Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:

    Draft:Vishal Bawa[edit]

    Writing about themselves on Wikipedia without disclosing COI. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My Real Name As Per Government Identity vishal Dwivedi im hail from Kanpur Uttar Pradesh if you requred any more info contact me thank you. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello my rael name is vishal dwivedi im a independent artist so i create this Wikipedia page This is my personal Page Comment.thank you. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a bit of a language barrier issue, I don't quite understand what the user is saying (here, and on their talk page User_talk:ItsVishalBawa#May_2024), whether they are or are not the Vishal Bawa described in the above draft. If they are, then this is obvs an autobio. If they're not, then the username is misleading and must be changed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Itsvishalbawa is mh Wikipedia log in user name thats the reason im facing on create account time and My Artist name is vishal Bawa try to understand this situation. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ItsVishalBawa Unless you are Vishal Bawa, you cannot use his name as your username. If you are not him, please tell us a new username you want to use, I can change it for you.
    If English is not your main language that you use to communicate, you should edit the Wikipedia that is written in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Please help me on this case i want to change my username itsmvishalbawa to Vishal Bawa..
    Please help. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see the difference there; and you still haven't made clear if you are this person. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this not different on the name so why not publish my draft article and whats the docs requred for the clear this use are person or not. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are still having trouble understanding you. Could you try to write your text through a translator? It might help us better understand you. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Wikipedia team, please tell me what documents do you need to publish this pending draft.
    Please Check This,
    https://www.google.co.in/search?q=vishal+bawa&client=ms-opera-mobile&sca_esv=7fb4d39484240f25&sca_upv=1&channel=new&espv=1&ei=MUVsZriRIqLMseMPr4KQqAs&ved=2ahUKEwjLnMKZmduGAxVFbmwGHetyB7UQ_coHegQIPBAg&uact=5&si=ACC90nyLlcElEvb2bNLvGYvz3qiAohwQf5zV0YPZPub8GYrCKd2RPXuXgywGgNYV2BdlcTpI5CoZAu068mSxFdBgI5PQTtbvk6RWe9YoTvC2ylpqCm-vAxM%3D&ictx=1
    Our "Google Knowledge Pannel. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ItsVishalBawa Are you Vishal Bawa? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes ItsVishalBawa (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My Real Name Is Vishal Dwivedi and Artist name Vishal Bawa. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The draft is a clear case of autobiography. I believe the confusion is arising from "Vishal Bawa" being a pseudonym adopted by "Vishal Dwivedi" and so when ItsVishalBawa said that their real name is Vishal Dwivedi (and that their "Artist name" is Vishal Bawa) that was a confirmation of them being the subject of the draft biography. Not sensing any ill-intent but it is likely that our standard templated messages linking to the relevant policies are too complicated for the user to navigate; will drop them a note to see if that helps. Abecedare (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am just telling you that my real name is Vishal Dwivedi and my artist name is Vishal BawaBut on Sign up time My username suggest me to itsVishalBawa.
      Please Tell me how should i do. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @ItsVishalBawa: thank you for finally confirming that you are, indeed, the person you are writing about. Please read and understand our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO. Autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. For the same reason you also have a conflict of interest (COI), which you must disclose if you wish to continue, see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please tell me what I need to do now to publish it ItsVishalBawa (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Team,
      Please Help me on this Topic. ItsVishalBawa (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @ItsVishalBawa: this noticeboard is for discussing conflicts of interest; for general editing advice, try the WP:AFCHD or Teahouse. But since you ask, there is nothing in your draft that suggests you are notable enough to warrant an article. My advice therefore is to drop this matter entirely. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    COI for something NOT published?[edit]

    Hi, I would like to self-report an incident that happened in 2016. I am not sure if it qualifies as a COI on Wikipedia or not. Back in 2016 I was still trying to figure out what kind of work was appropriate for me. Our HR person suggested that I work on a page for a donor to the library where I work as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, and I said I would try, but couldn't guarantee any specific kind of content (right, I should never have agreed to do that). I spent several weeks researching and creating a page in my sandbox for a man who made his fortune off of real estate (he's dead now). There were definitely enough sources on him for him to pass notability guidelines. One of my main sources was actually a biography commissioned by his trust. After I was happy with what I wrote in my sandbox, I sent it to the HR person, who sent it on to someone at the trust. The trust people hated it because I mentioned that the houses he built were not available to black people to purchase, as was the case with a lot of homes built then (a detail in the biography THEY commissioned, which I guess they also didn't like). Our HR person told me not to publish it. Was NOT publishing it a COI as outlined in our COI guidelines? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this retrospective declaration. You have a long list of COI declarations on your user page. From my perspective, I'd add the above story to the list and that should be all that's needed. Schwede66 03:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the advice, I added it to my list. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably a COI to philosophers, but not doing something doesn't go against COI policy.
    And, unless you're still under contract or whatever, I'd tell HR to suck it and publish the thing from a non-affiliated account in your personal capacity. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jitin Prasada[edit]

    Addition of promotional content (including an image gallery which I have reverted). When I asked about COI on the user's talk page, their response was to delete my post without comment. My suspicion was aroused by a new account making multiple null edits, on this and other wikis, before starting on the article in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – User blocked as a sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Totectors[edit]

    I suspect that the 'IBG' in the username stands for 'International Brands Group', who own the IP of Totectors. Turned that article into a weird and unfocussed advert, was reverted and told about managing a COI, responded by adding the odd advert back again. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Both users blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Aleksandr Celiadin[edit]

    A number of users who edited the article are already blocked:

    Found this while removing citations to Simple Flying. Something sketchy going on here: Aleksandr Celiadin is the founder of GetJet Airlines, his article seems to be edited exclusively by accounts with limited other edits. The company seems to have previously set up an account and I think the other accounts seem to be likely related to each other. There is also frequently IP edits on this article adding material from the company (most recently [1] [2]) and one of the accounts listed above deleted some (admittedly not well sourced) negative info about the company. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A new account has shown up continuing this pattern of edits:
    Laura.urbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    I reverted but I believe these pages could do with a higher level of protection/these users seem to be connected. Avgeekamfot (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have redirected Aleksandr Celiadin to GetJet Airlines, as there is not enough to justify a separate article. Edwardx (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing Rejoin EU and various parliamentary consistencies to add Rejoin EU party candidates with edit summaries mentioning "my party". Username suggests they are a candidate or party operative themselves. Went off the deep end at another editor when challenged about this yesterday, but then calmed down and seemed to accept the advice they were given, but resumed editing UK constituency articles this morning. 90.251.20.238 (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All I am doing is correcting omissions from Wikipedia articles that have omitted the candidates that my party is standing at the 2024 UK general election.I have been asked to do this by my party, and I am including references wherever possible. Wikipedia guidance above suggests that there is nothing at all worrying about uncontroversial factual corrections of this kind, see the third bullet point under "Additional notes" at the top of this page.
    As far as going off the deep end is concerned, the other editor suggested I might want him/her to do something to my edits which looked like some form of control - not something any self-resepecting politician can tolerate. As far as I am concerned the matter has been settled. Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked Edward Dean - Fareham and Waterlooville (talk · contribs) as a soft {{uw-ublock-wellknown}} which is not the same issue as their COI. Cabayi (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have all my previous entries been deleted? If there's a definitoomn of vandalism, that is it! Wikipedia cannot surely be allowed to take sides in the UK general election? NewPolitician (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is taking sides; additions to Wikipedia need to be adequately sourced, and so far your edits haven't been. — Czello (music) 11:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting entries for all the candidates of a particular political party IS taking sides. Let's go to arbitration. How do I do that? 193.117.166.37 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you're not understanding here, so let me be clear – things being added to Wikipedia need to be sourced. If they're not, they're liable to be removed, regardless of the political party. That's not taking sides; it's the opposite of that. — Czello (music) 11:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm understanding is that Wikipedia is providing incomplete information to its readers, and your rules are preneting the information from being corrected. Moreover, the ommissions are of candidates for one particular political party, which implies that Wikpedia is not being impartial. 193.117.166.37 (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that means that whoever did the deleting has done wrong, and whoever provided the incomplete information has also done wrong. I think it would actually help Wikipedia for this to be clarified in arbitration - it seems to be a conflict between Wikipedia aims and Wikipedia rules. So how do we go there? 193.117.166.37 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring a source is not a big ask. There's not 'arbitration' required here; please read WP:RS and WP:V. — Czello (music) 11:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is now renamed to NewPolitician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cabayi (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. I noticed that one of my previous edits was "reverted", but no reason seems to have been given. The edit was a simple fact. I guess this was something to do with this process. I am going to try to do it again. NewPolitician (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NewPolitician, I think your guess is wrong. A quick glance at a couple of your edits shows that you have not been providing sources for your changes. You need to provide reliable, verifiable, independent sources for your changes. WP:VNT may help you. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threats, NewPolitician (indef) and their IP (1 week) blocked for legal threats with a side order of DHT and NOTHERE. 90.251.20.238 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,

    I am bringing to your attention a dispute concerning the Hamis Kiggundu article, which has recently been reverted to its most recent edit prior to Davey2010's contested reversion. This reversion was necessary due to ongoing allegations of promotional editing and bias. I am now seeking a neutral review of the article to address these concerns and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

    Background:

    • The article was reverted by Davey2010 to a version from 2021, which removed three years' worth of valuable edits and updates.
    • These updates included a detailed summary of a significant lawsuit, business journey, philanthropic efforts, and achievements, all supported by reliable sources.
    • The removed content was written in a neutral tone, similar to articles of other notable individuals like Aliko Dangote, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg, and was referenced from credible sources.

    Concerns:

    • Allegations of Promotional Editing: Despite the neutral tone and reliable sourcing, there are allegations that the recent edits were promotional.
    • Bias and Ownership Concerns: The reversion to a 2021 version appears to be biased and does not respect the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.
    • Impact on Article Quality: The reversion has significantly reduced the quality and comprehensiveness of the article.

    Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:

    • Consensus: The reversion did not follow the principle of consensus-building (Wikipedia:Consensus).
    • Edit warring: The repeated reversion without attempting to resolve the disagreement through discussion is a form of edit warring (Wikipedia:Edit warring).
    • Assume good faith: Assuming bad faith without proper evidence or discussion contradicts the policy (Wikipedia:Assume good faith).
    • Ownership of content: Acting as if they own the article by reverting to a preferred version without consensus (Wikipedia:Ownership of content).
    • Disruptive editing: Removing significant contributions made over three years is disruptive (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing).
    • Purpose and Five Pillars: The reversion contradicts Wikipedia's purpose and five pillars by restricting information and lacking fairness (Wikipedia:Purpose, Wikipedia:Five pillars).

    Request for Review:

    Given these concerns, I am requesting a neutral mediator from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to:

    1. Review the reverted article: Ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and reliability.
    2. Address Alleged Promotional Content: Identify and address any sections that may be deemed promotional and make necessary adjustments.
    3. Provide Guidance: Offer recommendations to prevent future disputes and ensure the article remains accurate and unbiased.

    I believe that a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.

    Thank you for your assistance in this matter.41.210.145.68 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In short, I reverted to a 2021 revision[3] doe to the promotional tone/wording of the article[4], The article also appears to have had a long history of paid/promotional editing and I personally suspect the paid bit is the reason why we're all here now too.
    My resolution would be to send it to AFD and for it to be nuked and recreated by an editor in good standing but maybe that's wishful thinking, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: It seems strange thats many editors have a single purpose interest in Kiggundu and that so many are blocked for sockpupptery. Most recently IP editors have been active in creating a huge WP:ADMASQ puffing up the alleged notability of this individual/
    Davey2010 has made a reasonable reversion to the most recent decent version. It is coincidence that it is one that is under my name, it could have been a prior version.
    The prior AfD was during the very early stages of this promotion enhancing exercise. I think there are sufficient elements to notability, perhaps notoriety, that mean a future AfD would have little point. My firm belief is that Kiggundu uses this Wikipedia article to further him image through a large pool of UPE editors, both named and IP. A report, with evidence, to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton will almost always be productive. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW not that it's pertinent/relevant here but I had looked at revisions before yours and yours was the one I was happy with the article being at although I still wasn't happy per se, I had only found this article because they did the exact same copypaste dump at Simple English Wikipedia[5], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davey2010 Understood. It often extends to promotional pictures of Kiggundu on Commons as well. I agree, "mine" is not a version to be happy with, but it may be the best available. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I would like to address the points raised by User:Davey2010 and User:Timtrent regarding the reversion and allegations of promotional editing.

    1. Promotional Tone Allegation:

    The allegation of a promotional tone is subjective and requires specific examples to be addressed. The edits made over the last three years were supported by verifiable and reliable sources. These included:

    - A chronological summary of a lawsuit and its resolution, documented by court records and news reports. - Detailed history of Hamis Kiggundu’s business journey, similar to those found in articles about other notable entrepreneurs such as Aliko Dangote, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. - Philanthropic efforts, like the donation of 100,000 Royal Palm Trees to Kampala Capital City Authority, verified by government sources ([6]). - Business achievements such as the redevelopment and grand opening of Nakivubo Stadium, covered by multiple reliable sources ([7], [8], [9]).

    If specific sections are deemed promotional, they should be discussed and revised rather than the entire article being reverted.

    2. Allegations of Paid Editing:The assertion that this article is a result of paid editing should be substantiated with concrete evidence. Wikipedia permits paid editing, provided there is full disclosure and adherence to the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. In 2020, the user Mark Had disclosed his conflict of interest prior to the article passing Articles for Creation (AFC). However, despite this transparency, he was blocked, and an undisclosed paid editing tag was added almost a year later, in March 2021.
    Wikipedia operates on the principle that "what is written is more important than who writes it," as outlined in its core content policies. This means that the focus should be on the verifiability, neutrality, and reliability of the content rather than the identity of the contributor. It is essential to respect the Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle. If there are legitimate concerns regarding sockpuppetry, these should be addressed impartially and without bias through appropriate channels, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. It is crucial that all actions taken are in good faith, ensuring a fair and collaborative editing environment.

    3. Quality and Content Removal:

    The reversion has significantly reduced the quality of the article by removing well-referenced and neutrally presented information. The edits made were in line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. Removing such content without proper discussion and consensus is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

    4. Previous Discussions and Administrative Actions:

    Previous discussions and administrative actions should be taken into account. A blanket reversion to a 2021 version disregards the collaborative efforts of multiple editors. The article should be reviewed for specific content issues rather than a wholesale reversion, which is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia:Consensus.

    Request for a Neutral Review:

    Given these points, I request the following:

    1. A detailed review of the specific sections alleged to be promotional, with a focus on neutrality and reliable sourcing.
    2. Involvement of a neutral mediator or administrator to ensure a fair resolution.

    Policies Believed to Have Been Violated:

    - Consensus: The reversion did not follow the principle of consensus-building (Wikipedia:Consensus). - Edit warring: The repeated reversion without attempting to resolve the disagreement through discussion is a form of edit warring (Wikipedia:Edit warring). - Assume good faith: Assuming bad faith without proper evidence or discussion contradicts the policy (Wikipedia:Assume good faith). - Ownership of content: Acting as if they own the article by reverting to a preferred version without consensus (Wikipedia:Ownership of content). - Disruptive editing: Removing significant contributions made over three years is disruptive (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). - Purpose and Five Pillars: The reversion contradicts Wikipedia's purpose and five pillars by restricting information and lacking fairness (Wikipedia:Purpose, Wikipedia:Five pillars).

    I believe that addressing the specific concerns through a neutral review will help resolve this dispute fairly and maintain the integrity of the article.

    Note:I have recently observed certain actions regarding the subject's media on Commons and edits to the article that raise concerns about fairness and adherence to Wikipedia policies.

    Firstly, User:Timtrent tagged all of the subject's media for deletion despite substantial permissions. When these deletions did not occur, User:Davey2010 proceeded to blank three years' worth of edits. It is noteworthy that both users are located in the UK, which raises the possibility that Davey2010 might have been influenced by Timtrent, as evidenced by reverting to Timtrent's revision.

    These actions suggest a potential conflict of interest and might be perceived as being done in bad faith. The assumption of ownership over this content by a select group of users contradicts the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). This policy clearly states that no one owns the content here and that all contributions are collaborative efforts.

    Additionally, labeling every editor of this article as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) without substantial evidence seems excessive and contrary to the Assume good faith (WP:AGF) guideline. Not every notable figure's edits should be deemed promotional when they adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies.

    It is also concerning that all recent editors have been submitted for sockpuppet investigations, which seems to target contributors unfairly. According to the Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), blocks are meant to prevent disruptive editing and not to punish users. Repeatedly calling for investigations can discourage new contributors and create a hostile editing environment.

    In light of these points, I respectfully request that unbiased and non-conflicted mediators be involved to ensure that this article is managed fairly and in accordance with Wikipedia's core content policies. It is essential that all editors are treated with respect and that any actions taken are transparent and justified.

    Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia

    Thank you for your consideration.41.210.141.54 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop pinging me, I don't have the time, energy or patience to read your long walls of text and baseless accusations. As stated above I found this article via Simple English Wikipedia and again stated I reverted to Tims reversion because it was least promotional and overall the best. If I really wanted to be anal I would've gone a hell of a lot further back, I will be keeping tabs on this article so don't need to be pinged, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Davey2010,Your commitment to maintaining the quality of the article is appreciated. Considering the ongoing dispute and allegations of bias/promotional content, you can see that the article was circumstantially reverted to its prior state in order to facilitate neutral mediation. Discussions like these can understandably become frustrating, but it’s crucial to stay calm and adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies while waiting for the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard mediators to review the situation. Reacting emotionally may hinder reaching a constructive resolution. Allowing the mediators to assess the content impartially and provide guidance will be beneficial.Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. 41.210.145.169 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Hamis Kiggundu has had its protection level enhanced to ECP as a result of unhelpful IP edits. That has no effect on this discussion, and is for information only.
    The two tl;dr swathes of text do not show that there is any COI in the edits by Davey2010, whose reversion has been performed also by another respected editor.
    This is the wrong venue since there is no COI. It may be that WP:DRN might be better, but, in view of the massive UPE sockpuppetry ring already found for this article among others, I have my doubts.
    I suggest that this be closed as "no case to answer" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Flexcar[edit]

    Saw this editor add advertising language to Flexcar. I reverted and warned for COI. But going back to the article, they turned it into an advert back in March. I'm hesitant to revert further back because the article was a bit rubbish even before that and any attempt by an IPv6 editor to radically shorten the article would be reverted by a bot.

    So, some more eyes, and some further advice (to me and/or Creativebuffalo), would be good, please. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cut the article down a bit and watchlisted it. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ozark Christian College[edit]

    User is editing page with a username that indicates association with the org. Did not respond to warning in February and has continued to edit. glman (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've soft blocked them for their username. Secretlondon (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Names of customers of a UPE agency have been revealed in reviews[edit]

    Browsing the internet, I have found a Trustpilot profile profile of a UPE agency. The agency is named "Wiki Proficiency" and is seemingly banned per WP:ABTACH.

    There is an interesting pattern in their reviews. As for pre-2024 reviews, I could not find Wikipedia articles ordered by the reviewers, and there is a large number of very negative reviews.

    In 2024, this pattern breaks. Positive reviews dominate, and for a majority of them, I could find articles named after the reviewers. No article had been created before the reviewer wrote a review to Trustpilot, and (with a few exceptions) the reviews were written no more than a month after the creation of corresponding articles. Where I was unable to find an article named after the reviewer, the reviewer mostly refered to themselves in plural or refered to their "company". I should however note I haven't found any relevant AfDs related to negative reviews.

    There is a catch, however. Some of the article creators had over 1000 edits. There is one with 16000 edits and one even with over 40000 edits. As much as I try to assume good faith, I do not see any better explanation than that the editors were paid. I find it highly unlikely that the UPE company is tricking me.

    If we agree the articles are paid for, we should do something with them. Even if some of them aren't downright promotional, the company is profiting of intransparency and dishonesty, so per WP:IAR, we should so something to stop them, even if unprecedented. Some options are deletion for a fixed period of time or draftification (the closing editor of the discussion that resulted in CBAN for the company noted that potentially useful articles might be draftified.)

    Here are the suspected-UPE articles:

    1. Calsher Dear
    2. Vidya Madhavan
    3. Jessica Lai
    4. Tania Munz (here I should note that the reviewer wrote her first name as "Tanya" in her review)
    5. Michael C. Casey
    6. Felipe Lara
    7. Hannan Azlan
    8. Andris Morozovs
    9. Rob Ezell
    10. Claire Lombardo
    11. Masha Kondratenko
    12. John Yurtchuk
    13. Virgilijus Trakimavičius

    I hope you could give me some advice. I intentionally didn't name the article creators, as I don't want to cast baseless aspersions before being advised on this matter.

    Janhrach (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect the UPE is tricking you; claiming work they haven't done to bolster their profile sounds like a reasonable effective marketing ploy.
    Further, I would find it very surprising if someone like Michael C. Casey, the director of the United States National Counterintelligence and Security Center, cares about having a stub Wikipedia article. BilledMammal (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not uncommon for mercenaries to claim credit for work they haven't done, in the (sadly very justified) hope potential clients don't do their due diligence first. I would not believe anything they say without concrete proof that they actually worked on those pages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal and Jéské Couriano: Many thanks. Actually, how common is it for UPE companies to pick their fake clients this sophisticately? I mean, it is no coincidence that the articles were created short time before their "reviews"; it is quite probably part of their deception. Janhrach (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Common enough that it's something that should be taken into consideration when evaluating UPE claims based on what the merc outfit says. This is a line of work where ethical considerations are at the bottom of the priorities list. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much always, because most UPEs don't have genuine articles they can point to. – Joe (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The TrustPilot looks like it's getting artificially inflated reviews. I sorted through a good amount of them and all of the 5-stars are pretty generic praises, no specific instances of "above and beyond" that a normal review might show, no name call outs. Peppered in are a few 1-star reviews still (which should certainly be watched out for in the future, should Chef Eddie G suddenly get his Wikipedia Page).
    I think the value in this find is less about the articles they're claiming and more about the articles that people have asked them to make and they haven't. If someone went to one UPE, then they'll probably go to another eventually. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perkins Eastman[edit]

    The referenced user (above) has been making a few changes to the article above. There have been a couple test edits, which I have no issues, but the first edit is what I worry about. This article was extensively edited with promotional language. Internal links were broken, links to their companies website were added for the founders, in place of the relevant people's Wikipedia pages, and some red flags appeared for me when editing, pertaining to the previously mentioned "first edit" which can be found here Here's why I removed them, and why I believe this Wikipedian has a COI with this article, and maybe the industry of this company in general:

    1. The language used in the edits, such as "after beginning his career at the famed Burnham and Root in Chicago" and the change of "Dwight Heald Perkins, started an architecture firm" to "Dwight Heald Perkins, opened his own architecture firm." This type of language is glorifying the people involved in the company, which leads me to believe there is a COI.

    2. Next, the links are what really raised red flags. Once again, this is concerning the individuals mentioned in the article. One of the "higher ups," Mary-Jean Eastman, does not have a Wikipedia article, and the referenced user above has linked the companies website to her name.

    3. I have a bit of understanding in SEO, and from what I can tell, this is an attempt to beef up the Wikipedia article as a means of promotion, over other companies websites, on relevant topics which the company has a market share in. This user created a list of "practice areas of the firm," which introduce a lot of words. This means that the referenced Wikipedia article will be boosted in search rankings for searches that include the words this user has added to the page, such as "K-12 education" and "science + technology."

    4. I'm a bit tired, so this one may be oversight on my part, but I thought it might be useful to include. This user added a lot of further reading resources, but the first one includes text which just beefs up this guy's person a lot, by explaining the article's subject "undertook the study as the result of winning the AIA College of Fellows’ Latrobe Prize in 2019, which came with a $100,000 grant." Just sounds like a lot of promotion, and it didn't sit well with me, especially after reading the above things in the article.

    5. Update: After reading the user's talk page message to me, he claims to be the "chief communications writer for Perkins Eastman," and he states "it is my job to see to it that the facts surrounding our company are correct."

    I had a lot of extra time to really analyze everything, so I hope this explains my issues with the edits from this user. I put in the time, as I can tell from the users talk page, they really did spend a lot of time editing the article, and I want to ensure their (hopefully) honest work has good faith.

    OnlyNano 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse block. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am copying your notes below so I can reply to them in line:
    The referenced user (above) has been making a few changes to the article above. There have been a couple test edits, which I have no issues, but the first edit is what I worry about. This article was extensively edited with promotional language. Internal links were broken, links to their companies website were added for the founders, in place of the relevant people's Wikipedia pages.
    I searched for a Wikipedia page for Mary-Jean Eastman and found none, so I linked to the bio we have for her. I have never before edited anything on Wikipedia and had no idea this was wrong. There has long been a sensitivity--especially because there are so few women leaders in the architecture industry--that Brad gets more recognition than Mary-Jean, when they in reality are fully equal partners. It seemed honestly odd to me that Brad's name would be linked but, to the reader, Mary Jean, without a link, may look like she was undeserving of one.
    and some red flags appeared for me when editing, pertaining to the previously mentioned "first edit" which can be found here Here's why I removed them, and why I believe this Wikipedian has a COI with this article, and maybe the industry of this company in general:
    As I demonstrated in my original note, I'm happy to be transparent about who I am and who I work for. Please let me know where I should do that. (and my name is Jennifer -- I am a woman)
    1. The language used in the edits, such as "after beginning his career at the famed Burnham and Root in Chicago" and the change of "Dwight Heald Perkins, started an architecture firm" to "Dwight Heald Perkins, opened his own architecture firm." This type of language is glorifying the people involved in the company, which leads me to believe there is a COI.
    I wasn't intentionally trying to glorify this man. I'm fine with reverting to "started an." As for "famed," if you look at the Burnham and Root page on Wikipedia, I believe you would draw the same conclusion, but again, happy to remove that word.
    2. Next, the links are what really raised red flags. Once again, this is concerning the individuals mentioned in the article. One of the "higher ups," Mary-Jean Eastman, does not have a Wikipedia article, and the referenced user above has linked the companies website to her name.
    Please see my note above on Mary Jean Eastman. I would prefer either that both founders have links or neither do. What is your suggestion?
    3. I have a bit of understanding in SEO, and from what I can tell, this is an attempt to beef up the Wikipedia article as a means of promotion, over other companies websites, on relevant topics which the company has a market share in. This user created a list of "practice areas of the firm," which introduce a lot of words. This means that the referenced Wikipedia article will be boosted in search rankings for searches that include the words this user has added to the page, such as "K-12 education" and "science + technology."
    The page as I found it already listed practice areas, and the list was incomplete. I don't know who contributed the 2021 wording, but my only motivation was to make the list complete. If you look at our website, those are the practice areas where the firm does work in. I wouldn't have added to this list if the list wasn't already there. I probably have less understanding of SEO than you do. I absolutely wasn't trying to boost Perkins Eastman, only to convey the most accurate information. (and "K-12 education" was already on the list before I added additional practice areas to it)
    4. I'm a bit tired, so this one may be oversight on my part, but I thought it might be useful to include. This user added a lot of further reading resources, but the first one includes text which just beefs up this guy's person a lot, by explaining the article's subject "undertook the study as the result of winning the AIA College of Fellows’ Latrobe Prize in 2019, which came with a $100,000 grant." Just sounds like a lot of promotion, and it didn't sit well with me, especially after reading the above things in the article.
    You have more experience with Wikipedia pages than I do. This was my very first attempt. But the existing reading list had a headline whose most recent date was 2021. The company has done many things since then. I was only trying to make the list more current. I'm fine with taking that additional language off the research study description, which I merely copied from our site without thinking.
    I'm a former journalist. I fully understand the value of conveying accurate, neutral information. We have our own website as well as plenty of other ways to promote our company, and I honestly came into this Wikipedia page wanting to correct the errors and update the information. I know we don't own this page and it is maintained by the community. I hope we can work out a way to ensure the information on the Perkins Eastman page is at the very least current and correct. Thank you. Jserge630 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that it appears closely connected contributors have been controlling the content of this page for years.-- Ponyobons mots 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you elaborate? Clearly we don't "control" the content here, otherwise my edits would have gone through. There is significant edit history on this page that long predates my arrival in 2021. I don't recognize any of the users as being tied to Perkins Eastman. In fact, some of my edits that were rejected, regarding the ranking of Perkins Eastman both in NY and around the world, reflect that our rankings went DOWN. They are lower today than they were in 2021. The existing article cites those higher numbers. I tried to correct with the LOWER numbers but those were rejected. I find your comment to come across as an accusation. If you read my notes above, I am only trying to ensure that this page has accurate information.
      And let's compare to the Perkins&Will page. they have their logo and photos of their project work all over the page, like it's a brochure. They have language like "Perkins&Will attracted national attention..." and then a list of "notable" buildings. There is a link on the page to one of their press releases boating they have more LEED projects than any other firm in the world. How is this permitted when our own edit history contains rejected language that "sounds like a press release." This claim on the P&W page is not supported by any independent source. Why are they not sourcing this claim through the USGBC?
      Moving on to Gensler, which is also allowed to have its logo on the page. They refer to their "megaprojects," which sound very editorial. They talk about projects being "applauded by politicians," (editorial). The citations to BD+C are thinly veiled press releases filled with praise (see "Gensler: the One Firm Firm). The awards list include mentions like "for the 47th consecutive year" (editorial). They also list "notable" projects and have project images on their page -- again, like a brochure.
      Now on to Foster & Partners. I was criticized for listing too many practice areas, but they list nearly as many, along with many specific projects underneath those practice areas, most of which link back to their web site. They also list "current" projects, which I doubt anyone besides someone tied to the firm would have known to include. They also list a whole gallery of project images, plus a huge list of awards.
      We do none of these things -- no project pictures or project lists and links, no list of awards, and we can't even add our own logo as all these other people do. I would love to do a list of our own "notable" projects and awards -- would those go through as they have been permitted for these other firms? I truly feel that we are getting unequal treatment when compared to the pages of our peers in the industry. Jserge630 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll offer what guidance I can here:
      Gensler and Foster & Partners had edits made to the page through requests made on the respective talk pages. This was done as the editors interested in making changes had a conflict of interest.
      Most logos are acceptable for use on their respective Wikipedia articles. The logos for each of the linked articles are considered public domain as they are composed of simple text and do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection; thus, they are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (see: c:File:Foster_and_partners.svg). There is nothing excluding you or anyone else from uploading the Perkins Eastman logo to Commons and adding it to the article given that it seems to meet a similar standard of just being text.
      The overall quality of references and editorializing done in these articles is unfortunate, but won't be changed unless someone comes along who really cares about maintaining neutrality or wants to improve these specific articles to a higher standard. In general, architecture firms are just one of many types of companies that receive less scrutiny on Wikipedia due to less of a public image and less interest by editors. I can only guess that your edit was singled out and reverted because it was tagged as "removed references" and was done by a brand new user. Reconrabbit 20:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the explanation. How do I turn my edits into a request? I am brand new at this and was not aware that this was the path I needed to take -- until all my edits were rejected. I would love for there to have been some sort of note upon my creating an account that this was the process. I only saw the rules and guidelines after all my edits were rejects whole-cloth. Jserge630 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You can use the talk page of the article you want to make a request (that would be this page), and you can read WP:ER, to understand how to make edit requests. I made loads of mistakes as a new user as well, so don't worry! I would also suggest putting on your user page that you have a conflict of interest. As WP:COI states (the page on conflict of interests):
      "Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith."
      That just means that users will take an extra look at your edits to certain articles, but it doesn't mean your not allowed to edit! WP:DISCLOSE has some templates (you can learn what those are here).
      To those involved in the discussion, I oppose a block with the following conditions:
      - This user should just follow the standards for disclosing a COI, and make "clean" edits, with no promotional intent
      - Her job title, or what she claims it is, does not say she is required to promote. I think it is appropriate that she is focused on editing her companies article, provided there is no promotional intents going forward.
      - The user wants to try and get better with editing, and is willing to follow the standards. She, not even when asked, disclosed she was affiliated, and that is a step in the right direction. Provided she follows the policies that she now knows, I see no problem with this user making edits. OnlyNano 21:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. I went into the Talk page for the Perkins Eastman page and requested the edits outlined in the link you had at the very top. I also went into the Teahouse for assistance in adding logo/images etc. And you are right: My job is not promotional. I am strictly internal comms at Perkins Eastman. I do not perform any PR or outreach work for the company. Jserge630 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I just posted my COI on my User page as suggested. Jserge630 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're really making waves, it's good to see people with a role such as yours be transparent and understanding! OnlyNano 22:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with @Reconrabbit. Their page also makes a lot of sense, as it provides information about the designer behind buildings. Let's say someone wanted to know who made Fort Collins High School. Perkins&Will provides the information on the page that they made that building, a picture, and that's it. No marketing language, nothing overly general.
      Awards and project images are fine. You can even add your companies logo right now, and nobody would revert your edit. You're providing your companies logo, which is non-promotional. Feel free to add awards, as long as it has a reliable, non-primary source. The only thing we are worried about is the fact that the edit you made initially looks like your only intention was to promote the company you work for. OnlyNano 21:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you review my notes @OnlyNano? Can you approve any of my edits? And I don't actually know how to add our logo. I know Wordpress, and on Wordpress you click "add media," but there seems to be no option there. Is there another forum to submit all this stuff and then someone else adds it? Like, how do I add project pictures? Jserge630 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You can check out how to use images here, and for future questions, I suggest you head over to the Teahouse (I saw you posted there, that's great!). I will have the page watched, and help you out with reviewing changes. I will also check out your old edits, and see what we can keep. Thanks! OnlyNano 22:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you very much :-) Jserge630 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course! OnlyNano 23:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff L. Lieberman[edit]

    This user has been repeatedly warned about COI editing and as recently as May 2024 continues to edit articles with a suspected COI. Vegantics (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    David W. Bates[edit]

    Warned this editor about their obvious conflict of interest and paid editing. They continued to edit the article in question, so here we are. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I work at Brigham and Women's Hospital and am David Bates's Executive Assistant, so updating his profile is within my normal job purview. I have updated factual information only that was provided to me by Dr. Bates, with proof available. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Then make the necessary declaration on your talk page. And then read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia does not host 'profiles', it is an encyclopaedia. All content has to be neutrally written, and based on published reliable sources. If you wish to boost Bates' career, you will need to find somewhere else to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read what you suggested, thank you. And excuse me for using the wrong word, profile. My aim here was simply to provide updated information. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been directly or indirectly paid to update this entry. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an hour ago you wrote "I work at Brigham and Women's Hospital and am David Bates's Executive Assistant, so updating his profile is within my normal job purview". What has changed in that hour? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing has changed. Can you please tell me how to go about getting updated, factual, verifiable information posted? The information listed was incorrect, so I was only updating it. And I don't know who to "make the necessary declaration on [my] talk page." I am new to this and the attacks are not kind. DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DWB Executive Assistant: See this page. By “the affected talk page” it means the “Talk” tab at the top of the article.
    Also, please make sure that your changes can be verified with sources if possible.
    Thanks! Rusty talk contribs 15:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the template already has been added on the talk page. Rusty talk contribs 15:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick question: does the use of the username 'DWB Executive Assistant' breach WP:USERNAME?
    (Specifically the part of that policy that states 'that usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they [...] only describe a particular role, title, position [...].)
    The user states above that they are literally 'David [W.] Bates's Executive Assistant'. Axad12 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to shut this account down! Had I known it violated a policy, I obviously would not have used it, but I'm so glad you asked the question! DWB Executive Assistant (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d persevere if I was you. At this point all you need to do is familiarise yourself with a few Wikipedia policies (particularly those quoted earlier in this thread), then track down some sources that comply with WP:RS that provide evidence to support the various edits you were trying to make, and then request the changes on the talk page for your boss’ article. Assuming the requested edits are factually correct, not promotional, and can be verified by independent sources then the changes will probably be agreed and your boss will be happy. Plus, you’ll be being paid for editing Wikipedia, while everyone else will be doing it for free. So, as I say, I’d persevere... Axad12 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AvePoint[edit]

    Hi all! Sorry if this is weird; I've dabbled in Wikipedia editing off and on over the years, but I haven't looked at it for a while, so I'm honestly a little shaky on Wiki markup currently. My main user account is Taciturasa (talk · contribs), although it is currently inactive.

    Essentially, I'm here to confirm that this IP belongs to the internal company VPN for AvePoint, and it appears to have provided a large amount of the edits to the AvePoint Wikipedia page (funnily, I just found this out after I poured coffee on my keyboard and almost made an accidental nonsense edit to the page for Adwaita (design language) while trying to clean it up).

    I'm disclosing this because I've noticed before that the page kinda reeked of WP:PROMO and WP:COIEDIT. I really appreciate and align myself with Wikipedia's wish for a neutral PoV, and I think the evidence within the special contributions for this IP paint a pretty clear picture.

    I think AvePoint as an entity could quite possibly qualify for notability, but it's pretty clear, both with it being known edits have come internally from CoI editors, as well as the advertisement-reading current status of the page, that it may need to be cleared of most of the information within it so it can be written more accurately.

    Hope this helps! I'm not sure there's really any reason to notify other editors, since I don't know of the history of the page, but I know for sure this IP is involved, and I am currently this IP, but will certainly do what's needed (on my main account, if needed) to make good on that if you need it.

    Will try to respond if there's any questions. Thank you! 38.105.223.146 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Smolensky[edit]

    I'm here not knowing where else to go for the best, and in the spirit of WP:DOLT.

    These IPs have slowly spent the day removing information from this Russian enemy of Putin. The first edit tried to quote our article Right to be forgotten, which is why I'm mentioning DOLT: they didn't make a legal threat, but I can see why they would want this person, and their location information, removing. This isn't the way to go about it, and I have no idea if we would even consider granting the removal of sourced information in this way, but that's all way above my pay grade and having better editors than I look into this seems a good idea.

    I'm only going to inform the IPv4 editors of this thread, as anything else is just me chasing my tale. YMMV, of course. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]