Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:David Adjaye User talk:Africatalyst Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bastion Collective Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Bruce D. Broussard Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:EMarketer Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Michael Meldman Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Norwest Venture Partners Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Olympus Corporation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Overseas Development Institute Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Poster House Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Quarter Pounder Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Diana Senechal Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Snow Patrol Talk:Software Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Versapay Talk:Romesh Wadhwani Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Wasserman (company) Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Gediminas Žiemelis Talk:Alice Zorn

Hundreds of RNA motif pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Drum RNA motif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• over 200 other pages (all created by user)
• Zashaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif it was noticed that there are many similar articles created by the same user. The user provides enough information on their user page to confirm that they are part of the group that published the article that is the sole reference. The user's contributions to this (and the other pages I'm about to mention) were long enough ago that it is not an issue of continued user behavior, but rather a big cleanup problem.

Turns out there are over 200 pages with a title that includes RNA motif that were created by this user and rely solely on several research papers published by this group. All the pages that rely on a single paper present the issue in WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that there isn't confirmation that the finding is confirmed or significant, so all the pages at the least need review to see whether they should be deleted, and perhaps should all be presumptively deleted.

However, none of the participants in the discussion up to now (including myself) have enough expertise in the field to ask for all the pages to be deleted without review. Someone who is conversant in the field may be able to confirm my suspicion that these 200+ pages represent findings from an individual lab and are either not significant or WP:TOOSOON without confirmatory work by other investigators.

In short, I'm looking for help in sorting this all out.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 04:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to this discussion on my talk page, rsjaffe. As I understand it, you have two related concerns. First, these RNA motifs appear to be based only on primary literature, and not secondary literature. Secondly, they indeed derive from my own research, and so there appears to be a conflict of interest in my writing Wikipedia articles on them.

What is perhaps not made sufficiently clear in these articles is that the relevant RNAs were included in the Rfam Database. Rfam (see the citations in the Wikipedia article) is a database of different types of RNAs with a conserved structure, and its content undergoes significant curation by expert bioinformaticians, both in deciding which RNAs merit inclusion and what data about those RNAs to provide. It also provides data necessary for further scientific analysis of the RNAs.

With regard to the apparent lack of secondary source: The Rfam Database seems to me to qualify as a secondary source, since it is essentially a hand-curated encyclopedia of structured RNAs that meet Rfam's criteria (as I understand it, essentially that there is evidence of biologically relevant structure and function and that the data are meaningful). Therefore, I believe these Wikipedia pages are supported by a secondary source. You can confirm their inclusion in Rfam for yourself by looking for Rfam's information box in the relevant pages, introduced with the {{Infobox rfam ...}} tag in the markup. All data in this info box comes from the Rfam database. Beside the term "Rfam" is the accession for the given RNA and a link to its entry in Rfam. For example, on the Drum RNA motif page, you can click on the accession RF02958 (lower, right part of the page). Such links should be provided for all RNA articles I have added to Wikipedia.

With regard to the apparent conflict of interest: The Rfam Database is maintained by a group at the European Bioinformatics Institute and this group was previously located at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. I have never had any affliation with either of these institutions, nor do I have any power to make Rfam incorporate specific RNAs into their database. Indeed some of the RNAs I have published were not included in the Rfam Database, and these RNAs do not have corresponding Wikipedia articles. Thus, I did not really decide to put these RNAs into Wikipedia, rather the Rfam group did. I just did the work to create the Wikipedia article in many cases.

In terms of resolving this issue, perhaps it would be helpful to have an "External links" section in the affected articles that explicitly links to Rfam, although I'm not sure how to practically do this with hundreds of articles.

I have alerted the Rfam team to this page, in case they want to weigh in. I will also link to my text here from the Articles for Deletion entry for the Drum RNA motif page, since I see that the same issues are being discussed there.

Zashaw (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are methods to edit large numbers of articles to emplace similar edits, so that’s not an impossible task if that would resolve the issue with lack of secondary references. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment As the current head of Rfam, I would like to voice my support for keeping the articles authored by Zasha Weinberg (Zashaw). These articles accompany the entries in the Rfam database of RNA families that capture the data reported in the scientific literature and create computational models to enable identification of these RNAs in any sequence. Rfam staff include trained bioinformaticians and RNA biologists who carefully review all entries and provide additional verification that these RNAs are important (Rfam is not affiliated with Zasha Weinberg or his institution). For example, a Wikipedia article about the Drum RNA is part of the Rfam entry RF02958 and includes an infobox showing metadata from Rfam. Many RNAs discovered by Zasha Weinberg have been later shown to serve important functions, so it is important to have Wikipedia entries that describe what these RNAs are. Having scientists like Zasha Weinberg provide starting points for Wikipedia entries about different RNAs is valuable because these pages are then edited and expanded by the community. In fact, Rfam pioneered the integration with Wikipedia over a decade ago (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3013711/), and we found that connecting the scientists and the community through Wikipedia has been very successful. Antonipetrov (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a significant COI issue here. Yes, Zashaw could mention Rfam on their userpage to be clearer that there's a connection to it, but the actual work they're doing isn't particularly affected by their professional connection to the topic (and the self-cite is probably reasonable in this instance given the topic. The discussion of notability of the articles is a separate (and much broader) issue, so I'll add more at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Drum_RNA_motif which I think is the main location for that discussion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As someone involved in the beginning of rfam/pfam, I would also like to voice my strong support for keeping these articles! Magnus Manske (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Help wanted We're continuing to discuss whether Drum RNA motif should be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drum RNA motif, and I suspect the outcome of the discussion there should inform what happens here next. I came to the COI notice board for help, as I realized that we needed a lot more scrutiny of this issue, as it affects hundreds of pages, and this noticeboard seemed to be the most relevant (though not a perfect fit to the issue at hand). I invite administrators and other knowledgeable people to review the deletion discussion and weigh in if appropriate. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Magnus Manske: Any chance you could take a look at this, having been involved in the early bioinformatics integrations? It's pretty clear that these articles don't meet our current notability standards and to me, the solution could be that there is an Rfam wiki where reseachers such as Zashaw can write about them, and then if they then become notable, we can copy from that wiki to here in the future. If a Wikipedia article existed, then that would take priority over the Rfam wiki i.e. there would only ever be one version of an article. Is this something that might be feasible for you Antonipetrov? I admittedly have no experience in WP:TRANSWIKI but I am sure someone does. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am afraid that I do not agree with the point that these articles do not meet the notability standards. These entries describe RNA genes that are found in many different organisms, including human pathogens. Even if we do not yet know all of their functions, these RNA have evolved over a long time and do play important roles that will eventually be revealed. The Rfam team works on a wide range of RNAs, including viral RNAs and RNA motifs found in Coronaviruses. Several years ago one could have argued that those entries and the corresponding Wiki articles were not important enough, which would have been misguided as recently these RNAs turned out to be rather notable. Many of the pages that are being discussed here have been improved over the years by Wikipedians who are not necessarily scientists but who wanted to contribute to a valuable resource. Relegating this important information to a separate wiki would create a barrier between the public and the scientific endeavour. Antonipetrov (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Antonipetrov: They unequivocally do not meet the general notability guideline at present if they are only discussed in a single publication and that is the only yardstick of notability relevant here. From a random selection of pages created by Zashaw, I can't see anything to support "Many of the pages that are being discussed here have been improved over the years by Wikipedians": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Smartse: The first example that immediately comes to mind is Fluoride riboswitch. The page was started as crcB RNA motif and many years later this RNA was shown to act as fluoride riboswitch. I can look up other examples like this if it helps. I do appreciate the need to weed out irrelevant articles that do not serve any purpose except to promote the author(s). Zashaw's case could not be further from this - if anything, it is a great example of collaboration and open science. Rfam database serves as a second publication supporting these pages because we publish bi-annual updates in the Nucleic Acids Research (since 2002!) and we could have easily included a table listing all of these RNAs and new information discovered about them by our team at Rfam. We did not do it because it would be redundant with Rfam itself and it never occurred to us that the notability of this work would be questioned but we could have satisfied the formal criteria with ease. Antonipetrov (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Antonipetrov: Thanks for the example. When it was created that article had only a single journal article reference like most of the articles under discussion and assuming that was all that existed, did not meet GNG. When this and the corresponding article in Science was published, it became notable. Now there are hundreds of articles mentioning it. Wikipedia isn't into cataloging things which might become notable at some point in the future - if it did then every person and business would merit an article as they might one day become Bill Gates / Google etc. Personally I don't see that COI is much of an issue here, as you are all clearly trying to benefit the project rather than yourselves, but that doesn't change the fact that this content doesn't belong here. SmartSE (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Smartse: I am afraid that I do not agree with the analogies between RNA genes and people, movies, or other items that may or may not become notable. The genes - be it RNA or protein - exist in the living beings around us. They are notable regardless of the number of scientific papers about them. Importantly, we are not talking about every single gene - we are talking about a high-quality, manually curated subset of RNA genes that have been discovered by Zashaw and then manually reviewed by me (Antonipetrov), my team, or our predecessors at Rfam, who are all trained biologists. Our review is not superficial. We perform a lot of quality control steps and analyses, and in some cases we change the data submitted to us by Zashaw. As a result we produce entries in the Rfam database that are linked to the corresponding Wikipedia entries and are represented by the Rfam infoboxes. I am not sure I understand why all this work does not qualify as a secondary source, and I continue to express my support for keeping these Wikipedia entries. Antonipetrov (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is notable basic biology. There seems to be some misplaced concern that there are too many articles, being added indiscriminately. I think the situation is, rather, the very rapid progress in molecular biology that makes identifying significant structures much more feasible. Most of them are being discussed further, and if we start having discussions over each of them, by the time the discussions and the likely appeals and subsidiarty dscussions are finished, there will be sources. Some areas in science move faster than AfD and other WP processes . DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Request to close this issue Discussion concluded on nomination for deletion as No consensus with recommendation to open RfC to resolve the issue.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No need for an RfC. I do not see any issue whatsoever. Actually, this is excellent work by a number of contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rp2006

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rp2006 has made an edit to an article that includes a reference to a source with which I believe Rp2006 has a WP:COI relationship. The content in question was initially added by an editor other than Rp2006, later removed by a second editor, and reinstated by Rp2006. I believe that Rp2006 should disclose their relationship to the source per WP:COI, but Rp2006 does not believe a disclosure is required because the edit was a revert and not adding the source in the first instance. I don't believe the fact that it was a revert relieves Rp2006's obligations under WP:COI, and that if anything, a COI is even more relevant when it comes to reinstating removed content than adding it in the first instance. Must Rp2006 disclose any COI relationship they have with an edit, if that edit is a revert? Levivich 00:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is complicated by the fact that making references to the COI Rp2006 has with certain publishers/magazines/companies is hard to do without outing, even when the COI exists, unless he comes forward and properly discloses the COI both in his user page and in relevant articles (per WP:DCOI). Note the user page is not obligatory, but it would be helpful in discussions to know how another editor might be affiliated with a subject. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is missing in this statement is the timeline. @Levivich is making it sound like this all happened within minutes of the revert. The article in question was added on Feb 7, 2019. And then about twenty changes were made to the page over the next couple years. Then an editor on November 24, 2021 decided to make massive changes to the article that would require a lot of time to go though, and much discussion on the talk page. Then on November 25, 2021 Rp2006 reverts those changes. There were over 10K characters removed from the article and reverting those changes are just a revert. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sgerbic (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The last edit is not a 10K character revert, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if it were, I don't think it matters if the COI content is reinstated on its own or as part of a larger revert (both are the situation here, as there were multiple edits). Levivich 01:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You take responsibility for any edit you make, even if it's "just a revert." Maybe if the entire topic area wasn't a minefield of connected editors adding each other as sources it wouldn't be so easy to accidentally step on a land mine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do you get that SFR (if I'm allowed to call you that) who says that "editors are adding each other as sources"? Sgerbic (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty common knowledge that members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and writers for SI use each other as sources for articles. I believe that's actually one of the actions you promote, per your own writing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is a member of CSI? I'm not clear on that, does that mean they have a magazine subscription? Sgerbic (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean something like A columnist for Skeptical Inquirer... and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry adding CSI and SI sources as cites, and training others to do the same. Can we not play this game? If enough people are doing that eventually one of them is going to revert and restore a source they wrote and cross the COI line. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. If you make an edit that in some way involves a source that you have a COI with, then you must disclose that COI. The nature of the edit is irrelevant to this, and it should not be relevant - I feel there is a bigger picture that I am missing to this discussion, so I can't comment on the details, but it isn't hard to imagine situations where someone with a COI prefers the former version of a page due to it aligning with their COI, and thus reverts to that version. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The bigger picture is a shitshow, I'll save you some life expectancy and recommend you don't get involved too much, BilledMammal. If interested, however, you can find the relevant thread in ANI under section "Outing attempt". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I you are sharing links ACS - why not give @BilledMammalBilledmammal the link to the multi-day drama on ANI that got you banned from there? Remember that nightmare where you started outing people? Oh and the thread of you trying to rile people up to work against other editors? Sgerbic (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not responding to what I see as irrelevant to the current discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is obvious at all. Here is a close analogy (as I see it) to the situation as it is CLAIMED to have happened. BTW, I think the issue is a SELFPUB one, not COI. Steven King is a WP editor. Has been for years. Has thousands of edits on all sorts of articles. His WP ID is not his name as he does not want to be outed due to harassment and stalking concerns. He has an interest in, watches and edits tons of Scary as Shit fiction pages... that's what he likes to work on (Not his own books mind you). On one page he is watching, someone(else) - he gets a notice via WP email - added one of HIS own books as a citation (in an appropriate way). Cool. But does King need to now slap a SELFPUB disclaimer on the page? I don't think anyone would say so. But years later, a newish editor (who seems to not understand COI issues) comes in and makes a mess of the page (in his opinion and other editors) by deleting what she sees as COI issues (and they do not) all over the place, including deleting the King citation. So, King reverts the edit restoring the page to its long-standing form. You are telling me King now needs to declare a SELFPUB on that page? Worse - doing so he must by definition out himself? Really? Rp2006 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have a COI you must disclose it. I am sure admins can help you by email to find a way to do so without outing yourself. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You, as usual, missed the entire point. The scenario where King must claim a SELFPUB situation in that case seems outrageous. Saying it is COI seems even nuttier. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then the other editors who thought it was a problem could have reverted, and just like that, there is no issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually other editors did revert the same set of changes, so it seemed clear consensus to not let the changes stand -- as I recall. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why not continue to allow them to revert? Clearly if there were multiple editors reverting a single editor your own edits were unnecessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about King. The point still stands. COIs must be disclosed, and the easiest way to do so is in the Talk page of articles. See Talk:Eindhoven University of Technology for an example of me disclosing my coi in an easy, straightforward way. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If an editor removes a cite to King, and King reverts that editor thereby reinstating the cite to King, then King must disclose the COI, in my view. Levivich 01:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SELFPUB may apply (though probably not to King), but unless I have misunderstood this situation, you are thinking of SELFCITE? As I understand it, SELFCITE is a form of COI.

As for King, he should note a COI if he wants to make the reversal - and if he doesn't want to mention a COI, he should leave the revert for another editor to do. This is true in general, but particularly true in this example where other editors holding Kings position exist and so it is unreasonable to expect that the edit will go unnoticed by non-COI editors. This is because correcting what are seen as mistakes by a COI editor - regardless of whether the editor is correct about them being a mistake - does and should fall under COI guidelines. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A COI is a COI. While WP:COIADVICE does have a section on unambiguous uncontroversial edits, it is very very clear that what has been going on the specific article page is controversial though I recognise that the editors involved may not be able to recognise it. Paraphrasing and expanding upon what I said earlier at ANI, if the author of the source requests an editor to read a source they have written, it is a COI. If that same editor edits that page, to include or restore that source if it is removed by another editor where that edit was made in good faith, it is a COI.

In this situation, if Rp2006 is the author of the source, they must disclose it and self revert. As it is a content dispute, Rp2006 should then recuse themself from that discussion, and allow a consensus to form between the other editors at that article's talk page. If Rp2006 is not the author of that source, then I do not understand why this issue has now spanned multiple noticeboards and user talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why the edit over which there is a COI concern is not diffed here? That edit contains a link to an article on an external website which contains a number of statements evincing an approach to Wikipedia editing that I think is problematic from a COI point of view. The external article also mentions GSoW, which is lead by Sgerbic. I think editors here should read that article, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to link it here? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure either and that's the reason why I didn't include it in the OP :-) Levivich 02:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Because of outing concerns that have essentially been Streisand'd to hell and back at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly if the relevant section in the article talk page would've been collapsed and the discussion continued this whole fiasco could've been avoided. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Well, we have a pretty heated argument very quickly. But why isn't the noticeboard informed of what article we are talking about? What is the source that generates the alleged COI? What are the diffs that demonstrate the allegations? --SVTCobra 04:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SVTCobra, affected pages are Skeptical_Inquirer and Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry (SCI) and all related pages. The article in question here is Sharon_A._Hill.

Also Sgerbic you have an even more obvious COI with respect to SCI. You also need to declare your COI for all matters related with SCI. Mvbaron (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Sgerbic and Rp2006 you both have added your own names and/or citations to your own works at the above mentioned pages. (if anyone want's the diffs, I'm happy to supply them but seeing that WP:OUTING concerns are so prominent here, I won't do it now) Regardless, this is clearly WP:COI editing and you both need to declare your COI either at your user page or the talk page. And you both should only propose edit requests for your COI pages and not make substantial edits yourself. All this discussion above is utterly pointless and a distraction at best, you have a COI and you need to declare it and you should not add content about yourself directly. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have NEVER added content about myself and am not happy that anyone glibly says I have. Sgerbic (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit appears to qualify (see "skepticism" section). Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Special:Diff/746026432. Now that I look, your group is doing a ton of COI editing. Your name appears on 64 mainspace articles [6], and I think all of them were added by you or members of your group. Huh, this is bigger than I thought. Levivich 18:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

During the enormous ANI thread a month ago this came up, written by Sgerbic, This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[7] I don't understand how this wasn't cause for immediate sanctions. Any other COI editing of this style, on this scale, would be shut down almost immediately. Imagine if it were another publication organizing off wiki to improve their exposure? After all, Wikipedia is the perfect venue! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this an issue that might need to be dealt with by arbcom? If it is hundreds of COI violations over multiple years as a modus operandi perhaps it goes above just community discussion in a noticeboard. I don't know how these things are handled, and I'd rather give the affected editors the benefit of the doubt, so I'm just asking.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom is for issues that cannot be dealt with by the community. If this ends up being ongoing, then maybe, but otherwise it is better if it is handled by other means. - Bilby (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My concern would be with avoiding outing editors who haven't disclosed their COI onwiki but have talked about their edits (or have been talked about) offwiki, like in the rp case, and do have a coi. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

After reading everything to do with this, both from the current event and the one a couple of months ago, I'm somewhat in favour of an investigation here as implied by Levivich if there's the likelihood of this circular COI editing occurring across a great many articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That is clearly unacceptable, and an unambiguous COI; they have explicitly expressed WP:NOTHERE goals (promotional activity in article writing). At the very least, they should be banned from directly using that particular source; if they want to use it, they should do it only through an edit request. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes you have (I said I had diffs): [8] and I am baffled that you say you didn't. Mvbaron (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Straight question. @Rp2006: Would you be willing to disclose whether any of your personal works are (or have been) cited in any page on which you have performed a revert over the last 30 days? I have no power to compel you to do so, and you are free to decline. JBchrch talk 00:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Can we establish who the bad guys are? Very dodgy claims of COI too. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Godwin's law strikes again. Very civil and constructive. Adding content quoting and citing yourself is pretty dodgy, but providing diffs of it and expressing concern is less so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Harold Mcmillan reference was removed so I'll just say that this looks like a Lynch mob attacking some of the very best editors on the project. Usual suspects, dear me. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Lynch mob is much more civil. We've moved from political violence to race based violence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It is slightly more civil, perhaps. But the mob should perhaps aim at tendentious or disruptive editors instead of some of our best. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I searched Wikipedia (all namespaces) for "roxy the dog" "lynch mob"; there's quite a few hits and it's some interesting reading. Levivich 15:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a strong counterpoint to diffs of a person adding content about themselves and citing their own work. I wonder if there are any policies about that type of editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's so funny SFR. Did you find any that they added directly, or only to repair the article. Did you know that I have re-added exactly the same diffs as RP. Am I a GSoW member? Do I have a potential COI? Levivich, you'd better tell your check user colleagues about a "tell" for Roxy socks. I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years, shocking. Another "tell" is that I often use the same word twice or more in any one post to a talk page. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you review the thread? There are three diffs of Sgerbic adding information about herself, as well as citing herself. The RP situation is a bit hairier because no one is sharing the obvious diffs due to outing concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic's user page would seem to meet disclosure requirements. And while I would personally agree that Sgerbic should use talk pages rather than writing about herself and/or citing herself, our policies don't actually forbid this. If you start an RFC to get that changed I would probably support, but that's not how things are right now. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

They do forbid using Wikipedia for promotion, which she has said she does. Also, I believe the articles also need to be tagged with a COI notice. It would be easier to get together a list of pages that need a COI tag if she hadn't said she'd never made such edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no requirement that articles be tagged with a COI notice - not that I'm familiar with, anyway. Please link it if I'm mistaken. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Article should be tagged with connected contributor, COI should be disclosed via edit summary, or the COI userbox listing articles they have a COI in regards to and have edited. I don't see any of those disclosures made. The articles don't have to be tagged if the COI edits are disclosed another way, but it's better for readers who will never see a user page to know that an article has been greatly edited by someone with a COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's for places where there's a COI with the topic of the article overall, for example Talk:Susan Gerbic. We typically do not hold self-citers to that standard. Given the ongoing problems we've been having with academic spam, I would probably support efforts to change that too, but the Wikipedia community seems to give much more leeway to self citation for whatever reason. - MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is not just self citing, as noted above it's adding your name to an article you already have a COI with. Or doing a massive promotional expansion [9] to an article you have a clear-cut COI with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure is required, but it is also required to abide by Wikipedia's policy, which includes not engaging in promotion. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case, per this article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our WP:COI guideline is entirely toothless, it only recommends, and strongly encourages disclosure. Anyone with a COI (who is not paid) might as well ignore it completely. Ollie and Roxy correctly hint at that above, but I wonder how much the actual consensus regarding this is. --Mvbaron (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how much the actual consensus regarding this is ← I think it depends, and editors need to step back a bit and consider the aims of Wikipedia as a whole before being too keen to don their Witchfinder General hats. If somebody with a COI comes here promoting (say) their diet pills, then obviously that is A Bad Thing that the community will have little tolerance for. But "promotion" of high-quality knowledge is not bad, and even encouraged in a project like (say) WP:COCHRANE whereby editors, and even Cochrane members are encouraged to add Cochrane Collaboration sources to Wikipedia. Granted, this is not entirely without controversy, but there seems to be a lot of black and white thinking in this thread which does not appreciate the history of how Wikipedia actually works. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, if you agree with something it's ok to organize off-wiki to promote it. Editing to draw attention to a magazine you write for, and citing yourself in it can be fine as long as it matches the house POV. Then it's acceptable to ignore the policies and guidelines. Especially if you're using it to add negative information to BLPs. That's the best. Also, we should make sure to attack any editors who express concern about the COI editing by calling them Nazis or witch hunters. That really elevates the dialog. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It is in this area of cognitive dissonance that any number of edit-a-thons, student editing assignments and WP:GLAM efforts exist. MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, one gets the feeling that if some famous gallery made images of its fine art collection publicly available, and a gallery employee had the temerity to add those images to relevant articles, some editors here would be screaming COI and going on a revert spree. Ultimately the aim for everyone is to improve and maintain Wikipedia and, with various shades of COI, sometimes that's not quite so simple as some are suggesting. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be screaming COI if that museum employee said This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. All of these shades of grey arguments fall apart when an editor says they're doing it for promotional purposes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

But you'd be okay if they weren't saying that? I was responding to the suggestion that COI needed to be an absolute rule with teeth. It ain't that simple. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If the situation were different I would have to look at the totality of the situation. Were they still people shoehorning negative information from primary sourced "stings," covered no where but the magazine they have a COI with into BLPs? Do you get still get attacked as a a supporter of Fringe for removing an obvious blpvio? The reason this is such an issue is there is a wide breadth of other issues with the editing, all tied together by the COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, at least on editor in question did not disclose their COI (rp2006), and all of them are making substantive changes to articles about their COI-topic. Even if it's only strongly encouraged to not edit their COI-topic directly and not forbidden, this noticeboard should at least tell them to do so - otherwise we might as well get rid of the strong language in COI all-together.

And remember that this thread only exists because of a poor discussion on a poor and badly-sourced article connected to the COI topic: Sharon_A._Hill. Mvbaron (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE and the rest of WP:COI has pretty clear rules about how to do this. I don't care if it was the late Stephen Hawking citing his own work, he still would need to disclose it. There is no "high quality" exemption to COI disclosure requirements. (And everyone suggesting I'm engaged in a witch hunt, a lynch mob, or a Nazi purge, should reflect on whether they care about people misusing Wikipedia for self promotion or not.) Levivich 16:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

break

• Speaking of diffs, what do people think about a COIN subpage to collect diffs? Levivich 15:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's asking for a repeat of the outing problem that kicked this discussion off. I think the private evidence / arbcom case route is the only remedy if there is truly a problem worth addressing here. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  How can it be outing to collect diffs of Sgerbic adding content about herself to articles? She edits under her real name. Or outing to collect diffs of Rp2006 doing the same? Or the many other accounts who are obviously students doing the same? It's only outing if we link a username to a real name, which isn't necessary to evidence COI editing. For example, Rp2006 is affiliated with Gerbic and GSoW, etc., and that's evidenced by diffs and such. I don't need to write his real name on-wiki to link to his edits. Levivich 15:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• My own reaction to all this is "meh". I'm not hugely familiar with the "GSoW" content but from what I've seen of some of it, yes, there are some issues with it be overly self-regarding and self-referential. On the other hand, the one article I'm aware of which was targeted as being predicted a WP:SNOW deletion for its apparently obvious GSoW-derived problems, got an AfD which backfired spectacularly, despite the "COI sources" apparently tainting it. Probably the best way to sort this out is to raise any issue(s) at the affected articles.

Given that Wikipedia has high-profile content under attack from corporations, political movements and even Nation States it's not high on my worry list that some articles are too harsh on fraudsters or too glowing about scienists, but if Wikipedia editors do feel this is a priority I think, given the outing risks, it is an issue that the community cannot handle and they would need to work towards an arbcom case. I'm not sure further discussion here will lead anywhere good. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I've never participated in an arbcom case, how can editors work together when making one? Would email discussions be a way to avoid outing on-wiki but gathering the relevant diffs+outside links? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably the best way to sort this out is to raise any issue(s) at the affected articles is not realistic because there are over 100 affected articles (based on my very quick perusal following Sgerbic's claim above to have "never" edited about herself). I'm not going to go through all of this by myself just to send an email to arbcom. Such an inquiry is better off being done collaboratively, transparently, and on-wiki. Levivich 17:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Especially when the editing has been done in this manner over many, many years and the editors are immensely defensive of their edits (and their interpretation of COI) doing it article by article would be an inordinate amount of work and time. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

So if the proposed change(s) are going to impact "hundreds" of articles that will necessarily take a lot of "work and time". Or ... what? Are you proposing to delete "obvious" problem articles like you tried with Taner Edis. Or find some way to edit content without "work and time"? This is not making much sense. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

One discussion about 100 articles would take less time than 100 discussions about individual articles. Levivich 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking in hypotheticals, if there is a widespread COI issue spanning dozens or hundreds of articles, at some point discussions on the individual article level will be required. What form those discussions will take will depend on the content of the article. In theory a lot of that can happen in parallel, one editor will not need to copy-edit all of the articles with issues. But the broadstrokes COI issues need to be resolved first before individual article level discussions are warranted.

As has been demonstrated at the Sharon A. Hill article, there is a resistance to change that may or may not be warranted. There have been oblique references to consensus building that clearly did not happen in the article's talk page, or in the article's edit history. On the ANI thread Rp2006 said A glance showed me they at least some of the long list of edits partially involved removing material due to misconstrued COI issues, which were already argued over elsewhere.) Where did that discussion occur? Because it clearly wasn't on the article's talk page. While I don't have the competency in that topic area to definitively state if there is or is not a problem in my opinion with the previously proposed edits, on a surface level it does appear concerning that the response to a detailed and clear summary of a WP:BRD change was silence, followed by status quo stonewalling. If that behaviour is replicated across multiple articles, any attempt at making progress in this issue would be next to impossible. That issue needs to be resolved first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer, I'd really like answers to two questions that came from this sorry story at ANI: (1) If you self-cite, how can you declare your conflict of interest without self-outing (given that the work you are citing inevitably contains your name); i.e. which takes precedence, COI or Outing? My personal view is that it is far better never, ever, to self-cite. (2) If you don't actually write the self-citation, but someone removes a citation to you, and you revert the removal, do you have the same COI that you'd have had if you added the citation yourself? Elemimele (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you choose to self-cite, you're essentially self outing unless you're published under a pseudonym. I agree, it's better not to self cite. If you revert a removal of your source that someone else removed, I'd say you have the same COI as adding it yourself, as you're deciding that the work should be cited over someone's objection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

1) If you chose to self-cite, then you're choosing to self-out. I don't think there's any way to separate that while maintaining a conflict of interest policy.

2) Short answer, yes. Longer answer, WP:COIADVICE applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:COIE might provide further guidance as well, Elemimele. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks, all, and especially A._C._Santacruz, that sets my mind at rest. I had been worrying that an accusation of COI could be interpreted as a deliberate outing, when basically you're saying "I think you're citing/writing-about yourself" but I'm seeing now it isn't: if the accusation is true, the person had already self-outed, if it's false, then the editor hasn't been outed. Elemimele (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add, it's somewhat easy to avoid this entirely if you're capable of self policing. If you know you have a COI with an article, perhaps the best thing you can do is to avoid it entirely. That way there is no risk of self-outing, because you're not making that link. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As for 1): WP:OUTING prohibits editor A from outing editor B. But if editor A has any form of COI, they generally have to self-out, and that is not prohibited by the policy. A common form of "self-out" is performed by editors who work for a corporation and add an edit request to an article's talk page, which often begin with "Hi I'm Billy and I work for Big Corp Ltd. I would like to suggest the following edits to this article...". JBchrch talk 04:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

An idea

I was doing some meditation and realized that both editors' conduct and article content need to be addressed. The arbcom idea looks promising for the former, but we'd still be left with potentially hundreds of articles within the skeptic topic are that are filled with coi edits, selfcites, and issues of neutrality or undue content. Thus, I had the idea of seeing if we could make some kind of task force with the help of people over at the skepticism/biographies/science wps to comb through the articles in the skeptic purview and make note of those with issues. Like that we can know just how many need fixing and maybe get more hands on deck to fix them (since it seems like it will take quite a bit of human hours). What are your thoughts? My original idea was to just track it myself by making a subpage of my user page but uh I have a history of misunderstanding what is and is not allowed or benefitial to be done within user subpages. Is this a good idea? Is there some kind of precedent for these kinds of efforts? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"people over at the skepticism/biographies/science wps to comb through the articles in the skeptic purview" ← it would take editors who thought this was a good use of their time. But when (for example) sci/med editors are grappling with articles getting tens of thousands of daily views on COVID, the task of "combing through" backwater articles about ghosthunters, etc. might not seem like a priority - especially if there was a suspicion that they were being asked to do somebody else's work fishing for evidence in aid of a campaign against GSoW. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Who said it was for evidence? Additionally, not everyone in sci/med wants to only and exclusively deal w COVID and no one would be forcing anyone to help, so I don't see your point. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Combing through" and "making note" of what's combed, is evidence gathering is it not? Wikipedia is a volunteer effort so one can't just "make" a task force on command; my point is there's likely to be limited volunteer enthusiasm for a grinding forensic investigation in service of an obscure agenda. Even potentially very serious issues in the Project which need investigation don't get attention, as it happens—and it's not clear there's any kind of serious issue here at all. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I of course understand task force is not something a regular volunteer can do (WPs have task forces organized by their coordinators etc.), it's just the term closes to what I mean. If I hadn't clarified it before, I think the process of fixing those articles should be done after any ArbCom action, not before. I think it's more important not to shake the boat too much and increase the activity in the topic significantly as that would make the ArbCom thing possibly more complicated than it needs to be. I also assume that there will be limited enthusiasm for what I proposed (especially from neutral and quality editors; we need to be careful not to attract the type of agenda-pushing pseudoscience-believer that will misunderstand this cleanup effort as an opportunity to vandalize). However, as editors affiliated with the two editors discussed who have a COI have edited 1300+ articles and have 53+ million views, I think it is somewhat clear that there is an issue that needs to be tackled. I don't necessarily think it's the most serious or pressing of issues, but I think having some organized way to tackle it would be beneficial. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

After watching from afar, let me briefly chime in to say I don't think this sort of approach is warranted. I will put my cards on the table: in many ways I am sympathetic to the goals of the so-called "GSoW," but I think just from evidence presented here it is clear that they have danced along the COI line and occasionally jumped across with both feet. I think that material should, ideally, be reviewed by independent editors as to its level of appropriateness, but I am not seeing major substantive issues. This is not vandalism, even if running afoul of policy. As such, while I think some sort of global decision-making is necessary, once had, I do not believe it necessary to take the kind of regimented approach suggested here. Wikipedia is ever-evolving, and thus, always imperfect. This bit of imperfection is one I see being ironed out in the normal course. As ever, if consensus decides otherwise, I'll not quibble. Happy holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would second this view as also someone who is aware of GSoW's existence, but not a participant or member.

Akin to "if a tree falls in the forest", I would ask... if a user makes a COI edit, but it was a good edit, why would we revert or record it? As SC has said, this isn't intended to gather evidence, so what would be the point? surely there are bad examples of edits which need to be reverted out there, but they should be bad edits independent of any COI issues. So they should be fixed independent of any needs here... The implication is that there are many many bad edits which need reverted. But I have yet to see any actual evidence of this as a large scale phenomenon. Many of Rp's supposed COI edits are of high quality from my perusal. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds more like an argument about why we don't need COIN. From what you are saying, editing with a COI isn't a problem. Bad edits are a problem. Therefore, we don't need to worry about COI and the relevant guidelines and policies are unnecessary. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This thread has moved somewhat beyond the scope of initial COI report, unfortunately. As I've said before, I think there may be overlapping but related issues affecting skeptic-related articles, and not all need invoke a COI nor affiliation with GSoW. In theory, the existence of relatively promotional articles showcasing the subject from an overly enthusiastic point of view could be the result of an avid fan—completely independent of GSoW, the subject, or any sources—combined with a relative reluctance or indifference of WikiProject Skepticism editors or other sympathetic Wikipedians to apply WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB etc. to subjects they agree with or view positively (in short, skeptics should apply skepticism to the null hypothesis of "Wikipedia articles are free from editorial bias" or "positive/popular subjects are given equal scrutiny for tone, balance, and BLP-compliance as negative or controversial subjects"). Addressing article content is easier and more straightforward than hunting down clues and sussing out COI or off-wiki affiliations, and less likely to alienate users. I think compiling a list of articles that seem to be in most of need of attention as A.C. Santacruz is proposing—regardless of who created or edited them—and inviting feedback from a broad swath of interested and disinterested editors (e.g. WikiProject Biography, Peer review, WikiProject Skepticism), would be beneficial, even if not everyone considers it the highest priority. People edit Wikipedia in many different ways: some primarily create article content, some primarily revert content and save their paragraphs for talk pages, some gnome here and there fixing grammar or whatever, some engage in formal review and assessment. None are inherently worse or a bigger waste of time than others. Of course, if COI or GSoW editing is found to be unduly promotional (be it of a source, article subject, or idea) then warnings and other corrective (not necessarily punitive) actions should be taken, as correcting a systematic problem is more effective in the long run. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do you think the list should be compiled if there is consensus it should be, Animalparty. I'd volunteer to do so as a sub-page of my user page but I'm not sure that's really the best way to do so. I also think before starting the list there should be significant discussion as to the criteria to include an article in the list. This could be done by creating a blank sub-page of my user page (or a more appropriate venue) and having a discussion in its talk page, rather than discussing a matter outside of COIN within COIN. A good division would also be "Articles needing to be checked for issues" and "Articles in need of attention/improvement/clean-up". This is because I would, based on the discussion above and in articles written by Sgerbic as to the editing methods of GSoW, consider all articles citing Skeptical Inquirer (and maybe other CSI sites) as possibly, if maybe unlikely, having issues. Thus, it would be nice to be able to track which articles have been already checked to see if there might or might not be possible issues and then have a separate list on which articles that were confirmed to have issues have been fixed. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that tracking which articles might be affected is somewhat difficult, as over 1,200 use Skeptical Inquirer as a source but there are other publications to which at least SGerbic has a COI with (e.g. JREF and GWUP) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Now what?

Speaking with my funct hat on, I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise (or, I suppose, someone offwiki is lying when they take credit for Rp2006's edits). So...now what? It's pretty clear from the above discussion that there is a larger problem than just this one editor. I can block them, but that is a large hammer to use, and that doesn't help with these other "GSoW" folks. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think most of the issues are in article content and fancruft so I support the idea I proposed above. I'm not entirely sure if blocking (outside maybe a skeptic BLP topic ban maybe?) would be the best solution for this (knowing how strongly Sgerbic argues for using wiki as a way of promoting SI content through backwards editing, we might end up causing a persistent sockpuppet/alt account issue). It all depends on how Rp2006 and Sgerbic act right now. I'm sure more experienced editors have better recommendations on what to do now, though. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Because of the number of editors that could be involved, I'd like to see some sort of community sanctions set up, where upon if reasonable evidence is provided an administrator can apply a topic ban covering the COI. I'd hate to see us lose all of the good edits in the topic area, so narrow topic bans along the lines of a ban on making edits using sources related to, or about people related to the committee for skeptical inquiry, or skeptical inquirer. That would allow them to continue to be active in the topic area, while preventing COI editing. This would have to be contingent on them admitting the COI and following best practices for disclosure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we would also need to add writing about activities or people connected to GSOW - that should be obvious, but my primary concern has been things like GSOW members writing on BLPs about off-wiki GSOW sting operations against living people while using sources written by GSOW members, or creating articles about members and active supporters. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that is they are very unlikely to self identify. It's a tough situation. For the time being, how do we normally handle undeclared COI editing, where the editors involved have misrepresented their edits? Maybe we should stop treating these editors as special just because some agree with their POV? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a topic-ban for Rp2006 and Sgerbic if they refuse to properly disclose their COIs. I don't see why they are unblockable. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that topic bans are hard to hand out - they need either community consensus, ArbCom, or to be in a DS area (and have all the boxes ticked). For the last one I feel that tbanning someone from "skepticism" would be a stretch of the scope of the Pseudoscience DS. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Given this is based on private evidence, and given that this extends beyond the identified editors, perhaps the best option is to go to ArbCom? Although I believe we need to strengthen our COI provisions and the remedies allowed under them so that we address situations like this more readily. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the pseudoscience DS could be amended to also include skepticism as well as a result of the arbcom case. Of course, I have no experience with Arbcom so I don't know how realistic that is. On one hand, it seems to only be one organized group violating COI (and whatever the backwards editing system is) within skepticism, but on the other they have over 100 million views on articles they've edited so I'm not sure what size the hammer needs to be at this point (if you'll excuse the metaphor).Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: It is probably worth noting here that there was a very long VPP thread about the GSoW a couple months ago. There was also a huge-ass AN/I thread in which closer Wugapodes said that "ANI could handle these things, the thread has grown beyond the point where a viable solution will be found" and recommended an ArbCom case request. In my opinion, both discussions had a lot of fairly major issues brought up. In particular, the AN/I thread encountered some strong resistance to the suggestion that GSoW could have engaged in off-wiki canvassing (because nobody could come up with a list of editors (because GSoW refused to disclose a list of their members (because nobody could show that they'd engaged in canvassing (because nobody had a list of their members)))). This development, if true, would certainly seem to change the situation. jp×g 05:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There was also this RSN discussion from November. jp×g 05:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: it's a good question. I'd agree with what SFR is calling for as a bare minimum, a topic ban potentially covering the entirety of sceptical inquiry, broadly construed for RP2006. That said, this has somewhat strengthened my concern that there is a much wider COI involving multiple GSoW editors in this topic area. How do we resolve that? We don't know who those editors are, Sgerbic wants to keep them as an anonymous off-wiki group/project for whatever reason, can we even proceed to an arb-com case against potentially multiple anonymous editors? While the current COI honour system works well in an good faith environment, the situation with RP2006 at the very least stretches that concept to its very limits. Especially as RP has been asked if they had a COI, they said no, but you've received evidence to the contrary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also one potential shortcoming with the current guidance at WP:COICOIN. The final paragraph mentions contacting the arbitration committee via email, with a dedicated address listed for paid COIs. At this point, it's unclear at least to me as to whether the COIs we are discussion are paid or unpaid. However more generally, if there is an unpaid COI, who do you contact? Arb-com at the paid-en-wp address? Arb-com at their normal address? Or someone else entirely? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, paid-en-wp goes to the checkusers (I'm one of the few who staffs it). I'm of the opinion that offwiki evidence of both paid and unpaid COI can go there if blocks are needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How would it normally be handled if a COI editor was discovered, and had mislead other editors about their COI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I started this thread because Rp2006 and Sgerbic denied (1) that they had a COI and/or (2) that they had to disclose any COI and/or (3) that they had made any edits in violation of WP:COI. To answer the question, "Now what?", I'd like to know in the first instance whether they still deny any of 1-3 and if not, how they plan on handling things going forward (e.g., disclosure, avoiding topics, something else?). Levivich 22:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think an additional question is how willing they are to collaborate with us in terms of other editors in their network who have made edits in violation of WP:COI (e.g. other GSoW members published in SI, what editors are part of GSoW). We are dealing with many unknown unknowns (similar to what JPxG commented on above) that they would be helpful in solving. As I raised previously in Sgerbic's page, much of this should be done through email with paid-en-wp or other, maybe more suitable emails to go about this without outing anyone on-wiki and reducing the amount of time that needs to be spent on this issue. I couldn't care less to know who exactly is in GSoW, but the fact that not even functionaries know is a problem in my opinion, and a big obstacle right now to solving the problem at hand. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that paid-en-wp has been emailed with what I believe is evidence that Nederlandse Leeuw also has a COI with SI, and that Rp2006 has a COI with pensar.org. Whether they think it is credible evidence or not I'll leave up to them. Notifying Nederlandse Leeuw of this discussion now. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Another outing attempt by Satacruz! When will this end? (And BTW, what does Pensar have to do with anything?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp2006 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Pensar.org is published by the Center for Inquiry, a parent company of Skeptical Inquirer. Since the thread was originally about Skeptical Inquirer, mentioning a sister publication is relevant. Again, if I actually outed anyone please tell me what information was shared and I will both edit the statement and ask oversight to revdel the relevant diffs. However, stating someone has a COI is not outing. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Such emails are for confidential information so the point of posting that here is ... what? A bit of gentle outing maybe? And am I to understand the witch-hunting has now migrated to a coordinated email effort (ironically) judging from the push back[10] on your Talk page? Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Next person that calls this a witch hunt (or lynch mob or similar) gets a trip to a noticeboard courtesy of me. Levivich 13:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

They asked for advice on how to put together an Arbcom case, and used email because some of the information could be sensitive. I have never brought a case to Arbcom but I thought I should take initiative to move the Skeptical Inquirer issue along, as I don't expect Sgerbic or Rp2006 to willfully disclose their COIs. Therefore I was wondering if you'd help me with writing/creating the case. Then, a list of editor's they had emailed paid-en-wiki about, with no real names or links to articles. <irony>It's weird how people can get when there's possible off-wiki coordination.</irony> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors don't get to go on a witch hunt by policing the language about what they're doing (though "lynch mob" is an off-colour term to be avoided). Looks like the first Nederlandse Leeuw has heard about their COI is a ping here informing them them that paid-en-wp has been emailed with "evidence" about them. Did nobody even ask - friendly like - if they have a COI? Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the oversight there, I should have contacted them on their talk page. Asking on their talk page would not have affected me emailing paid-en-wp, though, as as far as I know there's nothing wrong with emailing them with evidence whether you contact the user or not. Additionally, they are still free to disclose their COI now and that shouldn't really affect anything procedure-wise as far as I am aware. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A google search of "Michael Steinkellner skeptic" shows a possible COI of User:Michael Steinkellner with GWUP. He is inactive, but worth noting here as well as he is one of the major editors of that page. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody know what to call a load of people attacking apparantly innocent people, for unspecified reasons, without incurring the ire of fringe sympathetic people on wikipedia? I have some ideas. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be offended at your implication that I'm "fringe sympathetic" if I wasn't using my crystals to center my energy right now. Even still, I might have to put on my magnetic copper bracelet to keep my chi in balance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was implying that some of the admins involved, they know who they are, are fringe sympathetic. They've had it pointed out to them in the past. As for yourself, if you feel the cap fits, then OK. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please excuse Roxy, their ISFJ nature leads them to act in this way. Just AGF and keep moving. Or, alternatively, keep talking. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with stop signs, but I can't resist making a joke. It's a failing on my part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh god I adore how you mentioned "this time with feeling". Fantastic, very funny! Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, I do not know how to explain to you any more than I already have that a COI is quite a straight-forward and serious subject. Additionally, please stop assuming I am "fringe sympathetic". That is a baseless accusation and strongly against my personal beliefs. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been tarnished by some early missteps, and goodwill is understandably at a bit of an ebb. paid-en-wp has been brought in, I suggest that we let them do their work, and/or an arbcom case be requested if it proves to be necessary. Rather than flaming each other, can we please just let this discussion fade gently into the archives? MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: respectfully, the first post in this subsection is from an arb-com functionary, who as they've said above has access to the paid-en-wp inbox, asking for community feedback based on evidence they have received. It may be that a full arb-com case is needed for this, in which case yes this discussion should end. But I don't know if we've reached that point yet? Letting it fade gently into the archives at this point runs the risk of no action being taken against one or more editors who have both a confirmed COI and have misled others about it. Some action needs to be taken here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

COI misunderstanding

There seems to be a misunderstanding in many of the posts above about COI. We hear about

• "action being taken against one or more editors who have both a confirmed COI and have misled others about it"
• "a COI is quite a straight-forward and serious subject"
• "If you have a COI you must disclose it"

To be clear: there is nothing wrong with having a COI; in fact COIs are a positive sign that one is actually doing something in life — the best way to avoid them is to sit in the basement all day doing nothing. There is absolutely no requirement in general to declare COIs on Wikipedia.

There is only an issue when editing activity intersects with a COI. This is strongly discouraged by WP:COI, but not prohibited by policy, except N.B. in the case where it is WP:PAID editing disclosure in necessary under the ToU. Editors are not going to get arbcom blocked just for "having a COI" or even for unpaid COI editing. In the case of GSoW, as the previous megathread at ANI[11] attests, there is no community consensus about which kinds of editing even constitute a COI. In order to show a COI problem it is necessary to show bad edits. The purpose of have WP:PAGs around COIs is to prevent damage to the (running of the) encyclopedia, not to police who people are in real life. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So, again, it's okay to edit with a COI, add information about yourself to articles, add citations to your own works, or greatly expand the article on your employer. As long as a group of editors agree with your position then this editing is A-OK. However, if people don't agree with the position that your COI editing takes you'll be blocked immediately as WP:NOTHERE or as a promotional account. Bonus points if the editors who agree with your position use Nazi euphemisms or witch hunt analogies against the people pointing out your clear COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If the COI is for the content you are editing then no, it's not "okay", it's against the grain of a guideline, and against-the-grain editing is a good way to get the community cross with you, leading to sanctions. But COI on Wikipedia is more complicated than is sometimes appreciated - as has been said before the WMF has partnerships with some organisations who will "enhance" Wikipedia with their organisation's scholarly/scientific content. So in a sense the content does matter - adding great quality stuff can be fine because in such a case the editor interest and the interest of Wikipedia is not in conflict but aligned, in bringing great high-quality knowledge to the world. But adding stuff touting your pyramid scheme, consultancy business or fake cancer cure ... not so much. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot! It's especially okay to lie about having that COI or your editing history as long as your opinion is in the majority. What the heart doesn't grieve the eye doesn't see, as we say in my hometown, or in other words, who cares about your relationship to the subjects you write about affecting article content and consensus about them as long as I think you're anti-fringe. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Never a good idea to accuse people of lying. Unless you can read their mind. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See Sgerbic lying above about not citing herself. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It must be nice to have a perfect memory. Anyway, Sgerbic's userpage counts as a disclosure, and (much to the consternation of some of the COIN regulars) self-citation is not really against policy, and as far as I can tell neither is being mistaken (or lying, if you want to use emotionally loaded language). We can (and have) say 'please stop' but that's really all that policy supports. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, "lying" connotes intent. It's a personal attack. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will apologize if I mistake others' intent. I have difficulties understanding subtext and/or nuance in personal comments and the like, and I take everything face value. Intent or not, after being shown she was mistaken one would expect her to engage in good faith and apologize. Instead, she (as far as I understand it) stopped interacting with this thread or help us understand the situation better. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Unfounded accusations of lying are a personal attack yes. But when you have proof that editors have not told the truth, as is the case with two editors involved in this discussion, what do you call it if not lying? Do we follow Westminster rules, and instead call it misleading of the noticeboards? Or do we need another euphemism? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I'm stealing that phrase hope you dont mind. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Also here Rp2006 says he has never discussed WP with Hill although the article that started this whole mess says Hill thanked him for an edit on her page. I would not accuse people of lying if they didn't actually do so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Being part of GSoW does not constitute a COI (I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is nothing wrong with people collaborating). The problem (as I understand it) is that several of the major players in GSoW seem to be directly affiliated with Skeptical Inquirer and GSoW appears to be encouraging its editors to extensively cite SI and related publications in a way that goes beyond "here's a good source" and into "cite our publication for us". We also have what appear to be cases of editors engaging in SELFCITE, which puts us in a difficult position since it's hard to call people out on that without breaching OUTING. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is that "cite our publication for us" may be controversial, but the community has not decided it's a bad thing for certain publications. The Cochrane Wikipedia Partnership has explicit instructions telling (in some cases Cochrane-affiliated) editors to find Cochrane publications and to add them to Wikipedia. Now, I'm not saying SI is on the same level as Cochrane reviews (it's not a periodical I read) - merely pointing out that adding sources of high quality from affiliated persons in something the WMF has actively encouraged. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't even care about the GSoW thing. It can be ignored, because it doesn't really matter. People keep saying "look for bad edits," well there are people who are publicly fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, writers for Skeptical Inquirer, or writers for their other publications, who are editing about and inserting cites to those same organizations and publications. Often they're using primary sources, i.e. a write-up of a "sting" that was done, which has no coverage in secondary sources, to insert huge swathes of negative content and quotes into BLP articles. The BLP issues are originally what got some of these pages on my watchlist.

Imagine someone was working for a small, but reasonably reliable food magazine. That person went around conducting "sting" operations at restaurants, then their colleagues added the negative information from those "sting" operations to the article of every restaurant "stung."

Imagine creating an article, with a severe BLP violation in the lead, and then adding negative content sourced to the group you have a COI with? This isn't "sure, there some COI, but look at all the science that's being added!!" It's using sources you're connected to to promote an organization and attack other people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is the correct way to pursue it: identify/fix the problems and alert the community to any editor(s) who have a pattern of creating such problems. This, rather than trying to reconstruct membership lists of GSoW or engaging in quasi-outing through Google searches about peoples' real life. On Wikipedia, bad editing is a real problem whereas "having a COI" is incidental. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "quasi-outing"? From my experience in this noticeboard if an editor uses their full name mentioning a search of that name is a valid way to indicate a COI, see threads below: Sennheiser and Engineers India. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The policy is that "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information". That includes work affiliations. Arbcom typically has taken a harder line on this that what might go down at COIN. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not posted anyone's personal information as far as I am aware, Alexbrn. Of course, if the consensus is I have and I misunderstood how to go about making references to searches I'm glad to reword what I wrote and ask oversight revdel the relevant edits. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey there ACS - why haven't you mentioned that other talk page you have ventured to? Drawing another editor into the drama. Who is next? When will you stop trying to root people out? Sgerbic (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your question, Sgerbic? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You spend so much time on editors talk pages that you can't remember the message you left on January 2nd? It just got lost in the flood of messages? I just went to archive my talk page, I rarely need to do that because I receive so few messages, I'm not that type of editor, I spend most of my time here ... editing articles. As I cleaned up my talk page I see that there are five different topics, all are from you. Why are you being so shy about the other editor you are trying to draw into your drama? I'm sure others here would be interested. Sgerbic (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No I don't remember that exact message, it's been a busy holiday season and my ADHD is not good at remembering vague references during busy times. Please link a diff, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrFringilla#COI Sgerbic (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the issue with the message? They still haven't replied. I must have forgotten to email paid-en-wp the evidence I think links MrFringilla to Skeptical Inquirer, thanks for the reminder. Your help is greatly appreciated. If there is anyone else who I've messaged about this topic inquiring on their possible COIs with SI or CFI, please do not hesitate to message me about it as well, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Luckin Coffee

• Luckin Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ICookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mattm64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.211.19.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three WP:SPAs seem to be working from a document to update the article. Editor @Skarmory: noticed the unsusual editing pattern and it up at the help desk. It does seem quite off, particularly the last edit summary Finishing touches -Doc. I've informed them. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply from iCookie/84.211.19.226 regarding claimed Conflict of Interest. (Also written on my talk-page): Regarding the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard of a possible conflict of interest, there is a wrongful claim that the Wikipedia page of Luckin Coffee is being updated from a document by three WP:SPAs. The IP address of 84.211.19.226 is mine, as I did the first edits to the page without logging into my account, iCookie. You could check my account history and see that I'm not in fact a WP:SPA, as I have edited several articles in the past, including the norwegian Wikipedia sites: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbert_dose , https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Harold_Gray , https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(enhet) , https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ndelig_oppf%C3%B8lger , although this was quite a while back.

The Wikipedia page of Luckin Coffee has been updated to reflect the recent material legal developments, as well as updated to reflect current audited financial data and store counts which were all severely outdated. All the updates have been accurately cited with either 1. news articles from valid sources 2. audited financial data from Luckin Coffee 3. legal documents from the corporate restructuring, found at https://dm.epiq11.com/case/luckin/dockets. I have tried presenting information in an objective as possible manner. I hope you can read through the article and see this.

The "finishing touches" refers to the last updates I made before going to bed yesterday after spending the entire day contributing to the page. The Wikipedia page has not been updated from a document, but it has been a gradual work of mine over several hours (as you can see from the way my edits have been made), to try and organize the page in a better way. For instance the information regarding the Chapter 15 proceeding has been moved from the "History"-category down to the "2020 accounting scandal" category, and this category was renamed to include all restructuring-related matters. The category was moved down as it's no longer a current event after recent litigation settlements.

I hope this clarifies the situation a bit. Thank you. ICookie (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: It is indeed "a while back" that you were editing on Norwegian Wikipedia. 14 years, actually, so I think you can see that it is odd that you would suddenly return to begin editing English Wikipedia with such a strong interest in the minutia of the legal situation of a Chinese coffee company operating within New York. User:Mattm64 also appears to have been inactive since 2007, just like you. Is there a connection? --SVTCobra 13:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I'm still a bit unclear as to what the problem is. Is the article edited or written in such a manner that it strikes you as non-objective?

As for Mattm64, we know each other privately and both have an interest in corporate restructurings, of which Luckin Coffees cross-border restructuring is a textbook learning example. I would assume that such a textbook successful restructuring would be great learning material for students and the likes, of which many use Wikipedia, and I'd think that many people would have great interest in the reading about the "minutia" behind it.ICookie (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: This is an informal discussion. Unusual behavior is reported here and those who follow this noticeboard look into it and discuss it. I had never heard of Luckin Coffee before this, so as of yet I don't know if is objective (frankly, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact they grew to 5000+ locations since 2017). You state that you used court dockets as well as audited financial data as sources, yet I do not see either of those listed as references. Digging into primary sources when there are so many secondary sources is also unusual. And again, unusual is not the same as wrongdoing, it's just unusual. --SVTCobra 14:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Those references are gone, because Quetstar reverted everything, including store-counts and other information like revenues and financial data that was done in complete accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, and including the numerous secondary sources from Bloomberg, Reuters etc. ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: SVTCobra claims that since it's a long time since I edited Wikipedia, that I should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia articles anymore, despite all my edits to the article having citations, references, lots of secondary sources like Reuters and Bloomberg, and also having objective language in accordance with the standards of Wikipedia. He has given no further reason for why and just claims that I am "raising red flags" since it's a long time since I edited any wikipedia articles. This is not a valid argument to attack me. ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if an objective third-party could look at my revisions and tell me if, and how, my edits are breaking the rules of Wikipedia.

Keep in mind this article hadn't been updated in a long time and still uses old financial data, old store-count data and old data regarding important developments that have happened in the restructuring of Luckin Coffee. For instance, they are no longer under Chapter 15, as a judge just approved their restructuring plan. 2021 (UTC) ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie @SVTCobra: I checked the article and it raised some red flags in me since the users in question have only edited this article, so I have boldly revered the edits and restored the last revision before them. Quetstar (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: I have not edited Luckin Coffee. I have no 'powers' either. So let's keep the discussion civil. --SVTCobra 14:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie I reverted the edits, not SVTCobra. Quetstar (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: You still have not told me how exactly this article is breaking the rules. The only reason you have given for this supposed "conflict of interest" is that "its a long time since I edited on Wikipedia". That is not a valid reason and you know it. ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

My language has been objective, all citations and references have been given as neccessary. Anyone can check that and see. ICookie (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: You even deleted the audited financial data that I updated on the sidepanel, and reverted it to the 2020 data, which is kind of hilarious. How exactly is updating financial data a "red flag"? Or updating the store count? You even reverted the store count back to 2019-numbers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: Again, I have not edited Luckin Coffee, I have not deleted anything and I have not said anything was "breaking the rules". Nevertheless, you seem to have a problem with me, so I will happily recuse myself from this discussion. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: My apologies to you SVTCobra, I see @Quetstar was the one who reverted my work. Still, you have presented no valid argument as to why the article should be reverted (something you obviously supported), beyond telling me that I haven't edited on Wikipedia in a long time. Please point out exactly how its breaking the rules and how its non-objective.

@SVTCobra: @Quetstar I would like an explanation as to how the article broke the rules or was otherwise non-objective. Why was financial data reverted to data from 2020 and 2019, when we have data from 2021? Why do you think the category on the 2020 accounting scandal should not be updates, when there have been material developments here? Why do you believe the article should still refer to Luckin Coffee as being under Chapter 15 bankruptcy, when in fact its not anymore? Please explain, I am all ears — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs)

@ICookie: I had not even begun to form an opinion. I was just asking questions. I did nothing to cause Quetstar to revert the article to an earlier version. And as far as I can see, neither of us initiated any action that resulted in the rev-del (revision deletion) performed by an administrator. Unbeknownst to me, there were apparently extensive copyright violations in your final version of the article which required it to be actually deleted from the history of the article. I do not know how the administrator became aware or discovered this. At this point, it is impossible for me to evaluate your edits because they are no longer available for me to see. Saying that I "supported" what happened is unfair. I have in the past helped editors who had a genuine COI (again, I am not implying you do). I worked with them and helped get the changes to their articles up to date, etc. I think all that's left for me to say now is God Jul! --SVTCobra 16:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

All the edits were suspicious, so i reverted them. An admin later deleted these due to them violating WP's copyright policy. Quetstar (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: Wrong. You removed more edits than the admin did, including valid, non-controversial data such as revenue figures, store-counts etc. from audited sources. You also still have not given a valid reason for removing these datas.

@SVTCobra: Fair enough SVTCobra, and a merry christmas to you too. I apologze if I came off as harsh, I thought you were the one deleting it but it was @Questar. I will take it up with him.

@SVTCobra: Hey mattm64 here. No COI. I just noticed that the page needed to be updated and ICookie asked for help. it's completely out of date, we updated all of the court documents in links and updated financials as well. I'm pretty sure we kept it neutral in tone. Also, you need to look at my edits where I posed exact links to the court dockets. Anything that starts with epic is a court docket, or an SEC link. Don't revert back hours of people's honest work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm64 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Financials, Court Docs and a rev-del for cutting and pasting from a press release... these are all red flags of someone using primary documents to reshape an article. Slywriter (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Okay noted, I didn't know we weren't supposed to use those? The page is over a year out of date, the last event listed is a 2020 SEC settlement. Since that time there has been a private placement raise, a class action settlement, A bankruptcy filing under chapter 15, and a chapter 15 enforcement order. As well as 2021 financials. I thought those would be considered relevant and not reshaping a document. Please advise. I'm somewhat of a rookie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm64 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally doesn't cate what a company says about itself, though updating store counts and other non-controversial information is fine when done in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. Court documents get tricky because they are generally primary documents and really need secondary sources that discuss those court documents. Slywriter (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: I reverted the edits because they were highly suspicious. Slywriter has excellently explained the red flags that led to me taking action. Quetstar (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Questar: You removed edits that were objective according to WP:ABOUTSELF such as updated financial data, store-count and secondary sources like Bloomberg and Reuters whom have also reported on the restructuring. Luckin Coffee is not under Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection anymore, and the article was updated to reflect this, using secondary sources (bloomberg), yet you also removed this.

An administrator has obviously looked at this, and he rev-del only the edits from where Mattm64 added information about the "JPL appointment".

But you, a non-administrator, have no reason to remove objective data such as store-counts, financial data and non-controversial information from secondary sources regarding the progress of the restructuring.ICookie (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: This is a moot point now. The rev-del would probably have happened regardless of Quetstar. Also, it is common to revert to last best version even if some of the intermediate versions are valid. In fact, I will even help update Luckin Coffee. The point is, the page needed to be reset due to the copyright issue. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: @Questar removed more than the rev-delete did, including store count, revenue and updated financial data in the sidepanel, that was according with WP:ABOUTSELF and data that used valid secondary sources, such as the Bloomberg article mentioning that Luckin Coffee was no longer under restructuring.

• Comment I think the three of you are undeclared paid editors, paid to update the article and make it to something it wasn't before. The whole thing is a crock. I think we are being played. scope_creep^Talk 17:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  I cannot see the edits, but I trust the perspectives offered by @Quetstar, Slywriter, SVTCobra, and Scope creep:. Thus, I agree with Scope's assessment here, per the duck test. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I already told you that the IP address starting with 84 is me. I made the first edits before logging in. Please check the IP address of my username if you do not believe me. Me and Mattm64 are not paid editors, please refrain from accusations of which you have no evidence of. Edits that were fully compliant with the rules of Wikipedia and even completely non-contriversial edits such as store-counts, audited revenue figures etc were removed by @Questar. Yes some edits were removed by admins, but @Questar removed many more edits than that, and has so far given no valid reason as to why. Again the non-rev deleted edits were completely non-contriversial and there is no way to fake it, as it was based on audited data, reuters and bloomberg secondary sources.

This was a blanket delete done by @Questar, he didnt even bother to check what was edited, but simply removed everything I added.

Yes, the edits were objected to and reverted. Per WP:BRD, You can start a discussion on the talk page about those edits if you like. There is nothing unusual or improper in other editors' conduct of reverting and raising concern about the edits, so you would be wise to divert off that path and focus on whether you can edit the article in compliance with wikipedia police, procedures and Terms of Service. Slywriter (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

ICookie, Mattm64, do you have some connection to Luckin Coffee? Specifically, do you receive or expect to receive, or have you ever received, and financial payment, benefit, reward or emolument from that company? If so, you are required to make appropriate disclosure. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Good grief! The early part of this discussion has been heavily edited well after after responses. I guess to make it look less confrontational. I don't even know how to undo this mess. --SVTCobra 18:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Bleh, let this serve as the record of the alteration I guess. Could include a note by their comments with the diff. Slywriter (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I mistook you for @Quetstar earlier, and edited my own comments to correct that. So outside parties reading this mess can actually understand whats going on. If you think I am confrontational, thats on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

On me, eh? ICookie, you were practically screaming about me abusing my so-called powers and demanding third-party intervention. --SVTCobra 22:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: This is a pointless debate. I mistook you for Quetstar, and when I realized that, I changed my replies. If you felt I was screaming at you or otherwise offended you in any way, I apologize for that. I spent all yesterday editing this article and Questar removed all my edits in one fell swoop, most edits of which were perfectly valid and non-controversial such as financial data. He still has not given a proper reasoning for it.

@Slywriter @SVTCobra @Questar @Scope_creep @Santacruz Only a smaller portion of the edits were actually rev-deleted by an admin. The rest was reverted by @Questar. You can still see the majority of my edits in diff. Look at the diff, and tell me which of my edits broke the Wikipedia policies, procedures, Terms of Service or copyright, and point out which of my edits did not use objective language, improper citations or the likes. And be spesific. Saying I am "suspect" because it's been a long time since I edited, is not a valid argument.

@Justlettersandnumbers No, we are not paid or otherwise affiliated with Luckin Coffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We can no longer see the diffs of what Questar reverted to refer to them. And challenging his revert is pointless. It was well-intentioned and in the interests of the encyclopedia. You can attempt to re-insert the content or discuss on the talk page of the article. Those are the next steps and a lot less waste of everyone's time as absent any other evidence this COI discussion has reached its limits.Slywriter (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. For me, the subject is closed and that's final. Quetstar (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter @Quetstar Is this a joke? Go to View History and compare the latest edit with the edit done 20:18, 19th of December (GMT+1). EVERYONE can access that version and it wasnt rev-deleted, but removed by Quetstar along with all my edits before it. AGAIN, I did plenty of edits before that point in time, that weren't rev-del'd but @Quetstar still removed them for no valid reason. Again, go compare these in diff, and tell me which of my edits break Wikipedia policies, procedures, Terms of Service, copyright, are non-objective / biased or used improper citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The edit which introduced content sourced to a press release by Luckin Coffee?? No need to go further if you don't see the problems with that edit. More importantly, this needs to move to subject talk page and be a discussion on the content thereSlywriter (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter and the edits using Bloomberg, Reuters and audited financial data? Why were those removed? Remove or improve the edit you don't like, dont remove everything including perfectly valid edits.

@Slywriter OH, and great job on that revenue update. You got it completely wrong. Revenues for Q3 2020 weren't even close to $300M. In fact the revenue figures were completely accurate as according to the AUDITED financial data from 2020, until @Quetstar was kind enough to remove them all, because god forbid Wikipedia readers actually get accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

My reasoning was valid. Your edits will not be restored and that's final whenever you like it or not. Quetstar (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar You wrongfully removed valid edits that were in-line with the Wikipedia TOS and all other legal framework, and that were completely non-controversial, such as financial data, revenue figures, and store-counts that were sourced from AUDITED financial data, i.e. checked and validated by a third-party (secondary source).ICookie (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• UPDATE @Quetstar has wrongfully removed valid edits that were in-line with the Wikipedia TOS and all other legal framework, and that were completely non-controversial, such as financial numbers on the sidebar, revenue figures, and store-counts that were sourced from AUDITED financial data, i.e. checked and validated by a third-party auditor of the company (secondary source). @SVTCobra tried putting the data back into the sidebar, but got completely wrong revenue numbers. I will be restoring these edits that I have made with the CORRECT numbers. If anyone has a problem with that, take it to the Talk page. If you purposefully delete my valid edits again, then you are being disruptive and participating in edit warring which is a breach of Wikipedia TOS. ICookie (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  And i will revert them again, because an admin later deleted them for copyright violations. Quetstar (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar:*:Wrong. The admin deleted only the edits made by Mattm64 from 20:22 (GMT +1) and after, for copyright violations. He did not delete my edits up to 16:56 (GMT+1), 19 December 2021‎ because there were no copyright violations there.

I don't want to discuss this any further, but the article will remain as is because it's in WP's best interest. Quetstar (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Quetstar: You are wrongfully removing valid edits that are in-line with the Wikipedia TOS and all other legal framework, and that are completely non-controversial, such as financial numbers on the sidebar, revenue figures, and store-counts that were sourced from AUDITED financial data, i.e. checked and validated by a third-party auditor of the company (secondary source). You are wrongfully claiming that there are copyright infringements in the article, something that was been disproven to you in the argument above. You are unable to point out the copyright infringements you claim are taking place. You are purposefully deleting/reverting valid edits, you are being disruptive and participating in edit warring which is a breach of Wikipedia TOS. I will be reporting you on the Edit warring noticeboard shortly. ICookie (talk)

@ICookie:: That is NOT edit warring, and is not a breach of TOS, I am just enforcing what has been agreed upon by me and the other editors here apart from you and Mattm64. Quetstar (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar:: Your actions of wrongfully removing valid edits were not "agreed" upon by anyone. In fact Slywriter, SVTCobra and Santacruz didn't even get a chance to look at the edits before you deleted them, and they pointed that out numerous times previously in this debate. Slywriter even suggested I re-insert my edits and that we move further talk to the Talk-page of the Luckin Coffee page. So yes, you are edit warring and breaking the TOS by, on your own (not by consensus), wrongfully removing valid edits that are in-line with the Wikipedia TOS and all other legal framework, and that are completely non-controversial, such as financial numbers on the sidebar, revenue figures, and store-counts that were sourced from AUDITED financial data, i.e. checked and validated by a third-party auditor of the company (secondary source). You are wrongfully claiming that there are still copyright infringements in the article as an excuse for edit warring, something that was been disproven to you time and time again in the argument above. You are unable to point out the copyright infringements you claim are taking place in the current version. You are purposefully deleting/reverting valid edits, you are being disruptive and breaking the Wikipedia TOS. End of debate. ICookie (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie I have no further comment because i have reported you to ANI. Quetstar (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar The fact that you just wrongfully deleted all my edits for a second time, and this time gave "copyright infringement" as the reason for the deletion (when there is no copyright infringement in the current version) shows that you are the one that should be reported to ANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar In fact I just reviewed your Talk page and you have a lot of complaints against you for similar behavior as you are showing here, i.e. wrongfully and repeatedly mass deleting / reverting contributions for non-valid reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICookie (talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers No I am not paid by anyone nor do I have any connection to Luckin Coffee. Seeing as information on the company is a bit hard to come by I doubt they are paying anyone to do any of this. Heck I had a hard enough time finding information in the dockets, but as I have some experience with searching legal documents and following court cases I thought I would help contribute - and I was updating the page because it was over a year old. My edits were neutral and non-speculative. I did make the mistake of not putting quotations on a copy paste, but I did cite my source. I accept that that portion has been removed for copyright violation. What surprises me the most is how @quetstar wanted to remove factual things such as court decisions and revenue figures as these would seem to be material to the page. Funny how he just edited and added the word "embattled" in front of Luckin Coffee in the history. I don't care, but that seems like a non-neutral and biased term that should be avoided. if I didn't know better I would say he is the one with the agenda, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm64 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar I see the last revert and changes you made. To be clear, I plan on correcting spelling and grammar, as well as adding any relevant developments on the page as they occur. For example, If there is a management change, or an exit from chapter 15, or if the IPO in HK etc (I'm just making these up), those would be relevant edits to add. It doesn't make sense to keep an article "as is" if it's not up to date (as it has been out of date for over a year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm64 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Underlying cause?

So I decided to do a bit of digging to try to figure out what's going on here, so as with most brigading attempts I went and had a look at reddit. It turns out that there's a subreddit dedicated to investing in LuckinCoffee with the belief that it's going to go "to the moon". [12]. On that subreddit there is this thread, which is rather enlightening [13] archive link. This comment [14] claims that the page was updated by the "LKNCY Stocktwits group", stocktwits is a forum for investors. So it seems that what we have here are a load of people owning stock, therefore having a financial stake in the company, working together to "update" the article in the hope of pumping up the stock price. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding that - searched up @Mattm64: on stocktwits and found this post. I archived it here. There is also this archived post. LKNCY is what Luckin Coffee is traded by, so that's what the LKNCY in those posts are for. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Good work folks!! scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Scope_creep @86.23.109.101 : All of Mattm64s revisions were deleted so this is moot. Mine weren't, and I am not a member of stocktwits nor Reddit, nor am I an "UPE". Please stop with the speculative fable. My revisions do not break the Wikipedia TOS, copyrights or other legal framework, and are completely non-controversial, such as updating financial data, revenue numbers and store-counts on the side-bar. These edits are sourced and cited from AUDITED financial data, i.e. data that has been checked and validated by a third-party auditor of the company (secondary source). On the contrary, @Quetstar has twice wrongfully reverted my edits under the guise of "copyright infringement" when there are no copyright infringement, which is breaking Wikipedia TOS. ICookie (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Woah, nice work y'all! I wonder if the whole retail investor bubble thing might be negatively affecting stock pages en masse... I imagine investors that are highly leveraged on risky bets would seek to edit the articles on the companies they've invested in to convince others the companies are more valuable than they are. So it might not be a COI, but it would be promotion or marketing of some kind. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing an article for financial gain would definitely be a COI, A._C._Santacruz. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Cordless Larry oh yeah, I probably meant paid edit as in like contracted editing. My bad. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The Stocktwits rabbit hole does go deeper but I am not going to post it here (nor should anyone else) as it could run afoul of policy. This case is resolved anyway. --SVTCobra 18:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I ask any admin seeing this to read through my revisions on the Luckin Coffee page and see that they are completely non-controversial, properly cited and I am not breaking Wikipedias TOS nor infringing on copyrights. The rev-del was AFTER my initial edits, as Mattm64 apparently broke copyrights. Again, the current revision does NOT break any copyrights and was NOT rev-deld. I am not sure why I was targetted in COIN along with Mattm64 (still haven't got a clear answer asides from @scope_creep and @quetstar calling me "suspicious"). I keep getting accused of being a WP:SPA or that I am "paid by Luckin Coffee" when that is not even remotely true. I feel I may be an easy target because my edits happened right before a rev-delete. Keep in mind that in the COIN discussion, @Quetstar (who has several complaints against him on his talk-page) mass-reversed my edits before any consensus was reached, or before users like Slywriter, SPVCobra and Santacruz even had a chance to read my edits. @Quetstar wrongfully revised my work based on "copyright infringement" twice, but the revision he reverted had NO copyright issues. I do also notice that several of the accounts targetting me including @scope_creep @Quetstar @MrOllie and others have several complaints on their Talk-pages. Again this has escalated so much that I am now hoping an admin intervenes here, reads through my revisions on the Luckin Coffee page and hopefully locks it to prevent further drama. Thank you.ICookie (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@ICookie: I would address your comments up at the Administrator noticeboard. They will decide what to do. scope_creep^Talk 11:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Update ICookie and Mattm64 have been blocked from editing Luckin Coffee. --SVTCobra 17:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Update ICookie and Mattm64 have now been blocked from editing English Wikipedia. --SVTCobra 22:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

SVTCobra, please send that email to ArbCom, so they can file it away and possibly take over the block if they feel the need to. I'll just say here, for the record, that when Mattm64 said "Hey mattm64 here. No COI." they were lying. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 15:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I knew it was crock. These people and their agenda, will be the death of Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 16:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Róbert Wessman

• Róbert Wessman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Haeito1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apologies in advance for a bit of an essay, but I’m trying to work with Wikipedia and hitting walls which I dont think are unnecessary - I hope this is this right place to discuss and resolve the issues I'm having.

I am concerned that Wallyfromdilbert is allowing their personal biases to disrupt the efforts to work on the article Róbert Wessman in good faith. To be clear, I dont think they have a bias towards the article subject, I think they have a bias against paid editors, and they have moved from making reasonable changes to being unfair.

Their first work on the article was very sensible and is likely why they are watching the page. An editor posted to the WP:BLPN advising that an IRC helpdesk request had claimed the article’s controversy section was defamatory. Wallyfromdilbert correctly replied "the current article text seems to accurately … [make] clear that the allegations/accusations are only that. The language may be able to be improved and tightened up, but if someone has an issue, then they would probably need to be more specific as to the particular concerns". They also, as per WP:CSECTION, removed the controversy section’s title.

Shortly after this post was made, I started a separate (completely unrelated) section on the BLPN, asking if the Róbert Wessman article could be deleted. The account who created the page, Haeito1010, seemed to exhibit very unusual behaviour, spending over 700 edits uploading a page one word at a time to a different newly-created article before creating the Róbert Wessman article and never editing Wikipedia again after that.

I made a full note here, but I don’t think anyone actually read it … one enthusiastic but misguided editor even said “I didn’t read the above appeal!” and just deleted the former controversy section, which again, Wallyfromdilbert correctly reverted.

I repeated my concern that the article should be made from scratch considering the editor who made it looks like a ‘cunningly’ disguised SPA. As with many cases of editors creating articles in bad faith, my argument was that, if the subject is notable enough for an article, someone without an agenda will recreate it (I think this is sometimes called draftifying?). I didn’t receive any response to this, so I started the deletion request myself.

Wallyfromdilbert reappeared to weigh in on the debate to say the article should be kept, which I don’t have a problem with. I do take some offense at them saying "The paid editor working for Wessman who has requested this deletion seems to be making pretty baseless claims against another editor, ignoring all their work on another article to somehow claim they have a conflict of interest."

Firstly, I don’t think the claims are baseless. I can’t name a single other time I have seen someone upload an article in 700+ tiny edits, but more damning I think is the complete drop of all Wikipedia activity afterwards. I don’t have any particular need for Haeito1010 to be banned as they haven’t done anything on the site since August, but I do think it’s unfair to just dismiss an argument with plenty of links to diffs as “baseless”.

Secondly, yes, I have a conflict of interest, which I openly declared on the BLPN and deletion request, but this does not make me a bad person or incompetent editor, and I must say that having fair observations dismissed as "baseless claims" is likely the kind of thing that encourages people to attempt undisclosed editing. It is not fair to limit people to asking questions on Talk and Discussion spaces and then dismiss them out of hand when they stick to these guidelines. A few people debating the deletion latched onto the notability argument rather than the inherent bias argument, and I think Wallyfromdilbert’s comment might have dissuaded them from looking into the full argument I made on the BLPN simply because I declared a connection.

The deletion debate was unanimously in favour of keeping and improving the article with more information. This is fair enough, so I made a request to add some further content using the Talk page, again in respect for not directly intervening where I have a conflict of interest.

Part of the request was implemented by Alvaldi, who made a few edits to the article. This editor has a solid record of contributions across Wikipedia, an apparent familiarity with Icelandic news and business, and they have asked some questions about conflicting sources; they are definitely acting in good faith. Wallyfromdilbert then reverted Alvaldi’s changes as poorly-sourced and promotional.

I feel stuck; all I want to do is suggest content and have some editorial oversight from unbiased parties so the article is more accurate, but everyone is duking it out in article mainspace. I think Alvaldi’s assessments are fair, and I’m concerned that Wallyfromdilbert is letting a dislike for the usual antics of paid accounts get in the way of a productive conversation. I messaged on the Talk page to ask them to discuss Alvaldi’s work before deleting, but haven’t had any sort of response. I get that Wallyfromdilbert is experienced and has no obligation to look over the content I have requested, but with all the good will in the world I could use a bit more understanding and patience from them.

Can someone please take a look at this and weigh in? Noemimanical (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

TLDR. I do not mean to be flippant and I did try to read most of it, but there is a genuine lack of specifics in this post. It's a narrative full of user names and vague allusions to other editors motivations and interactions. Past deletion requests is not something we review here. This is for discussion of conflicts of interest. What is the conflict of interest that Wally may have? What specific parts of the Róbert Wessman article are incorrect due to the alleged COI edits? Please be concise. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi SVTCobra I appreciate you reading through this. I came to this noticeboard because it seemed the most appropriate for issues where a conflict of interest is the cause of the problem. I have a conflict of interest, but I don't think Wally is engaging fairly with my attempts at collaboration. If it were the other way round this would definitely be the forum, so I worked off that logic.

For a TLDR: I think Wally is biased because they keep fighting my suggestions (or edits based on such) but I think their disagreements aren't justified. I can handle disagreement, but they dont seem to want to discuss why they consider additions promotional. As a specific, they removed the Harvard case study from the Róbert Wessman article, which is arguably one of the reasons him and his businesses are notable. I get that a lot of what COI editors think is a valid addition is typically puff, but a neutral editor decided that that detail was relevant enough to include, so I would argue there isnt consensus to remove it. It's not my place to argue consensus directly, but I've been tasked with trying to make this article more accurate, so I'm trying to play by the rules and encourage those who are free to edit the article directly to reach an agreement. I do maintain that the article creation was fishy as hell, so my motive is to make sure that there is at least fair content on the page. Noemimanical (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Noemimanical: You must notify the involved parties of the discussion when you post a new entry here. It is emphasized in red both at the top of the page and when you edit the page. I have gone ahead and done so on your behalf this time. --SVTCobra 17:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Noemimanical: You should probably disclose your own COI on your userpage. Go to WP:DISCLOSE for how to do so. --SVTCobra 18:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: This looks to me to be a content dispute centered around some unflattering allegations made against Róbert Wessman by a former collegue. I do not see any evidence of COI or bad faith for Haeito1010 when they created the page. There may have been some questions as far as how much weight to give the controversy. Wallyfromdilbert and a couple other editors seem to have implemented some of Noemimanical's lengthy edit request. I don't see any particular bias or COI there. This is above all other things a content dispute and not really for COIN. I will also note, Scope creep has nominated the article for lack of notability, so we will see how that goes. --SVTCobra 19:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wildlands Festival

• Wildlands Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Grapevine Gathering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Beyond The Valley Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pitch Music & Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Added by SVTCobra 00:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC) as the user is continuing to create articles
• A.greco21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has recently created the first two articles and updated the third, all Australian music festivals. They have no edits to other articles. I believe this is a SPA promotional account. Searching on a portion of the username finds a likely connection to the Australian music industry and more specifically, a company connected to these events. Likely UPE. MB 21:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also a copy at Draft:Wildlands Festival. Notifying Robert McClenon also. MB 21:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor first created Draft:Wildlands Festival before they were autoconfirmed, and then after autoconfirmation created it in article space. The practice of creating an article in both draft space and article space is done for various reasons including to game the system by blocking the movement of an article into draft space. I have no other specific information about this editor.

User:MB did not wait for an answer about conflict of interest from User:A.greco21 before coming to this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, completely understand where you are coming from! I don't have any connection to these music festivals, I am just someone who really enjoys going to Australian music festival and am planning to update/create a page for all the ones that I have been over the past couple of years, giving an insight into their history/lineup that these have previously had. A lot of the AUS festival either have very basic wiki pages or do not have one at all. I thought the addition of these onto Wikipedia would've have been welcomed onto the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.greco21 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@A.greco21:, that's great and frankly I can totally understand someone wanting to create Wikipedia articles for something they enjoy and are fans of. My first article was about an athlete I was a fan of. In your case, however, you do not seem like a novice editor. You are creating fully formed with near perfect wiki-markup articles as your first edits. Additionally, you are uploading photos to Commons which are very some of which are taken from behind the performers. These facts taken into consideration, I think you are holding back. If the articles are accurate and the performers listed were there, I don't think notability will be a problem. I don't see anyone nominating for deletion, either. If you are a paid editor that does not mean the article disappears. But you'd have to disclose that. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have done editing previously, but not for a long time. Honestly i have seen what other wiki festival pages have done and mirrored the structure of how they did their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.greco21 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@A.greco21: As SVTCobra previously asked, can you explain how were you photographing backstage during a live performance in these photos? . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone that I knew had access to the backstage and was taking photos and gave me the photos to upload here — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.greco21 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

more than happy to remove if this is an issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.greco21 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The photos are great, I hope your friend knows you put them on Commons. The folks over there may want proof. But I still feel you may be understating own Wiki history. It took me forever to get <ref> to work correctly even after I saw it elsewhere. What was your previous username? Did you attend all these festivals? Did you travel with them? How do you know about the lineups from 5-6 years ago? . Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the photos were speedied on Commons as copyright violations. They were sourced from a variety of websites. --SVTCobra 18:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The latest is almost entirely, if not entirely, sourced to promotional materials.Slywriter (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. They are mostly press releases. Though, again, I think the festival is notable like the others, and primary can be used for basic facts. --SVTCobra 02:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've indeffed the user for WP:UPE/failure to disclose and draftified the pages he/she created. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Cherupalli Vivek Teja

• Cherupalli Vivek Teja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks to be blatant self-promotion. Citing dubious "news" reports and own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:cf00:1070:8d5b:763a:1529:a25a (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing COI at all. Notability and content are not issues for this noticeboard. Which user are you claiming to be the subject or acting on behalf of the subject? --SVTCobra 02:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Reputation Stars Announces Wikipedia Page Creation Services

For your whatever.

"Their writers look for the best quality sources full of accurate information to win favor with Wikipedia admins. With the help of these seasoned experts, customers can boost their personal or corporate prestige with a Wikipedia page today."

Merry Christmas! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

At least they are somewhat up front with requirements for articles, and give us some credit for checking sourcing. Requirements for publishing Wikipedia editors’ goal is to ensure that pages are accurate, free from spam, and notable enough to be included. Reputable sources such as news articles are required to establish a subject’s notability. If you have significant press coverage, you could be a good candidate for a Wikipedia article. Musicians and academics with significant accomplishments may meet qualification requirements with less coverage than is usually needed. If you lack significant coverage, we have connections with a number of PR organizations that can help improve your news coverage. However, it’s important to note that Wikipedia editors do not allow paid articles as sources for pages. They usually check for paid sources, so we recommend creating a plan to get more natural press. Contact us to discuss the details of PR coverage[15] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there was a cryptocurrency company who complained to their PR-guy something like "We spent $100 000 on press coverage, and you couldn't get us a fucking WP-article!?" @David Gerard? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

yeah, it was hilarious - Ditto Communications doing PR for Decred. To their credit, the PR agency did try to talk sense into them. I mentioned it in Signpost last year - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

From the same person who ran/runs Submit Express. --SVTCobra 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is the Wikipedia editor who is known as Pierre Zarokian, doing Wikipedia for 8 years. Does anybody know who that is? scope_creep^Talk 18:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not currently, as far as I know, but the Submit Express entry shows a past IP and user name. There's also a user name used by an employee though not active for over nine months. --SVTCobra 18:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Navjit Buttar

• Navjit Buttar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Suchayaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subject editor created Navjit Buttar in article space. Reviewer User:Onel5969 moved it to draft space, with the notation "Segregate UPE". The originator then moved it back to article space without discussion, but with the move reason "No Proof of UPE". This was not an actual denial of UPE, and can be read as weaseling. The subject editor should answer the question of whether they are being paid explicitly. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Where were they asked that question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am guessing here, Andy. --SVTCobra 23:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

• Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Railway Preservation Society of Ireland
• GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GalavantEnchancedMoon has today, 25 December 2021, re-started editing Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RPSI) per [16]. While purporting to address the balance between North and South operations the wording continues to make subtle poke's between the north and south of the society, with emphasis on the how the Southern operations (Dublin/Mullingar) have been "hard done by" the north. This is consistent with previous contributions such as Special:Diff/1022135389 "However, some members regard this as a waste of money and effort that would be better used on their existing locomotive and carriage fleet." The discussions on Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland/Archive 1 ^{NB I inserted "talk" in this link to fix it. --SVTCobra 03:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC))} are unsavoury; there has been need to delrev various articles on the main page. GalavantEnchancedMoon backed off from discussions at the time, but has re-emerged, and there is a question of COI, althougth previously denied. I was a member of the RPSI from 25 August 2021 until I resigned my membership in 22 November 2021 (more because RPSI email bulletin communications were reminding me of by pblock on the article by Mjroots and if I attended an RPSI event I might slag of WikiPedia admins handling of the matter. I accept my pblock has to remain becuase I was a member for a short while). There remains a question in my mind if GalavantEnchancedMoon should be allowed to use Wikipedia to air his disdains relating to the RPSI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Is everyone contributing to this article a member or former member of the society? --SVTCobra 04:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: - GEM states that he is not a member of the RPSI. We have to AGF that is the case.

As for the issues raised here, as I see it the RPSI has bases in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Both should be covered. Any major disputes between factions should also be covered, but in a neutral and non-partisan way. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots Because GEM has used the RPSI journal to support some of those claims using poorly embellished (and in one case syntactically incorrect) and offline resources I have removed the old wallet from its watertight hole and attempted to re-join the RPSI if they will choose to have me (Its always horrible when a browser screen says Whoops, looks like something went wrong. after one has entered the credit card details!). Obviously we can unending amounts of AGF ... except perhaps on my motives ... I'm a tad sarky because I just may have burned £30 so I hope people will AGF about that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: - Although I don't know the situation re the RPSI, many heritage railways do sell their house journal to the public. That GEM has used such a journal is not, in itself, evidence of membership of the RPSI. A different concern, which is valid, is that the journal is a WP:PRIMARY source insofar as it covers matters relating to the RPSI itself. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots:: Its reasonable for primary sources to be used for certain facts, but its use by GEM surely deserves scrutiny? Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A "major dispute" should be covered only if reliable secondary sources have published on the topic. Whatever the journal says about its dispute is immaterial. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. Are you able to do that, Mjroots? I am at a loss, quite frankly. Nevertheless, I am aware of larger rail clubs who do not have a Wikipedia page, so maybe TNT is an option if they can't agree. I cannot speak to the content of the article. --SVTCobra 08:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I purchased some second hand copies of the magazine (among other societies) many years ago. They are also available online, for example https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/49122667/five-foot-three-number-58-railway-preservation-society-of-ireland GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Please indicate larger rail clubs in the British Isles that do not have an article and are also a Train Operating Company? Also please think about the fact the publicly open Whitehead Railway Museum effectively requires that it has its own section. And before yet another TNT or stubify can anyone please tell me what is wrong from a neutrality viewpoint (yes there are spelling mistakes and there is expansion needed) with This 19th December 2021 version? However a key issue with a more recent addition such as [17] and determine if the and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead. if factually correct it is non neutral in tone. It is not to decry probable good/great Mullingar, situated somewhat in the centre of the Island of Ireland, has done; but I suspect the 1985 closure of the Mullingar line to Athone and access to Galway, Ballina, Westport, and former Great Southern and Western Railway other than via Dublin. Totally worth of mention, but probably a History section item rather than what I read as sour grapes. Take look at Dublin operations section. The Society has extensive operations out of Dublin which are said to bring in the lion's share of income, according to Five Foot Three issue 43. Does that undated? RS? look neutral? Now I am far from denying it may be true (Especially from earlier times but as the previous issue of Five Foot three was (No. 42) was in 1996 and that looks like a cherry picked claim. It not like Dublin Operations might still be generating most revenue, even with Covid, and it certainly needs a mention, but in this form of biased fashion? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said that about TNT'ing. Anyway, to clarify, I was not speaking of the British Isles and also not about clubs that operate real trains. Basically, just a couple of US-based clubs with larger membership numbers. Kindly disregard those parts of my message. It was really late at night for me. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor (I've never even set foot in Ireland), my understanding is that this is a long-running dispute, and essentially all major contributors to the article have a COI. Which makes sense, because everyone else doesn't want to wade into the middle of a war zone (I certainly don't). I don't know how to resolve this beyond banning everyone with a COI from making direct edits to the article entirely and having someone neutral rewrite it (I am NOT volunteering to do this). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings:: I'm am going to again, and I repeat again due to SVTCobra, cover the matter of why a rewrite is unnecessary. I was not an RPSI member prior to 25 August 2021. Per Special/Diff:1040560446 I declared I had just joined the RPSI (ie gone COI) and removed my contributions since a stubification. Independent contributor who took over mediation role for a while reviewed those contributions and confirmed they should be reinstated at Special:Diff/1040663068. Subsequently I have requested two {{request edit}} which were eventually were implemented. Yes I have had prose and spelling issues in those contributions. The format of the Rolling stock was to satisfy Drmies who seemed unhappy with a tabular format, while linking to relevant articles relating to stock. In totality there should be no need to revert back further than This 19th December 2021 version; what is not to say it could not be improved. But you vaguewave claim of a rewrite needed? No. A neutral rewrite of content added beyond that date given the totallity of GEM's contributions - definitively in my view. And your suggestion of Pblocking all COI editor's (especially perhaps those who have avoided formal mediation?) - yes I would sau that is a good idea but I would wouldn't I given the circumstances. My argument for that would need to be pretty involved and is slightly complex ... I have claimed GEM is a connected contributor based upon an independent admin's assessment - Mjroots has claimed we must AGF his statement he is not. I have insufficient time to do so at present ... I must concentrate on a Hospital Visit to a relative I am booked for this afternoon and various related matters ... being particular cautious to make most due diligence to minimise infection transmission risk either in or out of that establishment. Obviously it would be better in other than mental reasons not to visit, and I have made the reason to visit after due consideration. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• DJM, if you feel the bit about Dublin bringing income needs mention but is in biased form, maybe there's an alternative way of phrasing we could suggest here and see what people think? :) GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@GalavantEnchancedMoon: This forum is really about whether your COI is valid. Mjroots, if I am not mistaken, has claimed about needing to AGF you do not having a COI. In contrast Drmies at Special:Diff/1038917193 used to the phrase "interested parties" with your name being specifically mentioned. ( At this point, and I should have dont this earlier, I should mention that while being an RPSI member from 25-August-2021 to 22 November 2021 and from 29 December 2021 my actions on Wikipedia are my own and I do not claim to represent the RPSI etc, etc,). Of course from my point of view I think I have seen prolific POV pushing, some of it of a most serious nature. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Australian Defence Forces

I'm not sure of what this article says as it's behind a paywall but the blurb was concerning enough that I thought I'd share it here. Anyone know what it says? Is this being discussed elsewhere? https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/defence-force-wikipedia-cleanup-operation-to-rid-internet-of-army-scandals/news-story/2e774a202274ffcc0537ca33b0686a72 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I just access the article and it pertains to edits made to Sydney University Regiment between November 12-15 by an anonymous editor. The editor deleted controversial sections in their entirety. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP edits appear to have been reverted already. One of the IPs does appear to be from the Australian Defence Forces which would be obvious COI. I cannot, however, access the Telegraph article. To follow protocol, would you please list and notify the suspected IPs of this discussion, MaskedSinger? If it recurs, escalating to ANI might be advisable. --SVTCobra 01:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: The IPs in question appear to be 203.6.77.2 and 220.240.238.58. Do you agree? Want to confirm with you first. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not for me to say; you are the one bringing the allegations. But, if we are talking SUR, you just might be right. And no, you needn't confirm with me first. --SVTCobra 09:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, 203.6.77.2 has been tagged publicly since 2015. --SVTCobra 09:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

And 220.240.238.58 was tagged in November. Anything else to do here @SVTCobra:? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean tagged as being registered to the ADF. 220.240.238.58 just looks like a random Australian IP. --SVTCobra 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiIslam

• WikiIslam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Underthemayofan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RubiconForder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Context

The Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA), the parent organization of WikiIslam, has a long but mostly overlooked history of conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on EXMNA and related articles of its leadership to promote the organization and its projects on Wikipedia that has been noted since 2014. There is at least one account on the history of EXMNA page that is easily linked to a senior leader of the organization. In compliance with WP:OUTING, those details can be provided via email.

In 2020, the page on WikiIslam was created. The wiki has garnered quite negative coverage from reliable sources, which have described it as anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, and even Islamophobic. A series of IP addresses from the same range promptly began editing the page to frame Wikipedia's description of WikiIslam much more favorably:

• 2600:1700:20C0:F600:DC57:282A:5FDD:BE94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1700:20C0:F600:3DAD:50EE:2F11:EE01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1700:20C0:F600:B1B4:185:F8CF:D8CF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

When confronted with the possibility that the IP user had a COI, the user stopped editing. A few months later in January of this year, Editor atlas (talk · contribs) performed a couple of edits before shifting their focus to the WikiIslam article and editing in a similar fashion to the IP user. When provided with a COI notice, the editor responded not by denying the COI but by stating "I object, I'm trying to maintain the neutrality of the article." The account was soon abandoned after.

User Underthemayofan

User Underthemayofan accumulated about a dozen edits before initiating a very heavy focus on WikiIslam, editing along the same lines as the IP addresses above and user Editor atlas, in an attempt to cover WikiIslam more favorably. He has demonstrated an intimate familiarity with the wiki and EXMNA, being able to identify the organization's employees, among other things. User RubiconForder, an apparent meatpuppet, had a handful of edits before editing WikiIslam and also popped up in support of user Underthemayofan, quickly declaring that a consensus existed in favor of changing the page to cite WikiIslam itself while de-emphasizing reliable sources.

User:TrangaBellam, User:Doug Weller, and I have all asked about user Underthemayofan's conflict of interests or relationship with WikiIslam. Thus far, they have denied any relationship or COI. Snuish (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a meatpuppet? what? I've been following the wikiislam page on wikipedia for some time and was just waiting for someone else to make a move on updating it. Lazy? Sure. Meatpuppet? lol no.

I also want to point out that anyone who follows the Islam/ex-Islam internet wars will know all about what you describe as constituting the "intimate familiarity" of Underthemayofan. The EXMNA employee you mentioned is on twitter and has a large following within those circles: https://twitter.com/AlanSmith8859. If you aren't following this stuff, then it seems you are exceptionally out of the loop and probably need to do more digging before you accuse random wikipedia editors of COI just because they disagree with you. RubiconForder (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, multiple experienced users who've suspected a COI here are doing so "just because" you disagree with us. It must have nothing to do with the fact that there is a lengthy history of COI editing along the same lines. Snuish (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"Lengthy history?" You haven't proven that any of those account were COI! I can tell you I had nothing to do with them, and an analysis of my IP and those IP's will lead to that conclusion.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what standard of proof you would need for this argument, but it's probably not the same as would be required by the community. You being a meatpuppet would not require you to be the same editor or have the same IP address as editors we've come across before. Snuish (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

So then which "standard of proof" are you operating from, besides "everyone who disagrees with me is part of a conspiracy?"--Underthemayofan (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The duck test. Given the number of editors I haven't named above, you have an excellent strawman argument there. Snuish (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Snuish2: If you possess evidence which WP:OUTING is preventing you from posting here, you should email it to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org ... There are also other options which can include this. --SVTCobra 05:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Snuish2: please either present some evidence or stop making this accusation. So far all you have is that I was aware of information that by your own admission is publicly available. @SVTCobra: do I have any recourse to appeal to or defend myself here? This accusation is baseless and aimed only at silencing me because I disagree with Snuish2 on a topic in which he is apparently personally invested. I have also had a baseless accusation of edit warring aimed at me. Is this how Wikipedia welcomes new users to the platform?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan:, to be honest, I do not know. But I'd expect them to contact you if the evidence is not incontrovertible. If it is bullshit, I don't think any of us will ever hear of it again. Again, that's if there's a report and I don't know if there's anything to report. So for now, I'd just relax if I were you. I am sorry if you felt it unfair that I laid out options for Snuish2. --SVTCobra 05:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I have no complaint with anything you have done, it seems you're just following protocol. It just seems that the fact that Snuish2 even posted here and dragged me into defending myself on the basis of such lousy evidence is harassments designed to silence me and keep me from participating in the editing of the article.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan: Well, I don't know what the evidence might be other than your interest in WikiIslam and perceived POV thereof. And to be fair, your edit history looks a little obsessed with the topic. --SVTCobra 06:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I grant that, but the recent history of every user including User:Snuish2 looks like that if you check it recently. I have been editing for almost 6 months now and this is the first topic I am jumping into where I have seen what seems to be to be rank misinformation on the platform. I won't deny being very interested in the topic but I am apparently not alone. Snuish2 has 2 editors apparently in lockstep with him and with similarly "obsessed" histories, should I open complaints of COI on them?--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Snuish (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, your edits, even with your first account Snuish seem to have a keen interest in WikiIslam since 2020. And it continues with your current account/user name. Is it a passing interest? Or are you vested in this? --SVTCobra 07:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a passing interest or if I'll continue to be interested in it for quite some time. My interest is in the counter-jihad movement and related topics, of which WikiIslam is an outgrowth. I've dedicated a lot of time to improving articles in that arena some and others related to Islamophobia. Snuish (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. We are getting somewhere. --SVTCobra 07:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• To quote a ruling from Arbitration Committee (2005), For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. It is self-evident that all these editors (registered or not) are part of a meatpuppetry ring, which I concede, might not be organized or operated with a motive. In a similar vein they might not have a COI (perks of anonymity) but their behavior shows no deviation from editors who declared one or hypothetical editors having one.
  Establishment of motive is very difficult—even in real life prosecution—but that does not waive off sanctions. A consistent refusal to stonewall discussions and simultaneous sealioning can only lead to further waste productive use of editorial resources. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

RubiconForder is not my sock puppet. The information User:Snuish2 cited is publicly available on the internet, see here: https://twitter.com/AlanSmith8859 and here on WikiIslam itself: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/User:Asmith. In addition to Rubicon forder there are other accounts who have taken a similar line to me on WikiIslam.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

While the information is publicly available, it's not readily apparent from either EXMNA's website, where there is no mention of Alan Smith, or WikiIslam's website, which doesn't mention that Alan Smith is an employee of EXMNA. You have to go a bit off the beaten path to find it. Snuish (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Alan Smith also posts fairly frequently on Ex-Muslim Reddit, see here https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/qzdvqu/new_wikiislam_article_on_mariyah_the_copt/. He is fairly well-known in the Ex-Muslim online community.--Underthemayofan (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan: Would you describe yourself as member of that same community? --SVTCobra 21:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

No I am not but I am a member of the online atheist community.--Underthemayofan (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's sad how many atheists are so anti-Muslim. Since you've decided to abandon good faith, User:Underthemayofan, I feel free to say that it appears that you are one of them. It's embarrassing to me as an atheist. @Snuish:, his twitter feed says "Head Editor&Admin of WikiIslam http://wikiislam.net Employee of @ExmuslimsOrg ""[18] Doug Weller talk 11:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan: why are you asking for help from an inexperienced editor with a couple of blocks who hasn't edited for 10 months? I can't see anything you have in common except that User:EdJohnston blocked them and he's also given you a warning about reverting at WikiIslam without talk page consensus, which you want to appeal. What have I missed? Doug Weller talk 11:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:I asked the question to them, not to you, so I am not really interested in discussing it with you. As for "good faith" I see you've decided to abondon WP:AGF. I am not "anti-Muslim" and your feelings on what is and is not "embarrassing to [you] as an atheist" are irrelevant. My confessional background is not relevant, I only brought it up in answer to SVT's question, I could bring up the assumed confessional identity of others in this conversation but I don't since it's not relevant to the verifiable facts of the case. Since your interest in this article apparently has more to do with your feelings about how a "good atheist" should not be "anti-Muslim" I would suggest that perhaps it might be best if you bowed out of this particular discussion.--Underthemayofan (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Good faith isn't a suicide pact. You accused me of deception [19] and above you accused two nameless editors of editing in lockstep and being obsessed. I should not have said anti-Muslim but anti-Islam, as what I've seen of people who are virulently anti-Islam they deny being anti-Muslim. My sadness is indeed irrelevant and don't affect my interest in the article which except for the pov tag I haven't edited since January, and one of my edits was to revert Snuish2. I didn't raise your "confessional background", you mentioned it. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have indeffed Underthemayofan as an undisclosed COI editor and RubiconForder as either their sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Some evidence from the paid-en-wp queue is involved (ticket:2021122810008593 for those with access) but this is primarily based on their on-wiki behavior to date. I've also ECP'd the article for good measure. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and the other functionaries who reviewed this discussion and the paid-en-wp ticket. Thanks to SVTCobra also! Snuish (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Tim Eyman

• Tim Eyman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chanjagent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting tax protester Tim Eyman. There are a lot of contributions, most of which seem to me to be promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@82.20.240.157: You must notify users when you report them here. I have gone ahead and done so on your behalf this time. Chanjagent is indeed the definition of SPA, but luckily, they really haven't been active since 2020. The user also has a very bad habit of marking everything as a minor edit. --SVTCobra 01:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Sennheiser

• Sennheiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mareike Oer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems like there's some COI/Paid editing going on here with this user- all of their edits seem to be made with the intention of promoting Sennheiser, and they recently came back after about a year of absence. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am basically sure that the editor has a COI with Sennheiser based on a google search of the editor's username. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like an obvious case of COI. I've rolled back their recent edits on the page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

So it would seem, although it could be a Sennheiser fan. scope_creep^Talk 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it, as a quick Google search of their username shows that a person with the same name happens to be the the Head of Global Public Relations at Sennheiser. I’m going to rollback to an older unaffected version of the article and do some further cleanup tomorrow. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 19:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I recall having done some cleanup on this some time ago, but this is apparently a longer-term spam/PR campaign and will need a close eye kept on it. I have started cleaning up some of the puffery which existed even in the older version which wasn't as bad, but it certainly needs more work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: does it also happen in their product pages? If so, I'd be willing to add those to my watchlist and help out. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a good thought. The only product page I can readily find for them is Sennheiser MD 421. Apparently that was translated from a German Wikipedia article, and while my ability to speak German is pretty minimal, I don't straightaway see evidence that the German article was spammed in the same way. That said, the current version of that could probably do with a trim of some fluff, but it was nowhere near as bad as the company article was. If anyone knows of articles on any of their other products, those should probably be checked out as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

User's talk page was a red link until after their last edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

NB Mareike Oer has been blocked. --SVTCobra 00:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Hurst

• Glenn Hurst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LouisNMcDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aaafram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sanity0050 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just a bit of context, Glenn Hurst is running in the election above. The user then created a draft and article about the person above. From their activities of editing only on themself and the candidate to the much more obvious giveaway of "Lou McDonald for Glenn Hurst" listed as the author at File:GH Launch Capital MainShot 2-scaled.jpg, I think this is a clear-cut case. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 22:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the article above was AFD-ed and closed as Redirect. Also adding other users (Aaafram and Sanity0050) as they use the same flowery language about the candidate and has been editing on similar articles. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the lot. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GeneralNotability for the quick action and correct decision given the obvious COI and other concerns described above. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Tango Shalom

• Tango Shalom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CLANIADO1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.243.147.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:B057:9F8:67B6:E777 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) added by me --SVTCobra 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• GravityMaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added by me. --SVTCobra 01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:3168:40FA:4504:E1C0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:5C12:4A9C:991B:40B9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The problem: diff. Can we block him? He was adding promotional and poorly sourced content here and here, eventually ruining the article until I fixed it.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Filmomusico: At the top of this page is the notice "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." Not only have you not done so, but nor have you made any prior comment - such as to offer advice about sourcing and NPoV - on the user's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Sorry about that, I see it now. As for not making any prior comment, I thought we soft block such editors for at least a username violation (since he claimed who he is). I will try to offer advice, but am doubtful that he will listen.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Filmomusico (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not a username violation. COI editors should not be banned off-hand, but encouraged to communicate through the article's talk page. --SVTCobra 18:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I added 67.243.147.234 who posts on User talk:CLANIADO1 as if they are the same person. Note that this IP user uses the word "we" when talking about Tango Shalom, so that's as clear a COI as it can be. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A mobile IP has begun editing Tango Shalom heavily. I added them above. --SVTCobra 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed promo material from the article which was added by the mobile IP.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Another user GravityMaze has thrown their hat into the ring. I added them above. --SVTCobra 01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: As I said earlier, convincing them to change the habits of editing is useless. A block should be imposed sooner or later. Just today, 2603:8001:2A01:40B7:B057:9F8:67B6:E777 (talk · contribs) returned back to adding copyrighted text. I restored the pre copyvio version. I'm proposing page protection. Anyone with me?--Filmomusico (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed Tango Shalom from the lede of Judi Beecher. Within an hour, it was added back to the Career section as her best know work by 47.20.114.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It had originally been added to the lede by GravityMaze. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Thanks. My initial edit to Judi Beecher was to remove the dubious sources. I didn't removed the content because I thought that somebody will find proof for those claims by using reliable sources. Sorry for being negligiant.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there's still a lot of unsourced information in that article, I just fixed things which were clearly added as a way to hype Tango Shalom. --SVTCobra 00:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: and @Rsjaffe: I added 2 more IPs which are directly linked to the article. There was another one that did some vandalism but was reverted by ClueBotNG.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Samsona

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

See my post at User talk:Samsona. [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

After talk message from both me[21] and Opabinia,[22] Samsona made another predatory journal, COI edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Please help me. I am trying to add relevant information for my students. I am not a predatory journal. Please do not remove all my hard workSamsona (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I made some comments on Samsona's user talk to try to explain why they're being reverted. This is clearly academic citation spamming. Even setting that aside, I've checked a bunch of their edits and the sources being cited don't meet WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Jangpbest one of your students? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also a WP:REALNAME issue. [23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

REALNAME would be an issue if you think this is a case of impersonation, but I don't think that's the allegation here. --SVTCobra 00:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Samson AO is the author of the journal articles in the citation-spammed edits. Samson AO is indexed in Pubmed and identifies a real person: [24]. Samsona created an article about the real Samson AO, and Jangpbest created a draft about the same person. Samsona mentions his students. But Samsona says they are not AO Samson, but that they know AO Samson. Then why are they using Samson AO’s name to citation spam Samson AO’s publications? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And now, making the same posts using still predatory journal from an IP: [25] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am curious, why do you keep saying 'predatory', Sandy? Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

See the edit summary linked above (“ Tags: use of predatory open access journal “ … this is also explained in more detail at Samsona’s talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

They're citing an article in the journal 'Aging'. See a review of that journal here. - MrOllie (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, but it might have been quicker to link to predatory publishing a concept which I had not hear of before. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It is linked, in the edit summary of every edit where that journal is added, and in the diff I referred you to above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Then it should have been easy to put it somewhere or anywhere in this discussion. Anyway, I don't want to get combative here. Let's focus on Samsona and their cry for help. --SVTCobra 04:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Its on Beall's list [26] scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

• London Action Resource Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Leutha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paki.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For a long time, two users (one is Harry Potter, now Leutha; the other is Paki.tv also known as PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal) have been adding disputed text to the article about London Action Resource Centre (LARC). They tend to back up each other and seem to know each other offwiki. There have been various fruitless attempts to debate the disruption on the talkpage and Paki.tv has been blocked twice for disruptive editing, most recently this month. The most frequently added text is the followign paragraph:

Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation. The library was set up to run on the principles of the Antisystemic Library on 18 June 2003. A split in the User Group over claims of institutional racism and of fascist infiltration of Peoples' Global Action.[7] of which LARC is one of the founding info-points, led to the expulsion of the No Platform group West Essex Zapatista at the December 2004 AGM of the company. This led to the forced departure of the Voice Refugee Forum and eventually the relocation of the Antisystemic Library.

The paragraph or similar has been added by Paki.tv: here, here, here, here, here, here, here; and added by Leutha: here, here, here, here, here.

The problems stem from an apparent real life beef the two users have with LARC after they were expelled from the centre in 2004. The statement by LARC is actually on wikipedia, here. The relevant part is:

At this year's London Action Resource Centre (LARC) Annual General Meeting, a decision was made (by majority vote) to exclude two individuals who had been behaving disruptively and often abusively for some time. They are now not welcome within the building. Their names are Fabian and Asim, part of a group called West Essex Zapatista.

And NickW commented on the talkpage in 2006:

My view on the LARC article is straightforward. Users Paki.tv and Harrypotter have attempted to misrepresent LARC through their numerous edits. Their motivation appears to be one of 'revenge' as they are banned from using LARC (you'll note early contributions to the article by Harrypotter in 2003 were of a different vein). They are both consistent in their approach and methodology, favouring obscure labyrinthine 'intellectual' debate (i.e. obfuscation to confuse and wear down third parties), personal attacks and 'outing'(N.B. I don't think they always use their named accounts), self-creation of supporting 'evidence', and general misrepresentation. Interestingly enough, it was this kind of behaviour that led to their rejection from LARC.

This beef leads them to add poorly referenced information (often from their own websites) about alleged racism and how the club is run. They were previously involved as the antisystemic library and West Essex Zapatista (WEZ). Lately, in offering new poor references to support their argument, Paki.tv has made the conflict of interest apparent again and that's what I'll come on to now, after noting that I've made various efforts to ask about conflict of interest which haven't got very far on the talk page, eg here, here, here

Leutha

Leutha began the LARC page when they were Harry Potter. Now on User:Leutha they have a link to another of their accounts, namely User:Fabian_Tompsett_(MDR). Fabian Tompsett crops up in a Mute editorial, where they write "Asim and I were heavily involved in developing the London Action Resource Centre (LARC), and in 2004 became involved in preparations for the Peoples Global Action (PGA) conference scheduled for that year in Belgrade" and as Fabian here, in "Where I found concerns raised by West Essex Zapatista dealing with the Resnik vs. Jajinci issue relevant, it is not necessarily the same with the gender reader and questionnaire issue. Concerns raised by Fabian from WEZ in April in regards to gender questionnaire seemed to me minor issues relating to language of the document".

Therefore, Leutha has been involved with LARC and West Essex Zapatista, yet keep on adding nonsense to the LARC article. That's the COI. Leutha seems intent on denying this COI, saying in their latest comment "Again, I repeat, at no time was I a member of LARC. Surely that's easy to grasp." Not a member perhaps but definitely involved and definitely with an axe to grind.

Paki.tv

They have consistently avoided answering if they have a COI. I believe it's obvious after their recent edits, happy to expand on this in the correct channels if necessary.

Thanks for any help Mujinga (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to pblock both from the article in question, but am open to other suggestions. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That is certainly one way to handle it. See also User talk:Paki.tv#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion, where I left a final warning for Paki.tv. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability, I am afraid that I do not feel your response is appropriate for the following reasons:

• I do not understand why the COI issues of two different editors is being treated as a single issue. I shall only deal with the issue as regards myself, however.
• I do not understand why you have not followed the Wikipedia:Blocking policy (W:BP):

eg: "pblock" may be a term which admins are familiar with, however this was jargon leaving me wondering what you were referring to. If you wish to use such an abbreviated term, this can easily be linked to Wikipedia:Partial blocks to fall in line with W:Bp

@Mujinga has cited four edits made by myself, dating from 2008 to 4 July 2020, when the last of these was made. However he has avoided referencing the most recent edit: here (26 November 2021) to which @Mujinga deleted two days letter with an explanation on the talk page,here. Why?

I find the contents of this explanation of 28 November 2021 very problematic.

1) @Mujinga identifies me

2) They claim that I am an exmember of LARC

3) They claim that I that I was contributing "original research to the article in a weird attempt to besmirch the project's good name as they already did many years ago."

4) They further suggesting that I was "using wikipedia to pursue a vendetta".

Please consider Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Avoid_outing: "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence." There is also a link to Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information.

2)So, having pointed to a real word identity, @Mujinga has identified me falsely as having been a member of LARC, something which is carefully defined in the memorandum and articles of association which can be found in the incorporation documents here.

3)&4) As regards this claim, I responded We do indeed live in hope.

I must admit since the 28 November personal attacks by @Mujinga I have been particularly circumspect.

Having reviewed the material @Mujinga has tried to ignore, lets now deal with their claims:

• The issue as regards the edit nearly a year and a half ago on 4 July 2020, this is in many ways covered by the response to 3 & 4. I certainly felt hope in the weeks following the protests to the murder of George Floyd and also the Central Park birdwatching incident (May 25, 2020), I optimistically hoped that the consensus on the importance and credibility of these issues had shifted ground. Unfortunately with @Mujinga this does not appear to be the case. In the subsequent 18 months, I have not reposted any of this material, so it seem hard to see why @Mujinga is creating anxieties that I might do so? Perhaps his concerns relate to point 3, and the points he made about this using words such as "besmirch" and "vendetta." As I previously remarked "it would seem that in taking state funds the directors are acting in accordance with their governing document. Indeed some people might see this as example of shrewdness." Indeed many people living in the UK – probably a large majority _ agree that having state funding for the NHS and other community facilities is a good thing and welcome community organisations accessing these funds.

When issues of COI are coached in such inflammatory terms, and based on incorrect information, I would suggest that the question should be posed in less antagonistic terms:

What COI would an individual who may have had even "heavy involvement" with an organisation over a decade and a half ago make as regards editing the page with an update about how that organisation has been handling the COVID crisis? Leutha (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

BeyondGenderAgenda

This entry BeyondGenderAgenda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is promotional and there is very probably and obviously paid editing. The user Tacrossen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only written this article for the German and English Wikipedia, nothing more. user:2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2

Woah, that article has quite a weird format. It's like half brochure half name drops. The "media coverage" naming of that section might indicate a paid edit, as that would be a PR/marketing term that isn't usually used by WP natives when naming sections. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2: Did you leave a message informing the editor they were appearing on this noticeboard? scope_creep^Talk 00:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe this section was started by 2a01:598:b1b2:7fe:f12b:66e1:1f2:dab2. I assume they didn't notify the editor, or tag the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question has deleted their account. The article is very weak and of dubious notability. Group consensus is needed, but this article looks to me like a candidate for deletion. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Go4thProsper:, what do you mean User:Tacrossen has deleted their account? I mean, they haven't been active since February but that's it. --SVTCobra 05:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not an "initiative", it's a company -> GmbH (Germany) like LLC in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:B1A4:DE0:B441:F341:7E5A:2C42 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

White Hill Studios

• White Hill Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RS at WHS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article was written by someone connected to this company (per the username). I removed some of the worst promotional language in the article, and added a COI tag on the article and requested the editor to acknowledge their relationship to the company. Instead, they blanked their user page, removed the COI tag on the article and restored everything I removed. MB 07:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear User MB, RS at WHS (talk) I do not have a conflict of interest with the company. I had just created a wiki page of the company after referring to other companies of the same industry. You can see the pattern is same for other Indian film companies. No information is promotional in nature and is backed by citations and references wherever possible. I would request you to delete the accusation thereof. RS at WHS (talk) RS at WHS 2:17 pm, 30 December 2021 (IST)

RS at WHS: Ignoring the obvious concerns re your username: On December 22, in your second edit on Wikipedia, you created your userpage by adding the UserboxCOI template, explicitly declaring that you had a COI with White Hill Studios.[27] You removed that template a minute later.[28] DoubleCross (‡) 14:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

DoubleCross @MB:, do you want to move that COIN notice from the user page to the user talk page? Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add that notice, MB did. - DoubleCross (‡) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It was G11'd on 30 August 2021 for being straight COI Promo. It is a straight up COI again. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Never post anything to a editors user page. I've moved the notice. I have put a G11 on the article. scope_creep^Talk 15:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That was inadvertent. They had neither a User or TP and I posted at the wrong redlink. MB 17:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've indeffed RS at WHS as an undisclosed paid editor who is also clearly lying to us, and I've deleted Lekh (film), another of his articles. The film is produced by White House, of course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks. Great work. Have a good one in 2022. scope_creep^Talk 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@MB: If there no talk page present, then go ahead and create it. scope_creep^Talk 22:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Philippe1226

Probably a sock-puppet, scarce contributions, half od them to remove COI tag

IP, you should notify the relevant user at their talk page. Contributions (Israeli BLPs) might indicate some Israeli PR firm, and I agree with some (especially Alon Korngreen's BLP) articles being indicative of a COI. Regarding the sock-puppet allegation, I'd recommend you start a thread at WP:SPI. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume the editor the IP suspects is the puppet master would be Ovedc, who has disclosed paid edits in two of these three pages before. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Tks, Alon Korngreen is a paid article. in the entry history I have noticed that the reviewer who acccepted the entry is banned from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.83.105 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

IP, the reviewer was banned for reasons unrelated (to my knowledge) to the article. Korngreen was created by Ovedc, who I have listed above. If you or other editors believe Philippe is a sock of Ovedc you must go through the proper channels (namely, WP:SPI) in order for that to be discussed. Not that I think it's unlikely (Ovedc has been previously banned for using multiple accounts, although unbanned later), just that this is not the proper noticeboard for sock investigations. Regarding the COI of Philippe, I think the best action is for those who feel the articles are still in need of a COI tag to re-add those and discuss this matter with Philippe themselves before coming here again. It is quite hard to determine if an editor has a COI when they only have 5 minor edits, especially if they edit once every few months.

TL;DR: Reviewer banned for unrelated reasons, this is not the proper noticeboard for sock investigations, and I don't see any action that can really be taken here as of now. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Engineers India

• Engineers India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rajiv Nair EIL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DRajkhowa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ptrnext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following editors from Engineers India Limited are editing Engineers India page. This seems to be a direct Conflict of Interest issue. RPSkokie (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@RPSkokie: Post a mesaage to inform they are mentioned here. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Notified just now. Thank you. RPSkokie (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

RPSkokie I highly recommend you contact Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to get the content you recently deleted and subsequent version showing the material to be wp:revdeled, per wp:outing policy. Next time you can just say "googling these names seems to suggest employees of the company" or something along those lines such as "a google search of the editor usernames indicates a high likelihood of COI". It will give other editors the information that is needed for this discussion without explicitly outing anyone. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree this is definitely a case of COI editing without proper disclosure. @Rajiv Nair EIL and DRajkhowa: please read this page on how to disclose COIs properly and how to edit with COIs. Having COIs won't prevent you from editing these pages, just changes how you should do so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I did a big mistake by revealing personal information. Will follow your suggested route; "googling these names seems to suggest employees of the company". RPSkokie (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have personally made that mistake recently (even had to go to ANI to be ironed out, and plenty of veteran editors left the thread more confused than when they went in lol), and you took proactive steps to remove the content from the page, so don't feel to bad about it. Merely a {{minnow}}-ing, if anything :P. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about Ptrnext. Their edits look like they tried to clean up the article and nothing else. Furthermore, Ptrnext's edit history, while not long, shows an interest in a great many articles. I don't see COI there. The other two accounts are clear as day. One doesn't even need to go off-wiki to confirm it to a high degree of certainty. --SVTCobra 13:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Shouldn't have mentioned Ptrnext, my bad. I'll have some fish for lunch too, then. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: @RPSkokie: @A. C. Santacruz: Yep, I found Engineers India page through List of public sector undertakings in India and was merely fixing citations and formatting on the page. Do I need to do anything now? I still see my userlink listed above with the other two editors. Ptrnext (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, you're all good to go I'm pretty sure. Thanks for your gnoming, Ptrnext. Ps: you can use {{reply to}} to notify multiple editors in one go.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Kerry Raheb

• 2022 United States Senate election in Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kerryraheb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's clear to me that the account's entire purpose is to promote/publicise Kerry Raheb's candidacy in the election, including adding an external link and picture, with a very obvious username. Their first edit is also only 9 minutes after the account was created. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 00:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor is a spammer and is WP:NOTHERE. scope_creep^Talk 00:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I would tread a little easier, scope_creep. There are just four edits and most people who see "a site that all can edit" will not immediately think about Wikipedia having exceptions. The COI is obvious and some of the edits were egregious but first we should try to bring them into the fold. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No, they knew exactly what they were doing. They wouldn't have done it otherwise. Happy New Year!! scope_creep^Talk 01:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with scope_creep here. There is absolutely no way that this user cares about improving the encyclopedia. Mlb96 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mlb96:, true but that's the case for all COI and paid editors. What we seek to do, in my opinion, is to corral them from editing directly and let them notify us when there's a mistake or something missing. (We/us = Wikipedia). I don't think we should automatically block out this input. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year to all the COIN readers! But, yes, Kerryraheb was trying to help the campaign of the similarly named candidate, but I wouldn't go as far calling it spamming. Maybe I have a soft spot for small party candidates. Cheers. Let's hope 2022 will be better than 2021. --SVTCobra 01:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I felt it appropriate to escalate this to ANI with this statement here as the user was continually ignoring this noticeboard and direct talk page messages.--SVTCobra 06:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, if the editor is who he claims to be? then it certainly is a COI issue. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've Pblocked Raheb. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Ghil

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

I'm going to feel incredibly stupid if I'm wrong, but this looks like an SPA just fluffing up the Michael Ghil article. I'm thinking they have a COI, but I'm not sure. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the contributions are basically uncited, including information on his early life. Contributions use scientific jargon and include a list of all PhD supervisees and plenty of awards. I'd agree with the COI, Skarmory. No one is stupid to come to this noticeboard unless they forget to do their due diligence :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Holy moley. This article is in pretty bad shape -- I see that some people have taken a crack at thinning out the CV, but it is still fairly extravagant. I believe I've seen, somewhere, an actual PAG about how many "selected publications" you're supposed to have in a scientist BLP. jp×g 10:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jim Anderson (sound engineer)

• Jim Anderson (sound engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jimnanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mr. Anderson was cautioned on his talk page about editing his biography, and was advised to add suggested edits to the talk page. Mr. Anderson replied:

"Why Can I Not edit or correct my own personal information on my own page? This makes no sense and your changes are incorrect. I should be alb to correct my own page and my own information. I wrote this page in the first place and it needs to be updated."

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson replies: All of Magnolia677's changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Anderson_(sound_engineer)&oldid=prev&diff=1063413574 are incorrect. My changes on the left in yellow are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimnanderson (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we summarize what reliable sources say about the subject. There is no way to prove what you say is correct is actually correct without sources. If you can provide sources, the changes will likely be accepted, but you did not provide any sources for e.g. the awards you added. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skarmory: @Magnolia677: Have you tried to look into sources that back up the things that he's saying? I'm well aware of WP:V, but it seems prima facie absurd to confidently assert that he's incorrect about whether he worked for a radio station during or after his college career (and then make no attempt to follow up with sources). The rest of these edits seem to be quibbling over minor grammatical issues -- "Anderson's recordings have received 11 Grammy-awards" versus "Anderson has produced 11 Grammy-awarded recordings", is this serious? jp×g 09:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JPxG: I did not check for sources, I was explicitly pointing out the awards section as the most obvious point - I'm not trying to imply that the stuff e.g. radio network is wrong, and I did not touch the edits, just popping in to share my views. I noticed the grammatical fixes but they weren't too relevant in my view, if he wants to put those changes back up I wouldn't argue with them personally. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I made an extremely cursory effort to find references for the article, and was able to back up virtually all of the things in it. I am not sure what the issue was supposed to be here, but will gladly follow up here if there are additional problems. I left a {{peacock}} template on it, because frankly it isn't a very good article (basically just a list of awards) -- but I've removed the {{coi}} and {{autobiography}} templates because Jim's contributions are limited to very small parts of the article. jp×g 10:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The main issue is that subject matters aren't supposed to edit their pages per WP:COISELF, and User:Jimanderson clearly failed to request changes through a requested edit on its talk page. The edits might be correct, but they're still not supposed to touch it. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jimnanderson has been blocked per WP:REALNAME until they can provide proof that they are the person they claim to be. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

COI editing on June Preston

• June Preston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Idoonie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brokenmeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.109.77.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users mentioned above, who claim to be related to June Preston have been editing that page for over a decade, with lots of problems, including edits like:

[29], [30], [31], [32] and [33].

This seems to be their only interests on the wiki. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• NOTE: Brokenmeow, who in edit summaries repeatedly noted that she was June Preston, hasn't edited since 2016. Idoonie, who has repeatedly stated in edit summaries that she is Preston's daughter, is currently still editing. Obviously either of them should make edit requests on the talkpage rather than edit the article directly. And some brave soul should take it upon themselves to remove all of the puffery (especially that which is inadequately cited) from that article and from any article that they inserted Preston's name into. Softlavender (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Recommendation: I recommend that an administrator indef block both accounts from editing that particular article, but retain their ability to edit the talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• User:AssumeGoodWraith, it seems to me that on the one hand you're right--and then there's the other hand. AssumeGoodWraith, if you assume good faith, you're dealing with an editor who is trying to preserve the legacy of their mother, who wants to correct what may well be errors, who thinks that "Conflict of Interest" is a bad thing involving money changing hands, who puts a collection of clipping on Pinterest thinking that these might count as the types of sources that Wikipedia accepts--and probably an editor who is less computer savvy than you. So I am not opposed to blocking them from the article, as long as someone takes the time to explain how communication works here, what reliable secondary sources are, in short what they can and cannot do here. Nicely, please, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Drmies: As much as the edits are problematic, and I may be going a bit too strong, I AM assuming good faith. They just don't know. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also, unrelated, but I've found another related account. Probably not too many problems with this one. [34] – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Small correction, Brokenmeow's edit summaries didn't claim to be June Preston herself, but rather her daughter (here).

I've added Piress for this edit, claiming to be the daughter; and the IP 98.109.77.155 for multiple edit summaries with the same claim. It seems this individual has created several accounts over the years with overlapping spurts of activity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Drm310, see the account's first edit and edit summary: [35] (whether plausible or not). Then by October 2016 mother and daughter apparently lived together (per that account's last edit summary) and shared the same computer. That said, the daughter created the wiki article and wrote at least 75% of it [36]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Softlavender, I missed that. Normally I'd report an account like that for WP:NOSHARING but it's stale, so there's no point now. I've left a note for the one active account about use of multiple accounts. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I read all your comments and am very saddened that you think I am some sort of bad person doing something wrong. All I wanted to do was preserve my mom's legacy (she is now 93) and have I wanted a nice wiki page of her for people to read what an asset she was to the film industry in the 30's and 40's and later in the operatic field in the 50's onward. She had an amazing life (she had dolls and cloths lines in her likeliness, she was a Shirley Temple type in fact both June Preston and Shirley Temple dresses were sold together in stores and yes I have proof of all that) and that was ALL I wanted to do, was to have information on her that people would enjoy. I was not trying to do anything bad or wrong or deviant. I'm not tech savvy so yes maybe I had 2 addition accounts that I made maybe accidentally years ago... but I offered to delete them but am told i cannot. I thought the June Preston page was great with facts and back up photos and newspaper articles to prove all the information was true and accurate. I meant no harm in any way and now the page has been stripped down to nothing and I am told I cannot fix it as I am her daughter. How can if be fixed if i am the only one left that can tell her story? In addition the information about her birthday and birthplace is incorrect I dont know how they got there. At this point if I cannot fix her page I would rather have nothing at Wiki at all because this wrong information on her page will go viral and it is incorrect. I am sorry for anything I may have done wrong, I am older myself and am not tech savvy like all of you. I meant no harm I just wanted to do this for my mom while she is still alive to view it from time to time. If you want proof, just look at my Pinterest pages and see all her photos and proof of who she is Child Star: https://www.pinterest.com/sabmeows/june-preston-famous-film-child-star/ and Opera Singer with the MET: https://www.pinterest.com/sabmeows/june-preston-opera-singer/, I hope you look at those pages and see that I am speaking the truth and I am not a bad person but only a daughter trying to keep her mom's name alive! Thank you allIdoonie (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Idoonie: I, too, am saddened if you feel mistreated on Wikipedia. All too often, however, Wikipedia sees people who try to edit pages for nefarious reasons. This is not only the reason for the conflict of interest policy exists, but also why some responses may have seemed callous. Nevertheless, you do have a conflict of interest when you write about you mother. It is also Wikipedia's desire to be correct. Another policy of Wikipedia is verifiability and therefore we cannot just take your word for facts. Going forward, you should only edit the Talk:June Preston page and not the article directly.
Please use {{Request edit}} and state what needs to be changed, but keep in mind, Wikipedia needs to be able to verify. I know, and I am sorry, this can be unpleasant process. You are not a bad person. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Idoonie: I'll echo the sentiment that we do not believe that you're a bad person. However, your close personal connection to the subject is precisely why you should not edit the article directly. Editors need to have emotional detachment from the subjects they write about, and realize that this is a collaborative project where consensus is the fundamental editorial model. Editors must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns; readers of Wikipedia expect plainly factual articles, neutrally worded and reliably sourced, written independently of their subjects. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your comments very much, I was thinking i did a horrible thing and I am not that kind of person at all. So since I am the only person left (i am her only child) to tell her story how do we go about fixing her page if I am not able to add information? Permission: May I put on this chat/talk the information that use to be on the page before it was taken all off and you go over it? I don't want to do anything that will cause you any problems? I have whatever is needed to corroborate the information that is on the page with you if you need to see it with your eyes, (original newspaper articles, advertisements and studio photos etc.) I don't know any other way to prove what is on her page is true than what is written and shown in print from the newspapers, magazines in the 30's - 60's and 1990 including photos of the june preston dresses, doll, toys, photos etc. they are all authentic (i have trunks of her memorabilia). I understand now that the my close personal connection is an issue but if I have the back up and proof of her career I would hope that would help. I am not trying to maker her out to be someone she was not, she was a huge star back in the day (not Betty Davis) but nonetheless she was huge (all her apparel lines were sold side by side with Shirley Temple's dresses) the photos prove/show both their names together which was on her wiki page showing advertisements and newspaper articles https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664636989/ including Fotoplay mag. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664618955/ other entertainment magazines of the time with both my mom and Shirley Temple June Preston was considered a "Big Pay Babes" https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664616687/ children making over $250.00 a week and back then that was a lot of money. Mom was also a Meglin Kiddie, https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564664617269/. So it's all true and backed up, also my mom's opera career https://www.pinterest.com/pin/577938564666877903/, there are newspaper articles, programs and photos that were attached to her page showing she toured with the Metropolitan Opera etc. I'm truly am not embellishing anything at all I only put on her life and what she did with back up. So let me know if I can put on this chat a copy of what it use to look like and maybe we can fix her page again with the correct info and i can send you any backup you need to authenticate what is needed). Thank you all so much for putting up with this, I only want to do keep my mom's legacy alive but don't want to do anything wrong to offend Wiki. Thanks you and take care , Sabrina Idoonie (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Suncom Technologies

• Suncom Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hlev3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I found this article duruing categories mainteinance routine and moved it to draft as the author had a clear WP:COI. The editor than moved the article back to mainspace with a comment "Article verified and edited by founder of company, Howard Leventhal". --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The article is seriously unsourced and breaks plenty of MOS guidelines, so I wonder what's the best way to fix that. Draftifying certainly seems like a good first step. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Where exactly is conflict of interest? Company was sold 30 years ago and then went out of business. It was an important player in history of video game industry. My text here is merely historical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlev3 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Further on I got Wikipedia emails from Hlev3:

Sorry, I do not see any supposed conflict in my Wikipedia article about Suncom. In what way exactly might I benefit *tangibly* from publishing historical information about a notable company that closed 30 years ago? I have provided two newspaper articles which back numerous statements made in my text. There is a link to a German blog in the article which refers to the company's product. Do you find something false about the article? If so please tell me exactly is false or suspected of being false and I will edit if it is false.

The legal definition of conflict of interest from Black's Law Dictionary: https://thelawdictionary.org/conflict-of-interest/. I receive nothing from publishing this article. I am one of the only people capable on Earth of posting the information in this article. Most of the others are either deceased or frankly, senile. What is the justification for not having this true and accurate historical information viewable on Wikipedia?"

"More succinctly:

1) Exactly how do I personally benefit tangibly from posting this article? 2) Exactly what third party or parties to whom I owe a fiduciary duty is diminished or harmed by this article?

If you cannot provide coherent, truthful answers to these questions, there cannot possibly be a conflict of interest. All I have done by posting this article is to illuminate the history of a seminal, significant video game industry-influencing company. It should be a positive that I write this attesting to my own personal knowledge and I made it clear at bottom of article that I - the company's founder - wrote it." --Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Did... did they just cite Black's Law Dictionary instead of just reading the 1st line of WP:COI? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes he did, Padgriffin. Not going to lie, it's nice from time to time to find some entertainment out of a Noticeboard like this. Sadly I failed the wikilawyer bar exam, so I cannot possibly refute his claims /s :P Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I sent them an email as they seem to prefer that method of communication- the contents are posted below for transparency's sake.

"Dear Hlev3,

I am writing to clarify why your article has been moved to draftspace. Wikipedia policy requires that editors edit with a neutral point of view , but as you possess an implicit link to the company, this constitutes a potential Conflict of Interest that may undermine your ability to write in a neutral fashion. In addition, Wikipedia requires that articles follow a consistent Manual of Style for articles in mainspace, which the article is currently not abiding by. We are willing to assist you in getting the article to a state where it can pass the Articles for Creation review process and be published as a mainspace article but I would ask you to refrain from manually moving the article until it reaches such a state. If you have further questions, you may reply to this email or respond to the discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard for assistance.

Yours, Padgriffin"

Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hlev3:, the relevant rules here are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, namely WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE, not what Black's Law Dictionary has about COI in legal matters. If we assume (and I have no reason not to), you are who you say you are, this does run afoul of Wikipedia policy. While Suncom may long be a defunct company, that in no way precludes COI. I think the Suncom story is notable and something Wikipedia should have an article about. However, you should recuse yourself from editing the article yourself and act as a consultant, if you will.
What is a concern that could be a legal matter, are the newspaper clippings you have uploaded. I am not a copyright lawyer, but I am pretty sure that copyright has not expired on those items from the Herald. Let's try to work together and save the Suncom article. --SVTCobra 04:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Jason-Jimmy Kent, Justin Chatwin and associated film industry BLPs

• Aaron Kaufman (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blake Robbins (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peer Pedersen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zone 414 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Die in a Gunfight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Prodigy (TV pilot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• One Way (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Walk (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Poor Boy (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Robert Scott Wildes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David A. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Collin Schiffli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jason-Jimmy Kent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across Jason-Jimmy Kent's contributions while reviewing an NPP-candidate's trial run, and was concerned that they include several hallmarks of paid editing, including a) contributions all focused on a small group of affiliated and relatively obscure filmmakers/actors b) consistently avoids adding information about negative critical responses despite availability of such references, which are typically added by other editors later on (see Zone 414, Die in a Gunfight, Summer Night (2019 film), and contrast against Unleashed (2016 film), a film with positive critical reception where Jason-Jimmy Kent did bother to add critical reception information. Also n.b. Poor Boy (film) is still missing a Reception section despite having several negative reviews on RT) c) rapid article creation timing consistent with UPE practices and d) PRish prose, often backed by citations to primary or PR sources such as His next two shorts, Head Case (2009) and Band (2010), starred his good friend and frequent collaborator, actor David Dastmalchian. I asked Jason-Jimmy Kent to disclose any COIs on their talk page, but I am unconvinced by their explanation that they're simply a fan of Justin Chatwin, and am further concerned that even if we assume that this explanation is true, Jason-Jimmy's editing thus far is indistinguishable from UPE in effect and requires course-correction even if editors are willing to take them at their word. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Oklahoma Mesonet

• Oklahoma Mesonet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Admelvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Illston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.15.9.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Illston originally expanded the article hugely on July 27–28, 2016, adding plenty of unsourced sections with material that includes quite a bit which is pretty much just advertisements (seriously, downloads to an app? how did that stay in the article for 5 years?). Anyway, Admelvin came along on January 25, 2017, and removed references and replaced them with external links. Admelvin returned on September 3, 2021 (and later September 9) to make some smaller changes (by smaller I mean not pure advertising) and then added back a deleted image on September 17. An IP geolocating to Oklahoma University also popped in on August 12, 2021, and updated the records section (without sources, I did not check thoroughly on the other editors but looking at the state of the article it looks like they were probably adding mostly unsourced info). I have further evidence if needed, but this is pretty slam dunk imo. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations

• Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ifeoma Ozoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Apple worker organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User of concern: SquareInARoundHole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for all three pages)

Specific concerns (will repeat same items below on the two other COI comments):

• SquareInARoundHole appears to be someone very close to Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Many updates made by the user to this BLP are very personal (like updating the details about the person's high school, & then update the article for that high school with details about its mascot).
• SquareInARoundHole has only been in use since Nov 17 2021 and already received one COI warning on Nov 26 2021 from Blablubbs following ~19 edits to Ifeoma Ozoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page & ~4 edits to Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page in only 2 days, including adding Scarlett's SEC filing to both Ozoma & Scarlett's pages, and creating a "Silenced No More" section on Scarlett's page despite that being Ozoma legislation. This is very similar to what SquareInARoundHole has been attempting to do on Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page the last few days.
• SquareInARoundHole also updates Scarlett's page and other BLP pages (i.e. I will file additional COIs for Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) & Ifeoma Ozoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) with insider information based on Tweets or personal knowledge, and a significant amount of which appears to get reverted later.
• SquareInARoundHole also appears to have personal bias in how facts are synthesized, & what/who is included and what/who is excluded in this & related articles. Many comments by the user also seem emotionally charged beyond what I'd expect for a neutral editor.
• SquareInARoundHole has gone a spree adding ~20 updates, many significant & most reverted by other editors, to Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s page in the last few days.
• Many updates to this and other pages by SquareInARoundHole seem insignificant for the standards of a BLP & the class C rating of this BLP page seems to reflect that.

I highly recommend a neutral party review at least the user's updates to this main article, it's talk page, and any Noticeboard content. (P.S. For the sake of transparency, please note I (HazelBasil, am Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) HazelBasil (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am going to respond only to this heading, as you have repeated the same content three times. I am not entirely sure what your issues are with my updates to these three articles. My updates to the three pages mentioned are not much different than the updates I've made to other pages. I do extensive research on people I am interested in, which is mainly women in tech, especially those involved various activism, including labor activists such as yourself. It's a little ridiculous to me that you have focused intently on these three articles, as though I've not edited anything that isn't tangential to the three of you.

• With the high school in question, I found Scarlett's high school listed on her website, and when I googled it and her, I found that she had signed a petition regarding the Mascot change, and again, found it interesting so I added it to the respective article. As for your claim that the information is "very personal," that's a bit absurd. I've added information that was readily available in the news, in interviews, and her website, just like any other article, and in most cases, this comes with some information about their personal lives.
• I'm a bit unclear what your issues with the SEC tips and legislation are. GorillaWarfare already updated to a better heading than the one I selected, and it is appropriate to mention you both engaging in the same action in the same timeframe against the same company. It is quite common to find cross-references of various people when it is warranted, just as you'll find others named in Scarlett's article, and Ozoma's, because the mentions are due for context. I am also unclear why you are bringing up Blablubbs's notice on my talk page. It does not say what their concern was, and your assumption here that it is related to Ozoma's article feels inappropriate.
• Everything I added to Ozoma's page was sourced from her websites and news articles. It was improved upon later by other more experienced editors, such as GorillaWarfare.
• The tweets you mentioned I referenced were embedded in the article I referenced. This is done elsewhere in your article, and across Wikipedia. I have already asked GorillaWarfare for clarification as to why the context around the problematic Medical Release form from the embedded thread of your tweets wasn't a good addition, versus the other tweets used in your article. I haven't contested it though, which again, leaves me a little perplexed as to what your issue is. Wikipedia articles are constantly being improved by editors, that's how the platform works. The fact that my updates have been, at times, altered, or in some cases, removed, is a normal part of the process.
• The claim that my comments are "emotionally charged" is absurd, and you've not given any examples of them. I looked through all of my editing comments, and the only ones that aren't discussing solely the content or context of the respective edits are discussing a user that created accounts with the sole purpose of diminishing Scarlett's and Ozoma's articles. (Igotthistoo and Thistechworkertoo). If you could clarify which of my comments are "emotionally charged," I'll respond if there's something to respond to.
• I answered to this already, but I do not know you, Scarlett, or Ozoma (or any of the other subjects of articles I have edited).GorillaWarfare addressed issues with some of the sourcing already, and the single instance of synthesized understanding from the EEOC's website, and I'm not sure why defining what a right to sue is biased to you, but at any rate, this was already addressed by GorillaWarfare and I am not contesting it, so again, I'm unclear what your issue actually is.

I have no issue with all of the articles I have contributed to being looked over by other editors and admins. That is the way Wikipedia works, and I happen to think it works well, which is why I decided to contribute as well. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole: While I see it is not currently in the article, what you said about Cher Scarlett and her signing a petition somewhere smacks of original research. You should be mindful of that when you do your "extensive research". --SVTCobra 23:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I mentioned why I knew about the high school mascot controversy because Gjøvik questioned how I knew about it. I simply discovered it while I was trying to confirm she went to that high school because I didn't know at the time about WP:ABOUTSELF. I never added the information about the mascot to Scarlett's article, I added it to the article about the high school, and did not mention Scarlett in the content about the mascot. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(comment from involved editor) Also adding my comments in this section only rather than copying them ×3. I wonder if these three sections ought to be combined. I've spoken to HazelBasil offline about her belief that SquareInARoundHole a) is Cher Scarlett or b) exhibits a COI with respect to Gjøvik, Scarlett, and other organizers in the tech industry like Ozoma. I don't agree with either a or b, but I also acknowledge that she has a lot more insight into the conflict between herself and Scarlett and could be seeing something I'm not. I also explained that I could not be the one to act in an administrative capacity with respect to these articles (since I created and have substantially written two of them), and told her she could post here if she wanted an uninvolved admin to take a look.

I wrote to her: But whoever [SquareInARoundHole] is, their edits are indistinguishable from someone who has an interest in the labor organizing and whistleblowing in tech over the past few years, who is still getting the hang of the specifics of some of Wikipedia's (many and lengthy) policies. You have pointed to a few edits that place undue weight on some statements that were critical or skeptical of you, or credulous of Apple's side of the story, but other edits by this person have added useful information about your complaints about Apple that place quite a lot of weight on your side of the story. This person has also added information about your SEC complaint to Scarlett's article—something that it seems Scarlett would be unlikely to do if she is indeed trying to have you written out of the story as you have suggested.

To address a few comments in this section:

• many significant & most reverted by other editors – I have reverted a few of SquareInARoundHole's edits for various reasons, but it's mostly been due to what strike me as pretty common issues in edits by new editors: not realizing that various publications are deprecated sources, over-reliance on primary sources, etc. I've posted on their talk page with some guidance and they've responded well to the feedback and seem to have adjusted their editing accordingly. I don't think it's accurate to say that "most" of their edits have been reverted—many of them have been constructive, well-sourced, and neutral.
• Many comments by the user also seem emotionally charged beyond what I'd expect for a neutral editor. – This has also not been my experience, though I haven't reviewed every single edit by the user. HazelBasil, could you provide diffs of these comments?
• updates Scarlett's page and other BLP pages with insider information based on Tweets or personal knowledge – I have seen SIARH add information that is based on primary sources (tweets, etc.) which is a common error in good-faith new users. I don't believe I've seen them add anything that is "insider information" or hasn't been stated publicly. Diffs would be helpful here as well.
• Regarding your comments on SIARH's "spree" editing, making many small edits in succession rather than one large one can appear a bit overwhelming, but it is how many editors (myself included) prefer to edit so that changes can be properly reflected in edit summaries. I don't think it is indicative of an issue. Regarding the article's C-class rating, I don't think it's fair to say that this is a negative thing or is solely because of SIARH's edits. Most of my new articles (and those of many editors) are rated at "Start" or, if I've been particularly thorough, "C" class simply because they are so new and still being written. This is a comomon rating (Wikipedia:Content assessment#Statistics) and is not meant to suggest there is a major issue with the page—major issues are typically noted with maintenance templates rather than through the rating system.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! As previously discussed offline with GorillaWarfare, at length, I respectfully disagree with GorillaWarfare's assessment. I also posted this notice with an understanding that there would be unbiased discussion and review from a fresh set of eyes. Can someone please clarify if I need to make a case why an uninvolved editor should review? Or if I need to respond to justification requests by involved editors? I was hoping I could simply post this and have someone with no bias review the edits and not be influenced by the involved editors either. Thank you! HazelBasil talk 22:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: This noticeboard is not for content disputes. What is the conflict of interest (specifically) that you are alleging? I can certainly see that SquareInARoundHole has a very narrow topic area for their edits, but that in-and-of-itself is not a conflict of interest. Similarly, bias or a non-neutral point of view are not inherently COI, either. So, do you suspect SquareInARoundHole has a real-life connection to the subjects? Do you think SquareInARoundHole is being paid to edit these pages? --SVTCobra 23:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Hi! Thank you. This is why I'm confused. I'm not trying to dispute content, I'm flagging what appears to be a conflict of interest with SquareInARoundHole and these three pages. As I said in my first post, "SquareInARoundHole appears to be someone very close to Cher Scarlett." The three pages I mentioned all include edits by SquareInARoundHole to the three pages about Cher Scarlett. I provided a few examples not knowing if I had to provide a justification on why I flagged the account on this board, but I was confused why the involved editor (GorillaWarfare) and the person I flagged for COI (SquareInARoundHole) are disputing the specific examples and asking me to engage in discussion on them. It's probably also worth noting that on Dec 31 2021, GorillaWarfare wrote to me about my concerns about SquareInARoundHole having a COI, saying, "This a concern that you could potentially raise yourself (see Conflict_of_interest Noticeboard), but I don't think it would likely be successful given the user's editing history." I was concerened GorillaWarfare's statement felt like it was discouraging me from even reporting my concerns, and I am now further concerned that she has posted on this board in defense of the account I have concerns about. To repeat, I'm simply looking for a fresh set of unbiased eyes to review edits made by SquareInARoundHole to those three pages to establish if SquareInARoundHole is one of the people in these profiles or has a close relationship to any/all of them. Thank you. HazelBasil talk 23:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil:, there's a lot of edits and material to sift through. But in support of your allegation that SquareInARoundHole knows Cher Scarlett, I found this edit with an edit summary which includes clarified she was never on medical leave. This is in direct contradiction to the cited source which states she is now on paid medical leave. Now this may be an insignificant detail to distinguish between medical leave and paid time off, but curious nonetheless. --SVTCobra 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I read an article, which is referenced, which stated she was never on medical leave. I felt that this was of material importance, though if that is up for debate, I'm not married to my edits. From the source:

Feeling overwhelmed emotionally from the abuse and the stories of the mistreatment her co-workers experienced, she also requested medical leave from the company. "I was at such a low place, I definitely had a lot of very suicidal thoughts," she said. While discussing her leave application, Apple asked her to stop talking about the company publicly. Given the timing of the request, Scarlett felt like Apple was making her acceptance of it a condition of granting her leave — and felt like she had little choice but to agree. Her medical leave eventually became four weeks of paid time off.

— Sonya Herrera

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Thank you for taking time to review! Yeah, I saw a few things like that too. Curious indeed. -HazelBasil talk 01:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: Since you already identified yourself as Ashley Gjøvik, I assume edits to this page prompted all of this. Were any particular edits of concern and pointed to COI? I don't readily see it, but I also have concerns about SquareInARoundHole and original research. And yes, I did see this edit which mentions Scarlett. --SVTCobra 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: That's correct, several edits to my page prompted me flagging this user. I will list some of the edits I saw on Scarlett's page, then my page, which led me to suspect a COI. Again, not looking to debate content, but I found these edits by SquareInARoundHole suspicious.

Cher Scarlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits by SquareInARoundHole

▸ Edit on Nov 17 at Line 45: added that Scarlett attended high school at Juanita High School with no source cited & the three other sources in the paragraph don't mention the name of the high school. The edit said Scarlett "wanted to be a junior astronaut," while the source said Scarlett was "a junior astronaut who wanted to become a scientist." None of Scarlett's bios or employment history say anything about her being a junior astronaut, so it appears the user fixed a typo in the WP article with insider knowledge. It that edit, user also updated that Scarlett grew up in Kirkland, WA to that Scarlett was born in Walla Walla, WA & grew up in Kirkland - again without any cites & nothing mentioned in those three articles.

@HazelBasil: The diff you are referencing does not say I made an edit that said Scarlett "wanted to be a junior astronaut". The diff says the edit was "Scarlett was interested in science and video gaming, and says she wanted to be a scientist and go to space after being a junior astronaut." The article you are referencing says "Scarlett described growing up in Kirkland Wash., and being a junior astronaut who wanted to become a scientist and go to space." You can see in the diff I said the bits about her birth place and high school was what she said on her website, and GorillaWarfare informed me that it being on her website did not need to be stated and made edits which reflected such. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Nov on 20 at Line 28 added "and during her tenure, she taught a web development course for the University of Washington," and only cited Scarlett's website which says she was an instructor at the university for five months but does not say what type of course she taught, so again the type of course must have been added with insider information.

@HazelBasil: The course she taught is listed on her LinkedIn, which is listed on her website. I simplified what is listed there. The sourcing was already deemed unreliable by GorillaWarfare and I have since not used LinkedIn to source information on any article. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Nov 20 3:58 UST at Line 28 with comment "adding news of memo" and added "Two days later, on November 19th 2021, Apple posted a company-wide memo affirming employees' rights to discuss pay and other working conditions, both internally and externally." The cited NBC article went live at Nov. 19 7:20 PM PST (Nov 20 3:20am UST). User added this memo 38 minutes after the article went live. In the cited article Scarlett simply says the memo "is a win" for employees. It will be weeks later that Scarlett reveals the memo was allegedly part of her settlement agreement with Apple. A few minutes later user adds a the word confidential to a note on Scarlett's settlement noting "clarify the details of the settlement were confidential, according to her lawyer in the source."

@HazelBasil: I saw the news, and this particular type of news is something I get notifications about because I'm interested in it. I have made a number of updates to Wikipedia following news I saw, but as you can see, there's plenty I didn't see or add in a timely manner. I drew the conclusion it was likely a term of her settlement, and since she was mentioned in the article, I was under the impression the journalist was implying that she was credited for the memo, too. The article cited a lawyer as saying it was a win for workers, not Scarlett. I'm confused why expanding and adding context from source material is an issue to you. Could you explain why you think that's an issue? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Nov 24 21:30 UST at Line 47 user adds a "Silenced No More Section" to Scarlett's page. It cites three articles but only one of them mentions Scarlett. That NYT article mentioning Scarlett was apparently published around 6:30am (14:30 UST) on Nov 24, again with updates made very shortly after an article was published. In this update

@HazelBasil: I already responded to this in my previous comment above, but not every source mentions the subject of articles. They also may help clarify explanations (and I believe those were citations about the California legislation for context I thought was necessary). I'm not sure what the 7 hour gap here is supposed to be implying. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Nov 25 00:10 UST at Line 49 she added a note from a Reuters article published Nov 24 ~4pm PST (Jan 5 00:00 UST). Once again user posted updates and cited an article very quickly after the article was published, this time i appears only 10min.

@HazelBasil: I saw the new shortly after it was published and thought the context would be useful for Scarlett's biography. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Nov 28 6:38 UST at Line 40 user edits "Scarlett helped to lead a group of around 7,000 employees in organizing to be allowed to continue working remotely" to "Scarlett and over 7,000 other employees organized to be allowed to continue working remotely" where the cited article only says "Scarlett is one of over 7,000 Apple employees who participate regularly in an internal corporate Slack group called “remote work advocacy,” where workers discuss their frustrations with management on the issue, and how other companies are offering more flexible arrangements."

@HazelBasil: I did not add the anecdote about 7,000 employees. Igotthistoo did. I only added back in the leadership bit, which was originally written by GorillaWarfare, which was supported by the following paragraph: "Cher Scarlett, an engineer at Apple who joined the company during the pandemic and has become a leader in, among other issues, organizing her colleagues on pushing for more remote work." I may have made a mistake tying the "large group" to the "7,000 employees," but if anything, that makes it clear that I do not have context that you have.

The diff you linked is the reversion of an edit that was not supported by the cited reference. "Scarlett and other employees who remained anonymous for fear of professional repercussions" (from edit made by Igotthistoo) vs the article, which states, "who spoke to Recode on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional repercussions" SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Nov 28 6:40 UST at Line 40 with comment "removed unnecessary information about Chelsey Glasson" and updated "Keiser cited the outreach from Scarlett and from Chelsey Glasson, who is suing Google for alleged pregnancy discrimination, as inspiration for the bill" to "Keiser cited the outreach from Scarlett and from Chelsey Glasson, another tech activist, as inspiration for the bill." despite the cited article saying " Chelsey Glasson, a former Google employee who sued for pregnancy discrimination, also wrote the lawmaker." Then all hell breaks loose... you can read that back & forth yourself.

@HazelBasil: I did not see why Chelsey Glasson would be relevant. She did not work at Apple, there is no evidence that Scarlett worked at Google or worked with Glasson on previous legislature, and the source only states that they both reached out to Karen Keiser. I could not find any sources that showed they were working together on this legislation, either. I don't quite understand why this would indicate I have some COI with Scarlett? Do you have a COI with Glasson as well? Do Scarlett and Glasson know each other? I only thought it was undue because they don't seem to be connected to each other other than they both contacted the same senator about NDA laws in Washington state. If you (or any other editor) disagrees with my conclusion, there is a talk page to discuss it. I'm new and have taken care to most times ask questions and improve as an editor. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Nov 28 at Line 40 with reverting an update that said: "Scarlett and other employees helped to lead employees in organizing to be allowed to continue" back to a version that said: "Scarlett helped to lead employees in organizing to be allowed to continue." with an update comment saying: "all references clearly note her as the leader or co-leader WP:AIV" This was bizarre because there's no coverage I'm aware of covering the work-from home organizing where leaders were named.

@HazelBasil: The diff you've linked here is not my edit, and the comment you are referencing was about contentious AppleToo edits, that looked like they fit Wikipedia's definition of Vandalism. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Nov 28 at all over with another revert commenting "Restored this page to a previous version. This article is about Scarlett, and needs to reflect content and context from WP:RS. igotthistoo may have a WP:COI and committing WP:AVI, as many of their edits introduced unrelated individuals, and created negative or false context on this WP:BLP, based on sources." Which is interesting to me not because of the content necessarily, but because SquareInARoundHole acts like they've never used Wikipedia before and asks questions about how to cite things like it's their first experience editing articles, yet 11 days into this brand new account throws out "WP:RS", "WP:COI," "WP:BLP," and "WP:AVI". While user in some comments acts unsure of basic expectations they also just commented about another user "many of their edits introduced unrelated individuals, and created negative or false context on this WP:BLP"

@HazelBasil: This is ridiculous. Yes, I am learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. This does involve reading and learning some things ahead of time, and in other cases, learning from mistakes. The user was banned from editing Scarlett's page, and additionally, a sock account they created was permanently banned. I reverted all of their edits because it became difficult for myself and GorillaWarfare to fix what they had done without violating Wikipedia's rules. How would the things I understand and the things I'm still learning about Wikipedia indicate I have a COI with Scarlett? I have edited Wikipedia in the past without an account, I decided to make an account when I wanted to focus on women in tech. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edits on Nov 28-Dec6 on Incident Notice Board about Cher Scarlett's page. I don't know what this is all about, but a few comments stood out to me:

✽ User wrote about another users "diminishing the work of Scarlett". Scarlett would later write a few weeks later "During this same time, a few women embarked on a harassment campaign against me, including abusing Wikipedia to diminish me and perhaps most disgustingly refer to my childhood abuse as alleged.” Again, I don't know the details of that back & forth, but I found it very interesting Scarlett admitted to monitoring her Wikipedia page and used the word "diminish" herself.

@HazelBasil: I can't speak to Scarlett's monitoring of her Wikipedia article, and again, I don't quite understand how this would be indicative of a COI. You are also monitoring your article, which is understandable given that it is about you, and you likely want it to be fair and accurate. I imagine all other living people would feel the same. I also cannot speak for her also using the word diminish, which I, GorillaWarfare, and Igotthistoo all used. Pointing it out feels like an absurd reach. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

✽ Again, SquareInARoundHole acts like they are using Wikipedia for the first time (and GorillaWarfare states she believes user is not Scarlett partially because it appears user is just learning how to use Wikipedia, yet user posts about the other user apparently "adding in unsourced context that swings neutrality negative, unrelated individuals that are WP:NN to detract focus from the subject, and removing important context from WP:RS to further alter the neutrality to a negative outcome" and "it looks like you may have an undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and/or those you have attempted to add to this WP:BLP, affecting the WP:NPOV and leading to WP:EW." Also states, "We are willing to consider any of your good faith edits with a RFC in Scarlett's talk page, provided you have proper reliable sources cited, and a clear, neutral reasoning behind the edits" and "A WP:BLP is not the space to work on an agenda." Again, does not sound like a new user.

@HazelBasil: Again, this is a ridiculous claim I've already stated above. Contrasting the parts of Wikipedia I understand and the parts I don't know about, or have yet to get the hang of, does not point to any issues with me as an editor. I have consistently listened to feedback and become a better editor. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

✽ Page also has yet another COI warning, "Based on the quantity, depth, and insider knowledge required for (SquareInARoundHole) comments and edits about Cher Scarlett, it seems possible that user could be Scarlett herself or someone close to her. Can the user also please be checked for WP:COI? (SquareInARoundHole)'s talk page already has a Managing a conflict of interest warning. User's account has only existed since 17 Nov and roughly half their edits are to Scarlett's page or about Scarlett on Ozoma's page."

@HazelBasil: The previous COI warning was not from you, and as I said previously, unless you have spoken to the user who posted it and clarified it was a question about Scarlett, bringing it up as a point to prove your thesis feels inappropriate to me. You, Scarlett, and Ozoma, have been constantly in the news. The others I have edited thus far have not been. I would love to write about some of the others, too, who are currently in the news, but they are either are not yet on Wikipedia, or others get to their pages with updates quicker than I've been able to. It does feel good to be the one to add previously missing information to a biography, or to be the person to expand upon something in an article. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Dec 11 22:22 UST at Line 40 is when things get really interesting. Now user updates the page with a new source, a Verge article published ~Dec 11, again very close timing. This article states "Scarlett says that her settlement with Apple required it to post “a company-wide memo clarifying employee rights including discussing pay & working conditions,” “in a prominent and visible location on the People site.” This is the memo that SquareInARoundHole added to Scarlett's article before anyone else knew that the memo was related to Scarlett's exit package. User also added a line saying "Scarlett received less than a half a year's severance" but that information does not appear in the cited articles.

@HazelBasil: I am not the editor who added information about this. I started watching Scarlett's article when it was vandalized so that I can quickly jump in and help if that happens again. I saw the update, read about it, looked for more information, found it, and added it. Additionally, you keep saying I'm adding information not in sources, but this is another instance where it's nearly verbatim what is in one of the article's cited. "So far, the company had paid less than half of a year’s worth of severance." SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Dec 31 20:16 UST at Line 43 user added my 2nd SEC complaint to Scarlett's page saying "Ashley Gjøvik a former Apple program manager who was vocal about issues at the company, also filed a tip the following day" despite the cited article not actually mentioning if this was my Sept 1 SEC whistleblower complaint about a conflict of interest in the Apple board of directors or my Oct 26 SEC whistleblower complaint about unlawful employee policies. This edit was only 17 hours after my Wikipedia page was moved to mainspace and I had not told anyone other than close friends that it was created (& GorillaWarfare of course). The only people who many have been notified were those with BLP who were tagged in the "see also" which were: Cher Scarlett, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Frances Haughen. User also cited a PDF on my personal website for the filing.

@HazelBasil: Again, I am watching Scarlett's article. I saw that you were added it to in my watchlist, and I was excited to expand your article because of the coverage I've seen about you. The article referenced states, "Former Apple employee Ashley Gjovik also filed an SEC whistleblower complaint in October alleging Apple made false statements to the agency." I added the PDF you published on your website because according to you, it is the October SEC tip you filed about false statements to the agency. Again, I have no idea whatsoever why this edit is an issue to you. I was giving you credit for your work, and additionally referencing that work, which is expansive and interesting. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Dec 31 22:48 UST at Line 41 with comment "Moved Gjovik up to an expansion of harassment and abuse endured by both parties." User now adds very concerning edit "a former Apple program manager who was vocal about issues at the company, endured similar harassment from colleagues, including that she had been doxxed in the same thread as Scarlett. This information was later updated to a description of criticism of Gjøvik on Blind containing information she believed could compromise her safety. The thread was deleted by Blind's staff, which Gjøvik says was at her request." citing both the live Mashable version and a Wayback archive version of the page. Background: a reporter wrote about a tweet I made where I talked about being doxxed on Blind and then someone reached out to the reporters editors demanding it not say I was doxxed (i have emails & texts on this). The only people who knew about the details of what information was actually shared were my close friends and Cher Scarlett (because she demanded details from me after my tweet). I complained to one person about the back & forth & what I thought was Cher requesting the updates, a reporter named Zoe Schiffer. Other than that, I have no idea who would even know enough about this page updates, let alone be interested in citing a WayBack archive of the "before" version.

@HazelBasil: I found the original article syndicated elsewhere, which is why I got the WayBack version. I assumed doxxing would be the way YOU described what happened to you, but clarified it was later updated because that's what was in the source. I don't need to know, or care to know, the background of what has transpired between you, Scarlett, journalists, or anyone else. I am only interested in accurately and fairly representing you (and all of the subjects I edit) on Wikipedia. This was already dealt with by GorillaWarfare, and ultimately removed because she disagreed with my assessment that you have been subjected to harassment by your colleagues and felt that the reference about your doxxing (or whatever you classify it as) was undue because the article was mainly about Scarlett. I am confused by your position on my mentioning the harassment you've faced, because I found mention of it in more sources than I mentioned on your talk page, ie, "After Gjøvik started to gain momentum on Twitter, multiple current and former Apple employees tweeted about how they were suspicious of her claims and felt like she was merely trying to get attention." Women in tech, especially outspoken ones, are prone to more harassment than others, according to what the women peers I have discuss amongst themselves, but I apologize deeply if you feel that has not only not been the case with you, and that you feel it is harmful to mention it. I don't know you, so I'd have no context that mentioning the harassment cited in these articles would be unwanted. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Dec 31 23:46 UST at Line 43, as you mentioned, it was unusual she clarified the status of Scarlett's leave despite it contradicting the cited source. User also added "which she changed in 2018 after providing federal investigators information that led to the arrest of the perpetrator of an incident when she was a teenager she said involved being forced into sexual acts on camera." which was not mentioned in any of the cited material.

@HazelBasil: I cited both of these edits, the first I've already cited above, and here is what the other states:

Scarlett says she was forced to perform sex acts on camera at 19. Days later, she says she attempted suicide. She provided information to federal investigators in 2018, which led to the arrest of the perpetrator, and began going by Scarlett, which is not her real name, out of concern for her safety. She is in the process of legally changing it.

— Reed Albergotti

GorillaWarfare removed these edits because the addition of some of it has been contested on Scarlett's talk page, and I did not properly address the topic before adding it. After reading the full discussion, I opted not to request for comment on it being added back in, as it looks like she would not want it to be mentioned, either, based on the safety concerns mentioned by two editors. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Dec 31 at See Also user removed me from the list of people in her "See Also." -HazelBasil talk 02:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: I removed you from the list of "See Also" because I added you to a section as a mention, which adds you to the list of referenced articles automatically. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Dec 31 to Scarlett's [ Talk page] saying "Scarlett's speaking to the press openly was a rarity that inspired Rotondo (and others) to start speaking out about Apple on Twitter. While it could be contextual that Scarlett has helped others, like Rotondo, become publicly vocal about issues they experienced at Apple" which has not been printed anywhere and some would disagree with.

OK. This is a mouthful. I am off to bed. Maybe someone else will have time to look at it before I come back. --SVTCobra 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: The source referenced by Igotthistoo in stating that Kate Rotondo should be added to Scarlett's wikipedia page says this: "Before May 2021, the public rarely heard from Apple employees like Kate Rotondo." and "News of the survey inspired others, including Kate Rotondo, to begin tweeting openly about their own issues trying to get paid and leveled fairly." and additionally points directly to Scarlett's outspokenness starting in May of 2021. I have no context for what you or others would disagree with, I was responding to the comment that Igotthistoo made after reading the article they referenced, and additionally gave an option for possibly mentioning Kate Rotondo under a different framing that would be supported by the article. You left out the statement I made that if that were something to be added, it would "additional sources to support Scarlett's effort leading others in the same way" SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits by SquareInARoundHole (note: page was created Dec 21 2021 1:02 UST and moved to mainspace 3:06 UST same day)

▸ Edit at Dec 31 21:54 UST on Line 32-59 user adds she "says was told not to discuss her concerns with other employees, a request she alleged was a violation of her rights under the NLRB." but this information is not in the article cited, in fact I don't think any articles have said that directly. User also added " She went on to raise her concerns amongst employees in the Sunnyvale office that they were possibly being exposed to hazardous chemicals, urging them to test the air, and that she was subsequently harassed and humiliated" which also is not in the cited article. User added this about the privacy section "Other employees said the upload process was user-initiated, and that they were instructed "not to upload anything sensitive, confidential, or private," although other staffers reported a company policy that bars employees from wiping their company-owned devices when they leave the company, and violation of the policy leaves them open to legal action." which again was not in the article about that topic. User edited "On August 4, 2021, Apple placed her on paid administrative leave" to then add "while they investigated some of her internal complaints," which again is not cited in any articles. User wrote about the leave that "which she said she requested as a "last resort", and which she later described as "indefinite" and "forced" in a complaint" which was misleading & was reverted. User added a SEC complaint citing my website, which was then reverted. User then added Cher Scarlett's SEC complaint to my article despite zero press covering both of our Nia Impact capital complaints together. User then removed Cher Scarlett from my page's See Also.

@HazelBasil: I cited multiple references, not only one article. In reference to you being told not to talk about your concerns with other employees being a part of your NLRB charges (I believe this is where I sourced this, though if I remember correctly, it was in numerous sources I read:

Gjovik said her concerns were brushed aside and she was warned against speaking up about them. In her letter to the NLRB, she said Apple’s employee relations department “intimidated me not to speak about my safety concerns”

— Patrick McGee

Additionally - "She also urged her employers to test the air in the office before the cracks were repaired to establish whether workers had been put at risk since 2015." - Martin Bright

I found the terminology "indefinite paid administrative leave" misleading based on all of the materials I read, including an email from an Apple HR representative you uploaded to your website which states that it was not indefinite. Some sources, including The New York Post (which I didn't know at the time was not allowed to be used, nor that it was essentially a tabloid), clarified it was during the ongoing investigation into some of your claims. Neutrality is important, and while I tend to want to ignore everything from the corporate side, I felt the most balanced take was to point out that they refused to investigate all of your complaints (negative for Apple), rather than sharing your published correspondence of their denial, which felt like it would be unfairly swinging neutrality in Apple's favor, and to say that you felt it was indefinite. My understanding differed from GorillaWarfare, who felt the other sources were not reliable enough to clarify whether or not you called the leave indefinite or if it was actually intended to be indefinite. I did not contest this, though I still think it's confusing as a reader. Additionally, I did not write that you requested it, nor that you described it as forced in a complaint. That was originally added by GorillaWarfare, and is supported by the references.

Again, Scarlett was removed from the "See Also" section because she was added contextually to your page, since Reuters tied your SEC tips together in the article referenced in your previous note about this. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Jan 3 at Line 46 user provided negative editorialization of my EEOC right to sue saying " Both the DFEH and EEOC issued Gjøvik right to sue letters, which indicates that while the agencies were unable to determine if law was violated and would not be proceeding on her behalf," despite no press saying it like that, instead press saw it as a positive as EEOC investigations are not required and it was a step forward.

@HazelBasil: As someone who is not in law school and has little understanding of legal terminology, the articles did not clarify at all what a right to sue notice was, other than it gives you the right to sue. As a reader, not just an editor, I wanted to understand what this meant and why it was needed. The Wikipedia entry I found (linked in previous sentence) is a disambiguation link, which I've had multiple sections added to my page for accidentally using disambiguation links. I used the Wikipedia entry on the disambiguation link, and the EEOC's website to clarify what that means, and why. Nothing I wrote was negative. The EEOC says "If we aren't able to determine if the law may have been violated, we will send you a Notice of Right to Sue. This notice gives you the right to file a lawsuit in court ... If we decide not to file a lawsuit, we will give you a Notice of Right to Sue." and "If you filed your charge under Title VII ... you must have a Notice of Right to Sue from EEOC before you can file a lawsuit in federal court." and I got the "EEOC has verified that the claim, if proven, would be unlawful discrimination" from the disambiguation link. I put those together to define why it was important that you received that, and what it meant. To me, that's a positive statement that the EEOC and DFEH felt your claim was a violation of the law if it could be proven in court. I'm sorry that you thought it was not. I really do try to be balanced in my edits. As discussed previously, this explanation was removed in favor of the disambiguation link because of "synthesizing", which is not something I knew at the time I was doing. I considered EEOC's website to be a good source of explaining your receipt of these letters. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Jan 3 at Line 32 & Line 30 & Line 33 & Line 33 again user added information not included in the press and not widely known, referencing an ADA medical release document I shared with Scarlett and Scarlett Tweeted the document but never said was my document.

@HazelBasil: I supplied two references for this. The first stated "the employee relations representative suggested [Gjøvik] file an ADA accommodation request to continue working remotely after September ... Apple told her she’d also need to fill out a medical release form." The second came from this tweet thread, which was embedded in an article about your paid administration leave. In the tweet thread, you said "They also suggested requesting #ADA #disability accommodations after I raised concerns about unsafe #workconditions ... If you missed it a couple weeks ago, the medical release forms Apple sends us for requesting accommodations are a problem in themselves..." By using the term "us," you were stating that you also received this form, which was consistent with what was reported by the Verge. GorillaWarfare and I discussed this on my talk page about why some embedded tweet threads were fine to source, and others weren't. I did not contest this. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Jan 3 at Line 31 said "determined that she may have VOC poisoning" which is not printed anywhere and is not really a thing, VOCs are a huge group of chemicals, some of which are fairly safe. User also added this "She continued to press Apple for information on the reasons for the environmental testing and its results, and says that she was subsequently harassed and humiliated." which is not in the cited article. ~HazelBasil talk 05:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@HazelBasil: From your article: "I saw two doctors who specialize in chemical exposure, and they both decided that based on the timeline of my illness, the VOC readings in my unit and my specific symptoms, that my mystery illness sounded like symptoms of VOC exposure." It looks like I made a mistake in using the term "poisoning," but I had just also read the other piece in which you said that “Apple poisoned me: physically, mentally, spiritually” and another piece that said “Most of us know that there’s some level of pollution in our day-to-day lives, but there’s still a lot of trust in the government and companies to do the right thing when it comes to poisoning people,” which led me to the understanding the illness you experienced about was due to VOC exposure and that constituted poisoning. I apologize for misunderstanding what you've said, but again, GorillaWarfare already addressed this in saying that the references were not high enough quality and I did not contest. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

▸ Edit on Jan 1 to my Talk page Talk user adds bizarre statement " As she [Gjovik/me] is a woman, and one who seems particularly subject to harassment, it would be nice to clarify how much higher education she's accomplished"

▸ Edit on Jan 1 to my Talk page Talk user says "Gjøvik has mentioned the harassment from her colleagues in numerous places, though I discovered it in the Mashable piece (or rather, a copy of the original that was re-published on another outlet). Was going to expand with additional context from the piece on truthout.org.[1] It seems heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett in the Mashable piece, and relevant to properly highlight what she endured at the company for speaking out" which is weird & confusing for numerous reasons, but also confusing why something "heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett" would need to be Gjovik/my page.

Apple Worker Organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) edits by SquareInARoundHole

▸ Edit on Nov 19 03:21 at AppleToo user updates page that "Cher Scarlett has left the company". Scarlett's departure was only made public at 03:35 AM IST/UST, 17 Nov 2021. It was a quick and minor update if this person isn't connected to Scarlett.

▸ Edit on Nov 23 at AppleToo user updates Scarlett's "settlement" to "non-board settlement" which seems over specific.

▸ Edit on Dec 24 at AppleTogether adds an "Apple Together" section even thought it appears to be simply a rename of AppleToo and Scarlett continues to infer she's still leading the group & provides updates on their activities, including the walkout details added to the page. ~HazelBasil talk 06:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I am declaring here that I have a COI with regard to the article subject area, as stated on my user page. I do not know any of the involved users in any capacity outside of Wikipedia. I'm a little bit hazy on policy, but I couldn't find anything saying that I shouldn't contribute to tangential COIN discussions such as this one; if it's a problem, tell me, and I'll dip out. With that out of the way, I'm not seeing the same contradiction as you, SVTCobra. The source says Her medical leave eventually became four weeks of paid time off. I took that to mean what SquareInARoundHole wrote in the edit: "She said after her compliance, she was granted four weeks of paid time off instead of medical leave." That's what the source says, paraphrased. Medical leave is a long term unpaid absence. If she got 4 weeks in October and she returned in November, where did the long term leave go? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors in this page please read WP:PEPPER. This page is immensely hard to follow as is. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Promotion of ISKCON founder with link spam and honorifics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dāsānudāsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user Dāsānudāsa keeps reverting edits [37] [38] [39] to restore Honorifics Swami and Prabhupada along with repeated internal links in violation of WP:HONORIFIC and MOS:LINKS. Swami and Prabhupada are honorifics. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics. He admittedly is a follower of this Gaudiya cult diff and trying to engage with him on the article talk has not been helpful. Venkat TL (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Swami, in the case of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami (Prabhupada), is NOT an honorific but is part of his name, as I have explained multiple times: [40], [41], [42], [43],

The man in question is also never simply called "AC Bhaktivedanta" in any reliable sources, which is the most important factor here.

That aside, Venkat TL is apparently either unable or unwilling to understand that he may not shoehorn through controversial changes without first building consensus to do so. The last talk page discussion on this topic, on Talk: Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, ended inconclusively with Venkat TL yet to respond, and yet he has tried again, in complete contradiction to the principles of WP:BRD and consensus-based editing, to remove the text unilaterally, despite having been reverted multiple times.

At this point, it is bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(1) It is a honorific. Every senior member of this cult uses the honorific name Swamy. (2) There is no reason to use his full name along with the linkspam to his article everytime he is referred to in the article. You are in violation of both. Venkat TL (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will discuss it with you on the relevant article talk page. Why are we here? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion would be more appropriate for WP:ANI or WP:AN3 than for WP:COIN, but I don't think that is necessary and I'm not certain it will go the way you want Venkat. While your arguments about the name seem reasonable, process is important, and the process now that your bold move (made via WP:RM/TR) has been reverted is to open a WP:RM proposing your move. Once it has passed, as I suspect it will based on what you have argued here, then it would be appropriate to update the links to the article.

Once that has happened, if Dāsānudāsa keeps insisting on their preferred form and edit warring to maintain it then it might be an appropriate time to WP:AN3. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Thanks for the suggestion. I am not seeking sanctions on Dāsānudāsa. It is important to point how his belief in his cult is clouding his judgement and preventing him from following WP:NPOV on articles related to his cult. The Article title for A. C. Bhaktivedanta is a different matter and I will follow your suggestion on it. Here I am discussing another article Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati which is not about A. C. Bhaktivedanta. As I understand MOS:LINK an internal article only needs to be linked once in the article. Why then is this person wikilinked every time he is referred to? Why are we using his full name (whatever it is including honorific) every time he is referred to in an article not about him. Can this be addressed here? I believe comments from uninvolved editors will be helpful. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Yes, that is definitely WP:OVERLINK, and those should certainly be removed, and per MOS:SURNAME you are right that they shouldn't be including the full name on every mention, regardless of honorifics - I have edited the article to match policy. However, I still don't believe this a matter for COIN; we don't typically hold that a member of a religious group has a COI with that group, although there are exceptions, and there is not much we can do here in the absence of a COI. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1. I have no problem with your addressing the over-linking, but you are doing so in the same edits as you are removing part of the name. If I could revert only the latter, I would. I have no objection to your removing excessive links.

2. I am not a "belie[ver] in the cult", as you suggest, and specifically say so in the diff you linked as evidence of my somehow having a conflict of interest. I am interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but I am also interested in Advaita Vedanta, in Theosophy, in Jungian psychology, in Formula 1 motor racing, in sleeping and in eating. None of this has anything to do with my editing behaviour on Wikipedia. If I was really editing in a partisan manner with regards to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, I would surely insist you refer to him as "Prabhupada", or "His Divine Grace", or other similar honorifics. One again: The "Swami" is his name. With an honorific "Swami", as at pages like Swami Vivekananda and Swami Rama, he would be called "Swami Swami". I have explained this more times than I care to count.

3. If you are concerned about the abuse of the honorific "Swami" in article titles, might I suggest you turn your attention to the two linked above? Or Swami Shraddhanand? Or Swami Satchidananda Saraswati? Swami Abhedananda? Swami Nikhilanand? There are plenty to choose from. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami is not one of them. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mohamed Sherif Kamel

• Mohamed Sherif Kamel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mohamedkamelerc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comparing this article to the editors User Page, it is clearly an autobiography. There is a COI box on the UP acknowledging a conflict, however they are still editing the article in unacceptable ways. Yesterday, I removed a hyperlink to their LinkedIn page at the first bolded mention of their name in the lead. They put it back a second time, and I removed it again and placed a COI warning message on their TP. Today I see the LinkedIn link is back as ref#1. Their User Page is another version of their biography and should probably be CSDed as webhost vio as well (except for the COI user box! MB 22:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)