceremony tomorrow. She has been warned and actually came to her own talk page and said she didn't realize there was protocol, and then continued to edit war. VVikingTalkEdits 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked the editor to use edit requests. The editors seems to be content with no references like its `1999. Solid WP:COI scope_creepTalk 16:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    North Dakota State College of Science‎

    The editing history and name of this editor - the college's mascot is the Wildcats - raise substantive questions about a conflict of interest, potentially an undisclosed paid editing relationship. The editor has not responded to a warning left on their Talk page so discussion from other editors may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Marketingcats is the official log-in of the NDSCS Marketing department, and changes made through this account are made by officials at North Dakota State College of Science (NDSCS). Official, updated content is being added to our page. Marketingcats (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 193.201.9.117 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 193.201.9.117 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1117039278"