Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use ((subst:coin-notice)) ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-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:

• OceanicFeeling123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NathanielRuth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - added after the discussion was initially started, after reviewing talk interaction. Possible meat/sock. Graywalls (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• FavoriteIrisFlower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DH1913 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another editor asserting affiliation with ADL, and have made advocacy edits.
• Editorialist832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eric-ADL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Granadaspring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vkaykin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hersei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (account creation June 2018)

The user disclosed in their profile that they work for Anti-Defamation League, which is considered reliable on WP:RSP. I have noticed that majority of their edits consist of working ADL sources into different articles either by working it directly into prose, or requesting it through talk. Regardless of how respected the viewpoint of the source is, when the publisher representative become proactively involved in utilizing its sources on Wikipedia and push the sources outside of natural editing process from those not connected to the editor, it disrupts the due weight and neutrality uninfluenced by those who holds stake in particular sources being cited.Graywalls (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long-term issue. I first sent this user a COI warning on Feb. 3. That was in relation to the GameStop short squeeze, a major page at the time (ITN and tons of pageviews), which they had added a whole section to in relation to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, sourced only to the ADL [8]. (After some discussion, it was removed by consensus.) Since then, it appears the same editor has directly inserted ADL content into several major pages without going through Talk. Some of these are related to right-wing extremism (Three Percenters, Parler, Boogaloo movement), but there's now edits to the main article COVID-19 pandemic and several edits directly to Anti-Defamation League, which I would think is a no-go. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this merits a good discussion, not just ADL, but on the general concern of publishers and source representatives directly citing their own publication into articles repeatedly. As far as the edits they've made to the ADL article itself thus far, I don't see a problem with it. They didn't add or remove any contentious contents in prose or promotional links and they've disclosed their affiliation. The edits on that page was updating/housekeeping to keep things current. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally oppose the whole idea of "they have a COI, but the edits are good" exception because it isn't fair to those COI editors who follow the rules and make suggested edits on talk pages. We want to reward that sort of behavior and discourage COI editors making edits to pages where they have a COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily encourage it, but I wouldn't call simple update edits COI. By the way, even if the editor was to suggest edit, if overwhelming majority of their participation is making sales pitch to numerous talk pages to add their affiliated source, that absolutely ought to be considered advocacy editing by proxy. Graywalls (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on both counts.

Re: "I wouldn't call simple update edits COI" please read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. If you have a COI you shouldn't make even simple edits to any page where you have a COI (our guideline makes exceptions for reverting vandalism and enforcing biography of living persons policy). The problem with "I wouldn't call simple update edits COI" is that you are depending on the person with the COI to decide whether the edits are allowed, and their judgement cannot be trusted.

Re "even if the editor was to suggest edit[s], if overwhelming majority of their participation is making sales pitch to numerous talk pages to add their affiliated source, that absolutely ought to be considered advocacy editing by proxy", Again, read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. We specifically advise COI editors to make suggestions on article talk pages and let others decide whether to implement them. As long as they follow Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations#Don't push they are perfectly free to suggest adding a link to their affiliated source. The problem with "even if the editor was to suggest edit[s]..." is that you leave no way open for a good-faith paid editor who wants to follow the rules to try to convince the other editors to implement their preferred version. This strongly encourages undisclosed paid editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I wanted to convey is that laying everything out and asking someone else to hit the switch to game the system around not being allowed to hit the switch yourself. If the intent is clear that what they're trying to do is elevate their own organization and vast majority of their effort is to push their advocacy goal, it still would be the same thing. Think of it like people who bring children to get around "1 per customer" on things that are clearly not being purchased in a way that relates to the kids. The kids are really not the "customer" in that case even though they get around on technicalityGraywalls (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things: some of the arguments here make it seem like we don't allow people with a disclosed COI from adding material related to that COI to articles, or that it automatically creates a WP:WEIGHT problem. That doesn't align with what WP:COI actually says. We need reasons to remove these edits (why did this need reversion as "spam" or this, which was reverted even after Jorm took responsibility for the edit) other than "you have a COI". OceanicFeeling123 has disclosed the COI and, in all of the cases where someone disputed it, has not restored any of the material as far as I can see. In most cases, their edits appear to be a single sentence citing ADL research. If it were an unreliable source, if it weren't sufficiently related to the subject, etc. I could justifying a mass rollback, but what we're talking about here are 1-3 edits to each of 15 articles over a 5 month period. That's not a flood of refspam or shoehorning research into tons of articles.

I said above "in most cases...", but in a couple cases, they added new sections to articles based just on ADL sources. That's a big mistake. Also they edited the ADL article directly. Also a big mistake. OceanicFeeling123, three pieces of advice: (1) use other sources, too. if you mix ADL and other reliable sources (perhaps sources which cover the ADL research) that presents less of a WP:WEIGHT issue; (2) never create a new section if you only have one source, especially in a contentious topic area. It looks like that happened in 2 or 3 of the cases in question, and immediately waves a WP:WEIGHT red flag; (3) don't edit the ADL article itself. It's not strictly forbidden, but nearly everyone is going to be skeptical (if not cynical) of an employee editing an employer article. Use the talk page. In fact, if you want to be safe, you could always use the talk page to propose changes, but as I said above, it's not required. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern I noticed is that there's nothing substantial they have done, other than to insert ADL's position, generally into highly viewed article. Even if the edit was done indirectly, if the purpose appears to be elevate the visibility and relevance of their employer's standing as a reference, that would be advocacy editing. Even if the inserted sources are well respected like BBC or NY Times, if these edits were to be done by their public relations representatives and pretty much all of their edits consist of adding link to, or adding prose using their own sources, that creates a COI issue. There isn't a firm threshold of quantity before it reaches "spam" status, but it's a matter of being an apparent single purpose account that exhibits the appearance of elevating the profile of the reference being used. When such is the apparent intention, going to numerous articles and bouncing it off the talk page to find a place for their employer's publication doesn't change the intent. Graywalls (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:REFSPAM is relevant here. The only gauge on how much is too much is the very vague "multiple articles." If you're a lawyer, that means two; if you're an average person, as I expect most of us are and I expect who the rule was primarily meant for, it means a little bit more. Regardless, both thresholds have been hit here, and as Graywalls notes, the editing appears to be done with the intention of promoting the ADL. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I don't like the fact that COI editors can directly edit pages they have a COI with, but they can (I would like to see that policy change to disallow direct editing of pages one is in conflict with). In any case, I checked the edits the user made to the ADL page and they are all perfectly fine. The rest of the article-space edits, with seem to all begin with According to the Anti-Defamation League and end with an ADL source, are clearly advocacy of ADL product.--- Possibly (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. To be clear, the framing of what I said above as "advice" and "mistake" was intentional. Practically speaking, someone working for ADL editing the ADL article is a mistake that I would advise against. It is not explicitly against the rules, however, as you note. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've counted the number of times they used the format "According to the ADL (or) The ASDL reports... (ADL ref)", and come up with 16 instances. There are perhaps three or four other times when they just inserted ADL sources.--- Possibly (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment so there is more going on. As I dig further, I am finding other accounts created in May 2020 exhibiting similar pattern and some with disclosure saying they're associated with ADL. I'm not so certain if they're actual people working in coordination with ADL, or if they're falsely claiming to be associated. I've started an SPI discussion. Graywalls (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, thanks for sharing your thoughts. As I state in my user page I work at the ADL. Last spring we started a staff editing project where 8 staff members received editing training. We organized ourselves on this Wikimedia dashboard and all committed to transparently disclosing our COI:

https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Anti-Defamation_League/ADL

Most of my edits have been short, a couple of sentences each, in which I cite trusted ADL reports, don’t state personal opinions, and include content in articles and article sections related to extremism, xenophobia, racism and antisemitism.

Other staff members have been following a similar pattern related to their areas of expertise, especially as the U.S. has seen an upswing in hate groups and militia activity. We are tracking these trends and want to contribute to documenting them based on the research our organization conducts.

We cite ADL sources because they are highly reliable in this area, but we are not just here to promote our organization. Believe it or not, I actually care about contributing reliable information to Wikipedia on the issues I’m familiar with. I welcome your advice and mentorship, but please don’t assume the worst about me.

I totally understand the need for extra sensitivity when editing the ADL organization’s Wikipedia page, and I can make sure myself or other staff members address proposed edits, even minor housekeeping ones, on the talk page from here on out.

Please feel free to ask me any questions. OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the users mentioned on the Outreach dashboard to the list above. @OceanicFeeling123: are all the editors listed at the top of this thread paid employees of the ADL? This looks a lot like paid editing without proper disclosure... there's a sort of roundabout declaration of paid status ("I work for the ADL), but not the standard required one where client etc are listed, as well as articles with which they have a COI.--- Possibly (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also,, I cannot see how this is not paid advocacy. The organization does admirable work, but neutrality is not served by paid employees of a source placing their publications in articles. That has to stop immediately, and ADL should post proper PAID and COI disclosures, and use talk page requests when trying to place ADL sources. --- Possibly (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yes, those are my colleagues, and we work for the ADL. We disclosed that plainly and never sought to hide our affiliation. By "work for" we meant "paid by" and that's generally synonymous. We are not paid just to edit Wikipedia, it's a small part of the work we do on hate and extremism. We wanted to share some of that expertise on Wikipedia because we think our reports are valuable in this time of significant uncertainty and violence. We cited ourselves because Wikipedia generally views ADL as reliable in this subject area. I hope you see that we were selective and thoughtful in what and where we cited ADL over the last months.OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, WP:CITESELF is not necessarily paid advocacy when the sources cited are highly relevant and reliable for the claims made. ADL reports are well-researched and highly regarded in the field. We only cite them where they are most useful for readers. I don't agree that this is paid advocacy and think organizations engaging with Wikipedia can be to the encyclopedia's benefit, too. With full disclosure, I think this is also in line with the COI policy as written.OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. you left out the part of WP:SELFCITE that says "adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." I know you think you're neutral and unbiased, but as an actual neutral party without involvement with the ADL or the subjects you have been editing, I see your placement of ADL sources as plain old paid advocacy by an organization trying to promote its interests. Other neutral editors will weigh in here their views. --- Possibly (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have negatively noticed the ADL-content-pushing at GameStop short squeeze, where in my personal opinion it has even conflicted with ADL's own goals by displaying antisemitic propaganda in a way that makes it look more legitimate than it is. Regarding disclosures, I disagree about "Affiliated with ADL." at User:Editorialist832 being a proper disclosure if paid contributions have been made using the account. Without disclosure in the edit summary, and without any edits to the Talk namespace, a short "Affiliated with ADL." does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:PAID. Similar concerns apply to FavoriteIrisFlower, who has at least mentioned "FYI, I work for ADL." on one single article's talk page when making an edit request (Special:Diff/1011576416). All in all, WP:COI exists for a reason, and these editors chose to directly edit articles against the explicit recommendation not to do so, and now their behavior is being discussed here because they underestimated the problems. Choosing to ignore the "discouragement" at WP:COI almost always leads to problems, and ADL's good-faith attempts have turned out not to be an exception from this rule of thumb. Every COI editor thinks they're helping the encyclopedia, and 99% of them are wrong. ADL does not entirely unambiguously belong to the other 1%. All I personally would like to see is an official acknowledgement of this by ADL, and a more careful approach to promotion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

another comment Wikipedia policy prohibits shared accounts, for example CompanyEditor is not allowed, but CompanyEditorJane is allowed. Nonetheless, the very similar advocacy type edits through generic sounding name suggests it is planned to escape scrutiny by spreading insertion of ADL contents across many accounts (whether they're each only used by one person only remains unknown). I looked at their form 990 and it looks like they have almost 500 employees altogther and with this said, it's very odd that they have no less than 8 employees editing Wikipedia as it seems absurdly many. I think it clearly falls foul on meat puppetry operating under the direction of management. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences being inserted come across as something like photo-bombing or when you see a paid product placement of, say, a can of Budweiser or Coca-Cola in a movie. I agree with ToBeFree describing this as ADL-content-pushing. I also have an issue with WP:Notability. If the ADL were the only source of information about the antisemitic nature of these people and groups, that'd be one thing. But they aren't. In the Parler case for example, there was a lot of info in the article citing out to a variety of RSes about antisemitism before the ADL line was dropped in. Did the ADL sentence really add any significant information to the article beyond the extensive evidence the article already cited? Was ADL research used by those other journalists (or cited by them)? If what was happening is that those other RSes were establishing the notability of ADL's research by citing it, that'd be one thing. But I don't think they were. So again, having an ADL employee come along and drop it an ADL-pushing sentence where it doesn't really add much of anything of value to the article but does serve as a billboard for ADL seems off. That's one reason the COI strictures exist -- to avoid situations where adding the info comes across as self-serving. Novellasyes (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'd also like to note something else; if ADL is in fact the only one covering anti-Semitism re a particular topic (i.e. GameStop short squeeze), then it's almost certainly undue weight – and definitely undue to have an entire section on. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This POV pushing advocacy of their contents raises question if their published contents may contain bias to support their point of view. The POV pushing never came up in discussion about the source in RSP Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Anyone else feel another discussion about possible bias POV pushing would be useful at sources? It certainly makes me wonder why all these accounts were created in a very short span of time on the same day on May 19,2020, with the exception of OceanicFeeling123 which was created two days later. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's possible they just had a staff meeting or something where they discussed doing this and made the accounts then. Whether or not we find that behavior objectionable is another thing, but I don't think it's that relevant to the reliability of the source. The point is, if the New York Times did this instead of the ADL, we would probably go through the same kind of process and likely reach the same conclusion, but it wouldn't affect its status as an RS, in my view. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I was suggesting is a possible shift in organizational culture in which POV pushing, sensationalism and advocacy affecting neutrality could be permeating into editorial process on their publications too. Graywalls (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Beyond My Ken:, you have been mechanically reverting every single instances of WP:ADVERT source insertions I have removed, marking them as "minor edit" or vandalism reversion. Per WP:ONUS, the burden to establish consensus on questioned contents falls on those looking to restore them. Please do not continue to go against guidelines. The contents have been removed to preserve neutrality of source presentation. Please engage in this discussion instead. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, since the ADL is a reliable source, your removals seemed to me to be unjustified, so I restored them. I then asked you on your talk page to respect WP:BRD and not re-remove the material until there was a community consensus about your edits, but you chose instead to violate BRD and restored your deletions. Other editors here may choose to put this material back into the articles, preserving their atatus quo ante, until a consensus is reached either confirming your opinion of the material, or deciding that your deletions were, as I think they are, totally unjustified.
  The ADL has been examined a number of times at RSN and found to be a reliable source, so the net result here is thatyou are removing information sourced to a reliable source from Wikipedia articles, thus harming them. That's not a good thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also like to point out that Graywalls' edits appear to be attempts to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and may well be an indication that they are editing from a personal political PoV, and thus a violation of WP:NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under ordinary circumstance, that's reasonable, but what's happening here with ADL using eight accounts to inject their own publications goes against a normal editing process, thus I have removed them. That is undue emphasis and exhibition of the organization's own publications by the directions of their communications department. This has nothing to do with my personal political POV, and such allegation is unwarranted. Regardless of the political stance of the source inserted, if a publisher/media source was pushing and carpet bombing their own articles using 8 accounts into popular articles, it's a problem. As I have said earlier int his discussion, it'd be a problem regardless of how reliable the source is considered to be. I welcome thoughts from other editors, but please do not re-revert disputed contents prior to consensus having been established. Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what we usually call refspam. Plain and simple. MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that this is a coordinated effort by 8 users, discussing overall issues may be a problem. Is any of these accounts designated as a main point of contact to discuss problems with ADL's Wikipedia editing project? Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  OceanicFeeling123: Are you the main contact? MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MarioGom:, the only thing conclusive is that there are at least those 8 disclosed accounts. 8 user accounts, not necessarily 8 unique individuals. Graywalls (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I see indications suggesting this is not sockpuppeting. Otherwise, I would have reported it directly. I think it may be more productive to focus on the WP:REFSPAM issue. MarioGom (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think is a COI, since the edits were not made to articles about the ADL. It's really an issue of Citation spam. COI allows Citing yourself: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." TFD (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "conflict" of interest is that deploying numerous employees with the organizational goal and interest of elevating the employer's status and reputation and making their own opinions relevant, is conflicting with the overall mission of Wikipedia, thus "conflict" exists. Graywalls (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, Sorry, but I can't find that in COI. Can you provide a direct quote from it? TFD (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the blanket removal of content was wrong-headed, reactionary, and to be quite frank, just plain stupid. The "offending" material should have been flagged in the talk section of each article first and discussed before deletion, a single editor excitedly running around deleting stuff has created disruption. Should have sorted issues with ADL here at COI/N first, then had discussions about content removal. Acousmana (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this sentiment and have partially restored the deletion from the Parler article. It seems silly to me to demand that another user seek consensus and provide onus for restoring something back to the status quo ante, rather than doing so before making those changes and even before reaching consensus on this noticeboard. Seems a little backwards to me. BirdValiant (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Acousmana:, there's still no reason to leave combative Special:Diff/1014319555 and hostile edit summary such as this. I believe that others in articles simply didn't notice the convert advovacy edit leading to a delayed discovery. It took some digging around before I realized there were 2-3 accounts used, then I only became aware there were eight accounts being used after one of the corporate advocate for ADL disclosed there were eight accounts being used on behalf of the organization. I don't believe that people in those articles knew either. Had they put in the edit summary saying something like "1 of the eight employees tasked with promoting ADL here adding link to our company's own research", it may have been reverted much earlier. Graywalls (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Graywalls: there's also no reason to run around panic deleting content and citing "no consensus" + "onus" to everyone who objects, that's counterproductive, and is in itself "combative." Your intentions can easily be misconstrued. Acousmana (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first question should be whether the edits improve the articles. If so, simply having a disclosed COI is not a good reason for mass removal. It's even less of a reason to get into edit wars with multiple editors without a COI who viewed the material as a positive addition.
  I don't agree that it's "refspam plain and simple". When we talk about refspam, we're typically talking about the addition of sources which don't actually improve an article just to get a name/link in there. While, as I wrote above, it's not great that they're only adding ADL sources and they should endeavor to incorporate others, too, it seems like it's being done in a thoughtful way intended to improve the article, and when people have objected they have not restored the material. So while not ideal, it's also not a big problem. As above, they seem to be open to suggestions, too. You can find various examples of "COI done right" throughout the lists of Wikipedians in residence, who often work with organizations to figure out how to incorporate material from that organization in a way that improves Wikimedia projects and which are in line with policy. The benefit of working with an experienced WiR, of course, is that they would've probably avoided the mistakes I noted above.
  Getting into a possible shift in organizational culture in which POV pushing, sensationalism and advocacy affecting neutrality could be permeating into editorial process on their publications too., combined with edit warring with people who don't have a COI, suggests this isn't a pure dispute over COI/promo but more about a problem with ADL as a source, which is concerning but outside the scope of this board. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've notified the remainder of the accounts listed at the top of this discussion about the discussion per policy. This is clearly an organized effort by an organization to (as it says on their dashboard page) add their own content to Wikipedia. That's concerning, as in addition to the COI policy and the related WP:REFSPAM, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. At the very least, these editors need to be held to a higher standard; they should be editing in accordance with WP:COI, disclosing their their COIs more clearly and more often, using edit requests for non-trivial changes, et cetera. ezlev.^talk 17:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What they're doing is clearly absolutely prohibited. Their effort should immediately stop, perhaps a TBAN, to the organization itself prohibiting edits related to the addition of ADL contents since they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia in a away consistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Graywalls (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the apparently productive and good-faith conversation going on below, I would suggest to Graywalls that they strike the allegation of WP:NOTHERE in the above comment. It is by no means clear at this point in time that ADL employees are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. To the contrary, I see every indication that they were simply unaware of existing best practices and intend to abide by them going forward. Generalrelative (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the heavy self-sourcing on the Anti-defamation league article, which I have been cleaning out, and this explains it. I think we should assume good faith on the part of ADL employees , as it seems like they tried to demonstrate transparency on an individual basis (though group editing is a whole 'nother beast). At the same time, a bright-line rule against adding ADL materials directly into articles is probably warranted, based on what I've seen so far. If the ADL and/or its representatives wants to improve the project, so much the better, but this must be balanced against COI--and there is no balance in adding one own org's materials. Freelance-frank (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I appreciate this feedback and criticism, and upon reflection and reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines more closely, I realize we can do a much better job with regard to COI. I appreciate that you have taken the time to educate me. I have some ideas that I’d like to run by you as a protocol for editing appropriately moving forward:

• Use standard COI disclosure templates such as ((paid)) to unambiguously communicate our status as paid editors on our userpages.
• I can see now the lack of transparency over the number and identity of ADL paid editors could invite suspicion of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. We will link to our Dashboard from every editor’s user page. Therefore, any editor will be able to see a list of our editors and all our contributions.
• Though the ADL is considered a reliable source about extremism by Wikipedia, it is not the only one. We will reflect more of these other groups in the content we write and citations we add, reflecting the best available sources, not the ones that happened to be published by ADL.
• We will be more cognizant of due weight, taking into consideration that fringe viewpoints do not merit inclusion.
• Restating a point earlier, we will immediately cease directly editing the article for Anti-Defamation League. Any suggestions will instead go on the talk page.

Employees of the ADL wanted to learn how to edit Wikipedia because of its importance in providing accessible information to the public. As relatively new editors, we have a lot to learn. As paid editors, though, I know the onus is on us to do better. Thank you for pointing out these shortcomings so we could address them. In the future, I can be regarded as the point person to address concerns with the ADL editing initiative. OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanicFeeling123: regarding ADL employees inserting ADL sources directly into (any) mainspace articles, does ADL commit to stop doing that, and instead use talk page requests? This is a major part of why this thread exists.--- Possibly (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, if the suggested addition are blog entries written by the user proposing the edit, I'd like to see more transparent disclosure, such as "I would like to propose the blog entry, I have written for ADL". However, if this is a part of the ADL's corporate mission to make their contents stick into articles as references, I still see it being inherently in conflict with the mission here. By the way, @OceanicFeeling123:, do adl.org/blog contents have the same editorial process as the contents on rest of the page, or are they more of "opinions of individual author"? Also, are these eight accounts the only accounts ever used to make edits on behalf of ADL formally and informally? Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue with the self-imposed restrictions above. If edits are problematic, we will of course find ourselves back at some noticeboard. regarding ADL employees inserting ADL sources directly into (any) mainspace articles - again, if someone with a COI is following our policies and improving articles -- disclosing their COI, adding such citations only in specific contexts, with other sources, never restoring them when challenged, etc. I don't see this as a big problem. You'd need to propose some sort of sanction to require it (one which I would oppose at this point). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Usually I would agree, but I think our COI rules were conceptualized for single editors, and not well-paid teams of editors (nine editors, in this case) inserting reliable sources that they also happen to have produced. --- Possibly (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if you feel that what exists in the policy shouldn't apply, and that something else should, the next step is finding consensus to change the policy rather than apply one that doesn't exist (also when did they become "well-paid"? I mean, maybe they are, but ?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok first, I love the ADL, even being a Canadian. But this is a $100 million per year + organization. And they have arranged nine staff on a sort of Wikipedia source placement offensive. I am not saying the COI rules do not apply; I am saying that this is quite a large operation and a unique situation (RS publisher placing RS) that might bear more scrutiny than the usual COI case.--- Possibly (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too have never come across something quite like this. If the director of corporate communications uses ten accounts directly, that is clearly sock puppetting. If they bring in ten employees into huddle room and direct them to make the specific instructions to make the same edits the director would've like to make themselves, that's constructively the same thing. It's a tricky one, because account must be only used by one individual, so shared account wouldn't be allowed, but when the guidelines were written, this kind of thing was likely envisioned. Even if they didn't know the rules, I personally don't see a reasonable justification for having that many different accounts signing up all at the same time and making edits almost simultaneously. The fact that there's a coherent consistency in starting the sentence with "according to ADL", that's a plausible cause to suggest they were editing under specific instructions from above. I don't think my suggestion that they maybe WP:NOTHERE is off base when you read the very first item even though one editor suggested I strike it out because they said they won't do it in the future. We shouldn't make baseless allegations, but this isn't baseless. Whether or not they were aware of the rule, the appearance of strategic corporate advocacy effort is rather clear. What's even questionable is that four of those accounts with names that look unrelated at first sight edited on the same article QAnon while subtly disclosing they're affiliated with ADL, just enough to be able to say "it was disclosed". So it does have an appearance of gaming the system. Graywalls (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, Graywalls, but your representation of your previous comment here isn't quite accurate. Above you stated they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia in a away consistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Here, on the other hand, you characterize this as a mere suggestion that they maybe WP:NOTHERE. As I pointed out specifically in my comment above, it's the assurance of certainty which I take issue with: it is by no means clear at this point in time that ADL employees are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. It's fine to be suspicious in a case like this, and I do sincerely commend you for doing the detective work to bring this to the community's attention, but let's all be careful to avoid prejudging the outcome. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this referenced by Rhododendrites earlier, and thought it might be worth asking: would it be better, or even possible at this point, for the ADL to reach out to WMF for a meta:Wikimedian in residence program? As researchers and professionals, they certainly could help provide assistance on topics relating to anti-Semitism and far-right politics, things that Wikipedia has notably had challenges covering (as reported in the press) and something they've clearly shown in interest in doing. I'm just wondering, logistically, if there's a way to go about setting up a system like that, or if we deemed it's too late – some sanctions similar to the ones voluntarily proposed by OceanicFeeling123 already exist for that project, and then it'd be handled by the corporate end rather than volunteers. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WMF does not, to my knowledge, typically set up Wikipedian in Residence programs (it occasionally funds them, but most are external). Since ADL is a NYC organization, I'll leave you a message with my Wikimedia NYC hat on if you want to have a conversation about Wikipedians in Residence, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OceanicFeeling123, is the Anti-Defamation League willing to make a commitment to follow Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations?

Having direct input from the ADL (which, I remind everyone, we consider to be a reliable source) could do a lot to improve the encyclopedia, but WP:BPCA is the framework we have worked out for that to happen. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The explanatory supplement is about "close association with the subject of a Wikipedia article." Since none of the edits made by the ADL employees were about themselves or the ADL, the supplement (indeed the entire COI guideline) does not apply. TFD (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A few were, but they've already said they wouldn't be doing that again in the future. I see no reason not to move forward with the assurances they've made. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am hearing two stories here. At the top of this thread I read "I have noticed that majority of their edits consist of working ADL sources into different articles either by working it directly into prose, or requesting it through talk" Now I am hearing "none of the edits made by the ADL employees were about themselves or the ADL". Or do you (TFD) consider ADL employees working ADL sources into different articles to not be a close association? If so, there are a boatload of people who will disagree with you on that. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am merely relying on the wording of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is specifically about making edits to articles about one's self and people one is paid by. If you think it should include situations such as this one, then you need to get the guideline changed. If on the other hand you think that these contributions add bias or are refspamming, then you need to provide actual examples of contributions that should not have been made. There was a previous discussion now at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 139#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest? The consensus was the guideline "only says that COI "involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships" but does not say anything about broad areas of interest or general competence." TFD (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: I think you are reading that wrong. Contributing sources written by your employer that begin with "According to the Anti-Defamation League..." and end with a source produced by the ADL is contributing to Wikipedia about (your) employer. You're making the argument that a company that places self-published material about themselves ("According to a big soft drink company, sugar in moderation is not so bad for you.." insert source by soda company) has no COI, but they do. It does not matter if it's the soda company or the ADL; both examples have a personal, business-related interest in promoting their product that may impact on their neutrality. Their interest in editing Wikipedia is conflicted, between the neutrality desired by Wikipedia and the promotion of company product desired by the employer... could it be any clearer?--- Possibly (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the argument that if it isn't mentioned in the COI guideline it isn't a COI issue. While it may be right or wrong, it doesn't come under this guideline. If you think it should be in the guideline, then there is a procedure to do that. As the RfC I mentioned showed, broadly considered it is in the interests of practitioners of alternative medicine to advance alternative medicine because then more people will use their services. It's also within the interests of mainstream medical practitioners to explain mainstream medicine, because then more people will seek their services. But it doesn't come under COI guidelines unless they edit articles about their own practices. I think the issue that some editors have is that they feel the extremist organizations the ADL investigates are correct in their views and that any criticism of them is biased. But mainstream scholarship sees these organizations as extremist - whether anti-Semitic, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, misogynist or whatever non-mainstream views they espouse. TFD (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Citing yourself" is explicitly listed at "other categories of COI" (WP:SELFCITE); I also believe that the sentence "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." at the very top of the COI guideline describes the edits pretty accurately. The RFC describes a different situation, not people citing themselves while explicitly inserting their employer's name into articles. Additionally, per Special:Diff/1014209904, the editors have received compensation for their contributions, making the section about "Paid editing" and the WP:PAID policy apply to them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the issue that some editors have is that they feel the extremist organizations the ADL investigates are correct in their views and that any criticism of them is biased." Having concerns about this type of paid editing does not make you a neo-Nazi – let's get that out of the way right now. Also, any argument that boils down to "it's not about right or wrong, it's about what the rules say" means we need to start then considering WP:IAR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, none of the articles were about neo-Nazis. Since "Citing yourself" is allowed in Wikipedia, you need to show how these edits damage the project. Dispute lengthy discussion, no examples have been provided. TFD (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: This is incorrect. See the comments about GameStop short squeeze at the top of this section and the discussion at Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze/Archive_2#Conspiracy_Theories for one example. Also see my comments about what I believe to be incomplete disclosure per WP:PAID by some of the listed editors. Also, per WP:ONUS and WP:COIRESPONSE, the onus for achieving consensus and explaining why the content should be included is on the editor(s) with a COI, not the other way around. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that example because although the edit was about the Daily Stormer, GameGate isn't a neo-Nazi topic. (Although I posted to that discussion, it had slipped my mind. I posted my comment after reading about the discussion on a noticeboard. In fairness I said that since the ADL was the only source for the information, it lacked weight for inclusion.) The ADL also writes about Stop Islamization of America, Act! For America, the Center for Security Policy, the Family Research Council and other more popular groups which are not neo-Nazis. Many editors object to inclusion of these organizations as hate groups which can be seen through discussions on the SPLC talk page. TFD (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The ADL rep says Though the ADL is considered a reliable source about extremism by Wikipedia, it is not the only one. We will reflect more of these other groups in the content we write and citations we add, reflecting the best available sources, not the ones that happened to be published by ADL. That is not sufficient in my opinion. ADL needs to stop promoting its work by adding itself as a source. If it wishes to add such material, it should put in a request on talk pages. I don't think we should accept this bland assurance as sufficient. I haven't seen anything further from ADL on this point and I hope that I missed a stronger statement in keeping with Best Practices. If not, that point needs to be pursued further. Coretheapple (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would give it more time. They're likely a M-F 9-5 operations, like a lot of corporate business. Graywalls (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: It's also the Passover holiday. However, I don't believe that their responding or not responding, for whatever reason, is material to the need to deal with their self-promotion forthwith. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the evidence we have and general agreement by multiple editors that they have advertisement intent, it should be acceptable to remove every ADL based contents they have added. Tolerating this means that going forward, every news outlet and sources that would be considered reliable as a go ahead to give it a go and worst that will happen is that it'll get removed. When I'm editing an article, I sometimes use local sources. This isn't to be seen as an invitation for whatever media outlet to add "according to our publication...". We can't arbitrary tolerate ADL doing this while not allowing others, so the best practice is to not allow it at all, and remove relatively clear instances of self promotion upon discovery. If the accounts that were doing it were more clearly labeled, such as "ADLpublicist-Adam, ADLpublicist-Jason, ADLpublicist-Hannah" that more clearly described what they were here to do and their association and made the same exact changes they did, I think they would have been reverted very quickly. Delayed discovery of COI editing shouldn't be considered the same as consensus through time. Graywalls (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I agree, and I would add that ADL has a perfectly understandable financial interest in spreading itself around Wikipedia, which is why there seem to be so many COI accounts. It is a nonprofit that relies on public contributions to stay afloat. I know that because for some reason I am on an ADL mailing list, and every few days I get another email, and every email contains a fundraising pitch of some kind. Every mention of the ADL in Wikipedia articles is one more feather in its bonnet from a fundraising perspective. From a COI perspective their activities are no better than any profit-making enterprise that seeks to promote itself on Wikipedia, and it should be treated as such. If they are such white hats as they claim to be they'll abide by our rules and our Best Practices, and if they don't then they should be treated like every other sefl-promoting entity. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments after my last response, I think I can provide more clarity about some points that have been made:

• Our initial understanding of weasel words and contentious labels led to our overuse of in-text attribution (“According to the ADL…”). We were trying to be careful and transparently link statements to their source. Several respondents here think we should scale that back, and this makes sense in an encyclopedic context. Thanks for that guidance. From now on, we'll only attribute directly when necessary to comply with other policy requirements.
• I think we have largely agreed to most of the practices suggested to us, and will better follow all rules and policies moving forward. At the same time, the best practices offered represent the views of only some editors, and I’m not sure I can commit the ADL to following something that is not backed by community consensus.
• The characterization of the ADL as a “well-paid team of editors” who are sitting in a “huddle room” planning on how to “carpet bomb” articles is simply not true. The reason there are eight accounts, not one, is that we are not improperly sharing a single account. Different ADL employees are experts in different areas of extremism, so we hoped that each could contribute some of their subject matter expertise by learning how to edit. The entire volume of edits to mainspace has been only 62 edits across ten months.

To be involved in the work of collaboratively building an encyclopedia that is committed to intellectual rigor and critical thinking massively appeals to us, and exemplifies our values. We want to be a constructive part of the process, especially at a time when extremism and hate online is on the rise. Thanks, OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me like you are going to continue inserting ADL sources into articles. You're weaseling your way out of many requests to use the talk page. I would support some kind of restriction requiring ADL accounts to use the edit request process when inserting ADL-authored sources.---Possibly (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Looks that way. I agree with Possibly. Just a gentle and friendly word to the ADL that I am a fan of your work. That's probably how I wound up on your mailing list (mentioned above). But you're not making things easy for the volunteers on this page, you're consuming a lot of time that could be spent in more productive pursuits, and not doing yourselves any favors. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's taking a lot of time is that our guidelines aren't clear, leaving some to think an ADL employee is not allowed to add material to an article cited to ADL no matter what, even when otherwise compliant with Wikipedia policy, and others to think they can do so if done transparently and in line with policy to improve articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that our COI guidelines have loopholes wide enough to drive a truck right through them. The question is whether ADL wants to get behind the wheel and fire up the engines. On this very page I got into an argument with Jayen466 about whether Wikipedia can handle COI situations, with Jayren arguing that sometimes you need to go to the press and I arguing that such a step is rarely necessary. The ADL's stalling is convincing me that his position has considerable merit . Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loophole that someone is driving through or activity that simply isn't disallowed except insofar as a few people say so adamantly in a given case? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanicFeeling123:, I'm going to ask one more time. Are these eight accounts the only accounts ever used to make edits on behalf of ADL formally and informally? Spreading out edits to multiple editors under the company/org's directions don't increase the allowance of promotional/advocacy contents.Graywalls (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the "second response" above, I am still waiting for a clear answer to my question:

Is the Anti-Defamation League willing to make a commitment to follow Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations?

It's a simple question. Either the answer is yes or there are specific best practices listed that the ADL has decided not to follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: you asked that five days ago, and it has gone unanswered. I'm wondering if we need to have an ANI-type discussion, here or at ANI, where it could be proposed that ADL, for example, stop inserting their own sources and use talk-pages instead. @ToBeFree:, is that allowed, i.e. are COIN editors allowed to come up with editing restrictions via discussion?--- Possibly (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking much the same thing. I have the following on a post-it note by my monitor:

Possibility #1: well meaning ADL employee who is learning how we do things.

Possibility #2: public relations professional who is learning exactly how much they can get away with.

looking at the response, which was

"I think we have largely agreed to most of the practices suggested to us, and will better follow all rules and policies moving forward. At the same time, the best practices offered represent the views of only some editors, and I’m not sure I can commit the ADL to following something that is not backed by community consensus"

I am convinced that we are dealing with #2. Just read WP:BPCA. Can you think of anything -- anything at all -- on that page that a good-faith editor with a COI would not be willing to follow? I have worked with multiple COI editors who not only don't have a problem with it, but are relieved that they have a way to correct errors and influence what is in articles without being constantly reverted.

So I think we should post an RfC with a simple question. "Is it the consensus of the Wikipedia community that the Anti-Defamation League should follow WP:BPCA? If your answer is 'no' please specify which parts of WP:BPCA the ADL does not need to follow." Then we should all respect the decision the Wikipedia community makes whether we personally agree with it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need a proposal that dissects an essay. Just ask whether ADL should be banned from adding citations to ADL to articlespace. As far as I can tell, that's the only thing that they haven't agreed to which some feel they should be required to do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. I guess that's why they pay you the big bucks. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that Possibility No. 2 is what is happening here. As I noted earlier, the ADL is no less a commercial enterprise than any other organization whose employees come to Wikipedia to advance its cause, in this case by adding ADL citations. It should not be doing that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability and MER-C: to see if they have any idea on Possibly's question... Graywalls (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those eight weren't the only ones. Hersei (talk · contribs) was discovered by, I believe Possibly, which they have added to the list. OceanicFeeling123 only opened up about using eight accounts after I started noticing several accounts being used, then opened a SPI. This lack of transparency is not looking good and I maintain my concern that ADL is probably WP:NOTHERE. The Hersei account maybe the "master". This one was created in 2018. Graywalls (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the last disingenuous response - from what everyone assumes is an ADL representative - re:"not sure I can commit the ADL to following something that is not backed by community consensus," escalation makes most sense, waste of time trying to hammer it out here. Acousmana (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, assuming you're referring to are COIN editors allowed to come up with editing restrictions via discussion, I do not believe that COIN can authorize community restrictions on accounts (if nothing else, it's not like there are a lot of admin-types watching the noticeboard...); pretty sure that's something only AN could impose since it's the dedicated "community consensus" venue. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I've read this entire nightmare of a discussions, here are my thoughts:

• As far as I can tell, all of the ADL editors (at least, those mentioned on the dashboard) made a good-faith attempt to disclose their relationship with ADL, even if it was not using the specific templates that we normally ask for.
• The deliberate addition of links to the ADL website by employees of the ADL violates the spirit of our WP:COI policy, particularly WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SELFCITE.
  • Adding citations to ADL does materially benefit the organization - let's be honest, being cited repeatedly in Wikipedia is generally good for your organization's visibility, and adding one's organization's perspective on various events to Wikipedia articles makes me think of this XKCD.
  • While ADL is deemed generally reliable at RSN and is widely used (if I'm reading the report right, COIBot says that over 14k edits on enwiki have added a link to it). In other words, their additions are not going to tip the scale from "little-used" to "widely-used". However, as noted above, these additions have largely been on high-traffic pages, where the addition of links will be significantly more visible.
• Being an RS does not exempt you from the SELFCITE expectations.
• I harbor some concerns about the neutrality of ADL editors even in edits not directly related to ADL. The ADL is, after all, an advocacy organization, and so I am concerned that organization's goals will be more important than the neutrality of Wikipedia. That's the textbook definition of COI.
• It is unclear to me whether the ADL blog is considered an RS, and these folks have added several links to the ADL blog.

So, what now? Their intentions may have been good, but this is still advocacy editing (both on behalf of the organization itself and the organization's cause), and that fundamentally undermines the goals of Wikipedia. I will accept nothing less than agreeing to not make edits in mainspace relating to the ADL, including addition of links. If they want to add a link to ADL, they can request it on the talk page just like any other paid editor. If I do not receive this commitment, I am prepared to treat these editors as normal uncooperative COI editors and hand out partial blocks. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody mentioned press above. Consider the counterpart headline: "Wikipedia editors single out ADL to apply a rule that isn't written anywhere".
I would urge reframing any proposal to be about actually disallowing the practice several people are saying is disallowed in this thread: an organization's employees adding citations to that organization in articlespace. I would even consider supporting that.
What I won't support is singling out an organization that seems to be making an effort to do it right. One which has mostly contributed edits that have been compliant with policy, including many that other editors have since restored after they were mass reverted, which has agreed to use non-ADL sources as well, which hasn't restored material when challenged, which has agreed not to edit the ADL article itself directly, which is actively engaging in discussion, and which has committed to be more careful of weight issues/new sections, etc.
For better or worse, an organization's employee transparently adding a selfcite in compliance with content policies isn't disallowed by policy. Maybe it should be, but that should be done at the policy level rather than singling out an organization that's trying to do it right. Alright, I've said enough through this thread. I'll shut up until/unless there's a proposal/RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

press? that's just silly. If the rep (PR employed by ADL? ADL staff? has this been established yet?) is citing consensus as a determining factor, then fine, escalate to the RFC, not such a big deal, the more input the better. Acousmana (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating/suggesting/condoning anyone going to the press over this (nor do I think it would make a particularly compelling story one way or the other at this point). I only mentioned it because it came up above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I know you aren't, spotted the suggestion, per Wikipediocracy, that would be hyper-reactionary at this stage, and yeah, not exactly compelling news. Acousmana (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had suggested that they are risking adverse publicity and they are, and this very discussion alone could be grist for adverse publicity. I am surprised it hasn't happened yet, but it still may. I have nothing against the ADL, I was a donor at one point, but its behavior here is not good. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no such thing as bad publicity. Possibly two issues are being conflated by some: 1) the nature of the content added; 2) the nature of how they went about adding it. The problem I see, based on the information at hand, is with 2. ADL (their rep, whoever), has stated that consensus should determine whether or not 2 is a problem, so fine, Move to RfC and get wider community input. Acousmana (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know what you mean by "no such thing as bad publicity." Time will tell but I personally, speaking remember as an occasional though not recent financial supporter am deeply dissatisfied with their behavior here. They need to stop promoting themselves by adding links to ADL publications to articles. Full stop. Maybe they can get away with it but they're doing the wrong thing, they're exploiting Wikipedia rules in favor of their COI, and they are wasting volunteer time. The latter is always a problem in COI situations and my patience for such conduct is fast eroding. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what Rhododendrites said, the NYC chapter is prepared to offer direct and personal guidance to any local area group prepared to edit WP in good faith. Had they asked us to run an editing instruction section for them, I think we would have advised them to go about adding content sourced to the organization only very cautiously, and with full disclosure. I personally would have gone further, and advised them to limit their involvement to writing articles within their fields of interest that use other sources than the ADL entirely, and to assume that their organisation is so well-known, and so reliable, that other editors would have looked at their publications for references. And I would have said what seems to have been neglected in this discussion, for the ADL to edit any article relating to its field of advocacy is COI, and must be declared. It is just the same as if any other orgnaization had edited articles pertaining directly to their field of interest--this is coi and must be declared. It's COI no matter how strongly any or all of of us support the organization. (I must add a coi declaration of my own: Although I disagree with some of its positions, I support this organization to the extent that I have repeatedly contributed money to it. I don't think that affects what I say about it here, but it is a coi, it involved money, albeit small amounts, and therefore needs to be reported).

We do not want any advocacy group contributing to our articles in public affairs; and in particular, the section on Political positions is not in my opinion NPOV, and in particular the controversies between the ADL and some generally left-wing Jewish groups about Israel deserves a distinct section to highlight its controversial nature----but here I have another COI--I am also a contributor to organizations that are very sharply opposed to ADL's views of the present government of Israel.

I feel this is especially wrong because it is an organized attempt by an advocacy group , not the actions of an individual member. I refer people to WP:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, back in 2008, and related earlier cases; despite the extreme differences between the two organizations, the same principles hold. Coordinated editing of WP in support of a group's objectives is a violation of not only COI, and the rule that only individuals can edit, but of our very basic policy of WP: NOTADVOCACY. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to something Graywalls wrote, it does seem, contrary to what you claim, as though this is your #1 scenario, and not your #2 scenario. You said above: "Possibility #1: well meaning ADL employee who is learning how we do things. Possibility #2: public relations professional who is learning exactly how much they can get away with" and then you said you were convinced it was #2. But if you look, these editors engaged an experienced Wikipedia editor and administrator to train them (follow OceanicFeeling123 subpage and comments to;), presumably including on COI, and that experienced editor's page also discloses that they are training ADL. And the ADL editors all self-disclosed their affiliation, so that while they are complying with WP policy as it currently exists, they appear to have tripped over what many Wikipedians involved with COIN prefer and believe to be best practice and particularly important for advocacy organizations. But again, they did disclose their affiliation, they did engage a Wikipedian of serious experience and reputation in the community to train them, they've answered the concerns set out here, they are stopping editing as a result, and considering a WIR. etc. Whatever else we discuss here, I think that shows good faith, as noted by GeneralNotability and others, and the tenor and tone of this discussion should reflect that. I don't see any problems with their content, although I realize that's not the point here. There are a number of things they can do going forward, if they do go forward, which have been spelled out in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaks'nYurts (talk • contribs) — Yaks'nYurts (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks everyone for your feedback on editing policies. The nine of us have decided to stop editing and take time to reevaluate. We're not aware of any other ADL editors (though there are about 350 staff in our organization)...In any case, consider our 'course' complete.

note: Hersei was here well before the ADL training began. They weren't part of the training, so they weren’t on the dashboard. They are on the dashboard now and know not to edit the ADL article.

We are sad to see our well-sourced contributions removed about the intersection of misogyny and white supremacy, the aftermath of the storming of the U.S. Capitol, the spread of conspiracy theories on social media, and misinformation about Antifa. This information is vital to the public. We still believe our expertise offers value to the editing community and to readers.

Our aim was always to collaborate rather than advocate. We value Wikipedia and hope to find a way forward with the community. We listened to your ideas and are thinking of looking into a Wikipedian-in-Residence as one possibility.

Have a great weekend and thank you for your input and guidance. OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're referring to about "well-sourced contributions" being removed, so I can't respond to that and you haven't provided links. I will say that I'm disappointed that people keep making the same points over and over again about your self-promotion and we don't seem to be getting through, and after expending a great deal of time that could have been put to better use we get a lump of self-pity thrown in our faces. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls meticulously went through and reverted all edits made by ADL employees. Some of those edits were later restored, and editors had a debate about it above. (I'm really not a party to that debate nor do I care to be; don't shoot the messenger.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't seen the edits in question, I think that as a general proposition reverts of the type Graywalls performed are entirely justified. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanicFeeling123:, Your organization's belief that "we're important" and your own publications are vital to the public and believing that they should be included, and including them on this believe is in fact what prevents your organization from being able to maintain NPOV, whether aware or not. Not any different from Fox News putting things in their own perspectives believing that they're absolutely fair and balanced and NPOV. Wikipedia does not lead, we follow. So what you claim to be "our expertise" can wait. If scholarly journal decides to include it, or it is included in mainstream media, then perhaps it could become relevant, but the insertion should not be made by your organization. Graywalls (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanicFeeling123: Our aim was always to collaborate, yet I can't help but notice that in this entire time-wasting thread, ADL is the party that is that is not collaborating; you want it exactly your own way and have wasted lots of editor time while ignoring copious community objections to the way you are going about it. What we like to see from paid editors with a POV problem is the answer "sure, we will use talk page requests and not edit articles directly". That lets all the very skilled editors you see above stop wondering if the project is being damaged by your advocacy, allowing them to return to building the wiki. I'm really not sure why you had such a problem following the same procedures we ask of other paid editors with an obvious POV problem. That said, if the ADL does return to advocacy editing of the type described above, I think we will need to revisit some kind of formal editing restriction, which seemed to be right around the corner in the discussion above. Several of the accounts have also still not bothered to properly disclose, despite repeated requests.--- Possibly (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely impossible for them to maintain WP:NPOV over a sustained period. Their worldview is too predominant. I agree some kind of editing restriction is required, as they're certainly not servicing this board. I think certainly once in place, the work will need to be checked for a time. scope_creep^Talk 23:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, would it be objectionable to revert their contributions that ends up accomplishing what they were trying to accomplish as we editors customarily do with spam contributors? As someone experienced with dealing with COIers, it even took me a while to realize how they were using so many accounts. I don't believe that anyone that are not specifically looking for it would notice it. I make the case that it should be seen as having just happened due to delayed discovery of WP:CITESPAM from strategic corporate advocacy edits with ambiguous disclosure. Graywalls (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been summarized in this Forward.com news article (just fyi). Schazjmd (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the WP shortcut term for that, something like "unintended consequences"?--- Possibly (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Graywalls, Rhododendrites, and DGG to make sure they saw this story too... congrats, I guess? This whole situation was a nightmare. Also, it looks like they got a scoop which we couldn't: "the organization hired an experienced Wikipedia editor last May to train eight of its staff to contribute" to Wikipedia. Don't know if that changes anything. (Hope it doesn't, so we can all put this to rest. Maybe this'll get in the Signpost, too... yippee. *sigh*) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I said They didn’t add or remove any contentious contents in prose or promotional links and they’ve disclosed their affiliation. on the ADL's article itself, I was only talking about OceanicFeeling123's edits and I was completely unaware of Hersei (talk · contribs)'s very extensive edits, because I didn't investigate every contributor's user page. I mean, who does? It's time consuming to manually check people's user page and this isn't something I do without a compelling reason. I wonder what "experienced Wikipedia editor" they hired thought doing this was a good idea. Graywalls (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking: journalist takes quote out of proper context. Sorry it happened to you, though. I too am curious about this new development, but I don't know how much it affects the situation – if ADL's not going to be editing anymore, or at least for the foreseeable future, it appears this grueling, protracted discussion has neared its natural conclusion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing that came out of that is that there's no reasonable doubt about ADL's involvement. I'm curious if someone reached out to the press, or if they noticed it on their own. Graywalls (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenfeld contacted me, interested in these events and the broader context of organizations editing Wikipedia. I've posted a TL;DR of what I said on my talk page to avoid belaboring what is otherwise a resolved issue here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article makes perfectly clear that this matter has not been resolved. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I consider the Forward article to be an accurate representation of the discussion. (but, also fwiw, I have a personal and financial coi there as well.) DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just catching up, and I see that, to no great surprise, the ADL's Wikipedia offensive has backfired. The article was, if anything, too kind. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• William Scott Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AlexisDavidPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The history and tenor of this article is as fishy as the sea. I would not be surprised if later substantive contributors to its advertorial tone were the same editor under a different name, or another UPE. BD2412 T 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miaminsurance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miaminsurance seems suspect too, BD2412. Their username is the same as a former insurance company web domain in Florida, where Scott Page's company is based, and their first edit was to pick up on editing the draft left by the obvious PR account you linked to above. Their editing since has mostly been to companies and they have lately been posting on article talk pages asking for possibly stale COI templates to be removed, though I think not on articles they've edited. Fences&Windows 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows: I agree with your analysis. BD2412 T 18:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not have a relationship with Page. I am familiar with him because he ran a company that helped many people with HIV/AIDS in the 80s/90s. His company was targeted by a ponzi schemer which was huge news in my community. The story was eventually profiled on American Greed. I am not in the insurance industry but I do know of Page. If based on this description, you think I have a conflict, I will add it to my page. I have been more active on Wikipedia and was following a debate about the COI template. I checked a bunch of pages that had the templates on them but did not have any discussion as to why they were marked as COI. Honestly, it was a test on my part to see if anyone would react to it. Please advise. Miaminsurance (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Miaminsurance. If you do have a WP:COI or you are WP:PAID to edit on any articles, please declare this. Knowing of someone or an organisation is not, however, a COI. Testing the COI templates is a bit WP:POINTy - COI templates are a touchy area as you know, so it'd be best not to do mass challenges. It would on the other hand be helpful to check the history to see edit summaries and whether any major contributors added promotional wording and then see if the page still needs cleaning up. Fences&Windows 12:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miaminsurance is CU-confirmed to Lesscynical (talk · contribs) and related to IrishChick2012 (talk · contribs), see SPI. They're also related to this paid editing operation. Blablubbs|talk 08:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Groundfloor (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TyronTO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TyronTO has previously removed the COI tag [14] at Groundfloor (company), which I reverted, suspecting paid editing again. They added a paid disclosure to their userpage after my reminder. Their latest edit [15] is marked minor and I haven't had time to review it other than to note it isn't what we usually call minor in size (over 4 kB). ☆ Bri (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A paid editor shouldn't be working like that, nor requesting such edits be restored in their entirety without a lengthy explanation.

I reverted the most recent edit with instructions to work from edit requests on the article talk page that are at most a section at a time. Glancing at the refs, I think they need a careful review. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About half of that edit was sourced to crowdfundinsider.com, which says of itself "Crowdfund Insider is the leading news and information web site covering the emerging global industry of disruptive finance including investment crowdfunding, Blockchain peer-to-peer / marketplace lending and other forms of Fintech." In other words, it's a promotional source. --- Possibly (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MinIO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reverted [16] editor at MinIO, same sorts of problems, not disclosed on their userpage so I am presuming more forgetfulness AGF. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pblocked from mainspace (went for all mainspace since after "forgetting" to disclose once, I'm not really willing to extend much trust here. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Westwood Park, San Francisco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reiksnza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reiksnzaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reporting to this notice board after the admin Deepfriedokra referred me here. Originally I had a sockpuppet investigation underway for a user disruptively editing this page, and using two accounts and two IPs to remove content with no other explanation than “Biased”. I roped in Deepfriedokra to help with my investigation. They told me to come here because it looked like a conflict of interest, and that some of the edits by the accounts in question sounded a bit promotional. That’s why I’m here.

The user in question’s name was Reiksnza. Then they created another account called Reiksnzaw, and after being reverted using that, proceeded to edit from two different IP addresses afterwards. I’m not sure how else to explain it. If anyone could help, that would be great. HelenDegenerate (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Temasek Holdings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Advanced Technology Ventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Initialized Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Spectrum Equity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• August Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ABS Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tenaya Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Matrix Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oak Investment Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Austin Ventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Meritech Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GGV Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• East Ventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Institutional Venture Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• IDG Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Morgenthaler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• General Catalyst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nelly Mandl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seemingly a SPA editor who says she hasn't got a coi. The editor is adding long unstructured lists of company investments, often reams of blue links to company articles of that type, often with no references. It's is pure advertising and tendentious editing. This is an example: August Capital. I asked about it and she offered a very simple slogan Capitalism needs transparency!. I posted a paid notice, said she wasn't being paid, but there is some kind of COI. It is all the same type of company. scope_creep^Talk 11:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the information coming from? scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like WP:NOTHERE as they seek to right great wrongs through advocacy. This talk page comment Special:Diff/1016301102 sums up their position. Slywriter (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pblocked them from mainspace. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexander Repenning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AgentCubes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AgentSheets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dragentsheets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KaptainFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both users were brought to my attention by IceWelder, who found a connection between the two users and the pages that they were editing. Username represents a company headed by Repenning named "AgentSheets Inc. (Dragentsheets) and has edited pages related to Repenning and Repenning's field of interest (information technology and computer science) for the past 14 years. On one occasion, Dragentsheets signed off on a talk page with the name "Alex". A related account, KaptainFire, has also been editing articles related to Repenning and Repenning's field of interest, and uploaded File:The Computational Thinking Process.jpg, which Dragentsheets warred over on Computational thinking. Among both users' contributions include questionable addition of links to AgentSheets which appear borderline promotional and (assuming that this is Repenning editing) addition of self-made research papers and primary sources on articles. All linked pages above have evident issues with encyclopedic tone and have a biased point of view. Chlod (say hi!) 13:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing "Dragentsheets" = Dr. AgentSheets. Woodroar (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. IceWelder [✉] 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, KaptainFire identified as Repenning in these revisions on Commons. IceWelder [✉] 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevant to note that Orangemike has since blocked Dragentsheets. IceWelder [✉] 19:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With a name like that, its no wonder. It all goes back to his product. scope_creep^Talk 19:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• La Voce di New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Passani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This individual works with that website (see https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/author/luca-passani/ for example) but refuses to disclose his COI. He went berserk and keeps accusing me of having some kind of "counter-COI", of being a "hacker", a "vandal", a "hater", a "cyber-attacker" you name it… just because I nominated his article. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 08:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT work for La Voce di New York anymore that someone with a Facebook profile works for Facebook. I did not receive any compensation from them, I do not have any plans to receive compensation from them, my job is in a totally unrelated field, and I don't own shares/stakes in VNY (nor do I plan to own), I am not part of any board or editorial board. So, I maintain that there is no COI. I have simply been following the newspaper close enough that I know about it and figured that creating an article draft and submitting it was the right thing to do about a newspaper that, while a US newspaper, is highly regarded among Italian expats in the US and among journalists in the Italian news media landscape. VNY accepts contributions from anyone, not only professional journalists but also academics, field experts, and everyone who has something meaningful to say about a wide range of topics. As an aside, while I have no COI, I did not hide that I wrote articles for them in the past (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/La_Voce_di_New_York). Anyway, all of this discussion is not relevant. Whether I have a COI or not, and I think I don't, I did not publish the VNY article. Rather I followed the same process that someone with a COI would follow: work on an article in Draft mode and submit it for an admin to review and decide whether to promote to the Article space. Also, I have always declared myself open to address any changes that other users would suggest. As an important aside, I have asked the reporting user to clearly state that he does not have a COI in VNY, but the user has carefully avoided addressing that question User talk:Modulato#La_Voce_di_New_York_and_WP:COI. Passani (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having written for them in the past does create an apparent COI for Passani. Had the discussion at the article's AfD stayed on the merits of the article (subject's notability, coverage in reliable sources, etc.), then I'd say there's nothing to see here, move along. However, the way the discussion turned toward Modulato's motives changes the optics: it looks less like a good-faith effort to defend the article and more like an attempt to preserve the article either due to ownership feelings toward it or the COI motivation of wanting to have a byline in a notable publication. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This interpretation is all wrong. I simply reacted to what appears to me as a fully fledged cyberattack on the article staged by sockpuppets and meatpuppets. I think I have enough evidence to demonstrate it, but I am not sure who to trust at this point. Can someone please advise on how to escalate and report this? User Modulato has a HUGE undisclosed COI in NVY. And when I say HUGE, I mean REALLY HUGE Passani (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I hope this is the right place to put this. I saw a suspicious edit on my watchlist and after looking through Tegiap's contributions I noticed that their only edits consist in adding references to self-published papers by a single author to various articles. I think these edits need to be reverted, is that correct? In any case, this is my first time posting here and I'm looking for advice :) Thanks! -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is the right place. Good catch. Tegiap seems to have been adding sources written by R.R. Trail, starting in 2008. I would not day that that was their only contribution, but it is concerning. Let's hear what they have to say by, way of explanation. --- Possibly (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tegiap is edit-warring about the same self-published, non-RS content above, and which I have tried to contact them about on their talk-page, in edit summaries, and here. Mvbaron (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked more closely at their contribs; they ,have frequently added the thesis work of R.R. Trail, going back to their first edit in 2008, 13 years ago. Much of their contribs concerns adding Trail as a source. A small selection includes 2021, 2019, 2016, 2015 and so on. 2014 was spent adding sources on the author Anna-Marie Cushan, published by Ondwelle, which also publishes R.R. Trail. Those appear to be the only two authors they publish. so, yes, this does seem like a 13-year campaign to place self-published work. --- Possibly (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Space and Missile Systems Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cthowell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has been replacing sourced article content with what reads to be promotionally written content which the user claims are "Language & date edits provided by the SMC historian." Put notices on the user's page, but no responses. Garuda28 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More notices have been placed, but no response and the user continues to edit.--- Possibly (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere at the Millennium of Space is a project very similar to the album Everywhere at the End of Time, aiming to replicate it with music from the 1980s to the 2000s. I did contribute a bit to it during its production, but those contributions never made it in the final product. I'm wondering if this is enough for me to need to declare a conflict of interest, and if I would need to delete the redirect. Nowhere at the Millennium of Space is briefly mentioned in the Everywhere at the End of Time article, so I think the redirect could stay. Invalid^OS_talk 12:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is at very least sufficient COI that you should have declared your COI either in the initial edit summary for the redirect page or at Talk:Nowhere at the Millennium of Space -- yes, redirects can have talk pages. I suggest you go add one to the talk page now. It is a sufficiently cromulent redirect that, while there is an argument that you should not have done it, it should not be undone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm pretty sure the mention of Nowhere at the Millennium of Space was removed from the article, though. Invalid^OS_talk

It was. Only source was Bandcamp as well. I'll make sure to declare a COI in the future if it ever reappears. Just gonna G7 it for now. Invalid^OS_talk 01:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AAR Corp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fgbwashdc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The AAR Corp, a page with historic COI problems, has another likely-COI editor working on the page without disclosing the COI: Fgbwashdc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IphisOfCrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Æon Credit Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ally Financial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Caliber Home Loans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LendUp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Janet Wertman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (author)
• Military Sexual Trauma Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Boulet Brothers' Dragula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Asenseofdirection/sandbox/draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Rory J. Cutaia fmr CEO Greenfields Coal)
• User:Asenseofdirection/sandbox/drafttwo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Digital Realty Trust)
• User:Auberginandjuice/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Claus Bury artist)
• Draft:Graham Kramer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Mountainside Fitness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This sockfarm with 16 CU-confirmed socks seems to have been very active at financial company articles, possibly entertainers, entertainment productions, and some other orgs as well. Does anybody here have more information on who they are so they can be added to WP:PAIDLIST appropriately? A sampling of their creations or interests is listed above. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ashok Soota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:SKAN Medical Research Trust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Happiest Minds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vtamagond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Promotional editing on pages related to Ashok Soota. The user Vtamagond has not replied to any of the COI messages that have been left (starting about a year ago) on his/her talk page. --- Possibly (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Account was blocked for spamming.--- Possibly (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandy Roberton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Treasure Chest Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article on this British record producer has been edited by several apparently COI editors, most recently and most extensively by Treasure Chest Boy who has said in the edit summary here that they are the article subject. They have not responded to any messages on their talk page, or on the article talk page. Some of the edits are unproblematic - changing referenced information to no great effect, marking major edits as minor, and so forth - but the article could benefit from some admin oversight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SEO is a species of vandalism: changing Wikipedia, not for any valid reason, but for your own commercial purposes. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It links to How to Create a Wikipedia Page (Step by Step), which apart from neglecting to mention that we don't want articles "about yourself or your company", is a surprisingly good introduction to notability and article creation. It seems like paid editors have gotten savvier over the years and better understand how Wikipedia works. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing. – Joe (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is quite an excellent guide, setting aside the disagreeableness of their business. At the same time, they only seem to be interested using WP as a means to an end; their account here does not extend to any interest beyond their own page.--- Possibly (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, they're encouraging people to create copyright violations on their own website. TAXIDICAE💰 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, surprisingly good, and "good guy". I suspect "dark arts" versions don't get as openly published. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Epos 257 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jiří Gruber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been around for over 18 months and their first edit was to declare that they've been paid by the artist Epos 257 for their contributions to Wikipedia. Over those 18 months their only edits have been to what was a draft about the artist. So far so good. However that draft is now in mainspace, and the editor has not paid any attention to the two messages I've left them on their talk page about the need for them to make edit requests now, rather than edit the article directly. They just need a bit more weighty encouragement to do so. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize, next time I'll do it as you say...I´m sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiří Gruber (talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiří Gruber: One hour after your apology, you created a new article Fire Mountain (art project) which is about the work of the artist that pays you, so I don't think you've really understood your responsibilities as a paid editor? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I´m sorry once again, I hope it's better now :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiří Gruber (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark D. Siljander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GWaldron88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (active)
• Trac5btcg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously blocked as a prohibited shared account)

The user at issue has a user page stating that he/she is "paid employee of the nonprofit associated with the work of Mark Siljander." There has been repeated inappropriate COI editing from this account over a series of months. The specific flavor of COI editing here is promotional whitewashing: removal of well-sourced, cited, appropriately weighed content; inappropriate threats in edit summaries; use of multiple accounts, etc. Neutrality^talk 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The COI editor is now edit warring. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to indefinitely block the COI editor. This is a clear case of a user who is here to promote and not to improve the encyclopedia, and the editor is now removing my comments on the article talk page (despite a clear warning that such deletions are unacceptable). I have been warding off the promotion here, but I do not think that I am sufficiently involved to preclude my block. To the extent that I'm involved, I think the COI and other considerations are so obvious that I think this is in IAR territory. If any other admin believes this should be handled in some other way, I give permission to modify the block or to give a conditional unblock. Neutrality^talk 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a COI editor, I request the two following edits:

1) The Justice Department's press release states, "It is important to note that the indictment does not charge any of the defendants with material support of terrorism, nor does it allege that they knowingly financed acts of terror." ^[1]

2) Judge Nanette Laughrey is quoted during sentencing saying: "But the truth is, when you look at this objectively, this is not a case about [Siljander] aiding a terrorist, it just isn't..." ^[2]

Please endeavor to publish without personal bias and with a complete and accurate context. The following reference provides a decent summary overview which indicates all ties to terrorism were merely alleged and suspected and that no defendant was charged with any such violation or association with terror funding: ^[3]

{Blpwatch|from=04/2021|reason=incomplete context related to alleged terror claims}

--GWaldron88 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article does not say, at any point, that Siljander was ever charged with or convicted of terrorism. It says, correctly, that he was convicted of obstruction of justice and acting as an unregistered foreign agent for a specific, now-defunct organization with ties to terrorism.

Your attempts to promotionally edit are unacceptable and are not going to work. Our article summarizes, accurately, the reliable sources, such as this Wall Street Jounrnal article ("Former Congressman Gets One Year For Lobbying For Terror Sponsor ... Siljander was indicted in 2008 and pleaded guilty in 2010. He admitted that he lobbied on behalf of IARA and repeatedly lied to Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and prosecutors about it in two separate interviews.").

I have also removed your ((request edit)) template. As the template documentation specifies, this template is for article talk pages, not for noticeboards. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tushar Rayate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tusharrayate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He created Tushar Rayate, which was speedy deleted in 2016. Then he created it this time again. It is possible that this is probably an autobiography, probably because of his name or conflict of interest, which can be he is talking about his boss at work, the manager, or the owner of the company he’s working at. Kaseng55 (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wireless (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guidediary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Added an external link to a website that has the same name as the username as seen in a contrib to Wireless. Kaseng55 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An advertiser and spammer. scope_creep^Talk 19:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Benjamin Smith (executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ben.lipsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.91.228.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.254.31.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across Benjamin Smith (executive) after seeing this request for help posted on Wikipedia Commons. The article’s recent history shows some edits made by two WP:SPA IP editors in November 2020 and April 2021 which might be connected to the subject in some way, possibly even undisclosed paid editing. Prior to that, some other IPs appear to have by trying to add content related to a bonus controversy to the article since April 2020; so, the most recent edits could be an attempt to try and remove that. The edits made by Ben.lipsey trying to add a photo aren’t too much of a COI issue, but only registered account user’s can upload photos to Commons. So, it’s possible that the IPs and Ben.lipsey are one and the same and the IPs’s edits do appear to be COI related.

Would some others mind taking a look at this and assessing whether there’s anything to be concerned about here? The image copyright issue will be resolved over at Commons; it’s the edits made by the two IP accounts which need some assessing. —- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this Neutrality. I would've gone to the article's talk page first, but the three accounts mentioned above appear to be one-off SPAs and the article doesn't seem to be one that is very highly watched by others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bill_Mayer_(illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rezimmerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was having a really hard time explaining to this user that they could not have thirty external links in the body of an article. They are quite insistent that the many, many links they have added to Wikipedia that lead to drawger.com and illoz.com are helpful to readers. After some unproductive back and forth on their talk page, and after tagging many of their articles with the ((external links)) tag, I noticed this at the bottom of their user page:

full disclosure
This member manages these websites for illustrators

• illoz · Drawger - and other websites for illlustrators
  

That disclosure was first made in 2008. Now, this user has been adding links to drawger.com and illoz.com to Wikipedia for a really long time:

• 2021: article with 23 external links to Drawger.com, and about 20 links to illoz.com. (46 external links in one article to COI sites. A record?)
• 2020: this 15K update to Gérard duBois adds 9 links to drawger.com and 3 to illoz.com
• 2020: this 12K addition to John Cuneo (illustrator) has 13 uses of drawger and illoz as sources or named refs
• 2017: 18K update to Joe Ciardiello adds four mentions of Drawger and Illoz.
• 2016: 21K additon to Tim O'Brien (illustrator) adds six items that point to drawger/illoz
• 2016: 10K update to Robert Hunt (illustrator) adds 7 links or refs pointing to drawger/illoz
• 2013: Two links to drawger/illoz added to Nancy Stahl

These examples add up to about 90 instances of links or refs leading to drawger or illoz. This sounds like a fairly large COI problem, as they are presumably in control of what the sources they are adding say. It's not clear from their disclosure what the relationship is here: they manage the entire illoz/drawger sites? They manage individual pages on drawger/illoz for artists? They manage the drawger/illoz sites for the artists they are writing articles about? Anyway you sklice it this does not sound good. They also carried on a very long conversation with me today about the links, without once mentioning that they work with the company that is being linked. --- Possibly (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has created 15 articles, and the majority are chock full of embedded links. A complete abregation of duty when the comes to the application of the WP:MOS. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very surprising to me and I'd be very grateful for any help clearing up what I think is a misunderstanding. Today, I'm going to take the time to remove inline links from articles I've either created or added to. I did not realize inline links were a violation and I'm grateful that this has been pointed out to me. Since I've been adding to and creating biographies for illustrators for over twelve years without any perceived conflict of interest, I presumed I was helping educate the general public on these highly important and award winning creators. Importantly, regarding both Drawger and Illoz there is no personal gain for me in the links that were added. Those sites contain no advertising and the art works and articles that are on those sites were not authored by me. I simply have provided the platform for those artists to add artwork and articles which they have created or written. It's also worth mentioning that both Drawger and Illoz were created and are maintained by me as educational resources. In many cases, these sites are the only place where the artist's works and writings can be accessed. I'd very much appreciate any help that can be offered to clear this up.Rezimmerman (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rezimmerman, I've left a notice about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline on your talk page. It has links to pages which may answer some of your questions. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezimmerman: Thanks for the explanation. The about page on Illoz says "There's no advertising here, because the site is paid for on a subscription model by contributors." So there is money involved. Also, has any of the editing you have done here been paid editing? I'm trying to understand the connection to the illoz/drawger sites and artists. If there's anything you have left out (other sites?) please let us know. Neutrality is all about transparency. --- Possibly (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: You're correct that illustrators that are allowed to contribute to both Illoz and Drawger do pay a small fee ($150 a year) to cover the cost of the server. Both of these sites are made available to contributors on an invitation-only basis and the bar for entry is extremely high. I can probably best be described as an illustration advocate, as I'm not an illustrator myself. In addition to providing Illoz and Drawger to a select number of top illustrators, I also donate my time and coding skills to the Society of Illustrators, for which I received their Dean Cornwell Award for creating their online competition website, where Student Scholarships are awarded along with other non-profit services. My most recent addition to Wikipedia, the Bill Mayer biography (which seems to have started all this) was created because he was the winner of the Hamilton King Award in 2021, which is the highest honor bestowed by the Society of Illustrators and I always try to make sure that winners of this very prestigious award are well represented at Wikipedia. I do this as a true lover of illustration and how illustrators contribute so much to our culture. At least, this is my intent, even though I seem to have given you cause for concern. I do want to clear this up and I hope you can help me do so. I most certainly do not want to be perceived as attempting to place advertising or spam on the site. Perhaps the Bill Mayer biography can be moved into a draft area where I can discretely fix it up and submit it for approval? I very much appreciate your help on this.Rezimmerman (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezimmerman: to fix the external links problem, you just need to go through and remove them from all your articles, or convert them to refs. Seeing as you operate the source of the refs, in the case of illoz and drawger you do not want to use those as refs are you are basically spamming material you created; see WP:SELFCITE. The second question is whether these are reliable sources, which might be a question for WP:RSN. You say above that these sites are the only place where the artist's works and writings can be accessed. Can you see how that is a problem, given that you are writing the articles, then sourcing them with a site you created and control? It brings the notability of the artists in to question; if illoz and drawger are the only sources, you personally are basically the authoritative source for the articles, and can determine notability independently of our policies by creating new illoz and drawger material. I'm curious to see what other editors think; it's possible that the illoz and drawger sources have to go entirely. Finally, I am not unsympathetic to the good design-world work you are doing. It's just that it conflicts strongly with many our SELFCITE and COI policies.--- Possibly (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: Just to be clear on one thing. I do not write the articles at Drawger that are used as citations. These are written by contributors to the site. I also do not edit articles at Drawger nor do I have an editorial voice in those articles. Also, I do not post images to either Drawger or Illoz. Those are all added at the discretion of individual contributors. At any rate, I'll begin removing those inline links today, starting with the Bill Mayer biography.Rezimmerman (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezimmerman: It's basic COI: you are the article's editor, and you are the publisher of the sources that you are adding. This is something we try to avoid. Have you read WP:COI? Regarding how to clean up this mess, I would suggest:

• removing all the improper external links you have added.
• removing the "sources" you added for illoz and drawger. There may be cases where they can be kept, but this RSN post seems to say they do not have much value, as they are self-published. They are fine in the "external links" section at the end.
• stopping the practice of adding links or sources that you have a COI with. There seem to be many of these: society of illustrators, drawger, illoz etc.
• posting a proper list of the sources and sites you have a COI on your user page. template:UserboxCOI is useful for this.
• Using the talk page to request changes that involve COI. Drawger/illoz sources and links, the society of illustrators etc are some examples.

This would pretty much solve the problem. I am curious to hear if other editors agree. The main thrust of this is that you have to clearly declare your COI, stop adding sources and links for things you have a COI with, stop editing pages you have a COI with, and use talk pages to request addition of material you have a COI with.--- Possibly (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly:This is all very helpful so thank you very much. Added the UserboxCOI to my user page as suggested and am going through the articles I've added/edited with your suggestions in mind. Rezimmerman (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezimmerman: I'm not sure how many times you need this explained to you... you need to stop citing the websites that you operate. You have placed a COI box, but say "I manage the websites Drawger.com as well as illoz.com for illustrators and for certain articles that I add or edit it is sometimes necessary to cite those websites because they are the only reliable source for the biographical information needed." It's not a reliable source, see the RSN link. You're wasting editing time here by continually resisting our COI guidelines. Do you plan to continue to spam articles with links and sources form the sites you operate? If so we may need to ask for some kind of editing block.--- Possibly (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: this all seems very uncomfortable to me after all the work I've contributed over the years to Wikipedia. If you think my contributions need be removed because I own a website that SOME of the important cultural figures I've documented have decided to use and trust, then just delete my articles, or ask me to and I will. I'll never make another contribution to the site or edit it again, I promise. Your implication that I am spamming Wikipedia is personally very offensive to me. All of my work is meant to be helpful and educational in this crazy world we live in.Rezimmerman (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezimmerman: You do not seem to umderstand, despite it having been explained a half dozen times, that you cannot be the publisher of sources you yourself use in articles, as it violates our COI policy, and also allows you to inflate the notability of subjects by providing self-generated sources. That is straight up plain and simple. You have indeed been quietly spamming Wikipedia with a combination of self-published material and hundreds of external links in articles for over a decade-- that is in the links given above. All that is being asked is that you stop including self-published links, and correct the ones you have already added. Are you not willing to do that? It's a drag to have to explain this to you over and over.--- Possibly (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: I don't think the statement you cannot be the publisher of sources you yourself use in articles, as it violates our COI policy is entirely true as explained in WP:SELFCITE, and because WP:COI isn't really a "policy" per se. However, I do agree that it's generally considered good practice to try and avoid citing oneself whenever possible because it can lead to misunderstanding. My suggestion to Rezimmerman would be for them to look for WP:SECONDARY sources (both to themselves and to the subject of the article) per Orange Mike below and try to develop articles based upon those sources instead of trying to cite oneself. If Rezimmerman feels the need to cite themselves, they should propose it on the relevant article's talk page to give others a chance to comment and see what the consensus is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If these artists are genuinely notable, it should not be hard to find critical articles about them outside your own sites. If no such sources exist, then we have to wonder whether they are genuinely notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of different COI issues here to be fixed or dealt with, so I am creating this subsection for one of them. Per the above disclosure that Rezimmerman has COI regarding the Hamilton King award and the Society of Illustrators that bestows it, it is problematic that they have also gone through Wikipedia and added this text:

• John Jude Palencar: "the Hamilton King Award, which is considered to be one of the most prestigious awards in illustration"
• Guy Billout: "the Hamilton King Award which is widely regarded as one of the most prestigious awards in illustration"
• Yuko Shimizu: "the Hamilton King Award, considered by many to be the most prestigious award in illustration."
• John Cuneo: "win him the Hamilton King Award in 2012 which is widely thought of as one of the most prestigious awards in illustration."
• Society of Illustrators: "The Hamilton King Award, which is given annually to one society member, and is widely considered to be the most prestigious award in illustration"

This appears to be another instance of COI, seeing as they gave him an award after he made them a web site.--- Possibly (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: I'd be happy to remove those Hamilton King Award quotes if you think it's a good idea. The quote is from the highly respected art director Irene Gallo in this article. I do not serve on the board of the Society of Illustrators, nor have I ever, but I do donate my time and coding skills (such as they are) to them.Rezimmerman (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be good. See above.--- Possibly (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam § Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy

 – — Newslinger talk 07:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sebastien Lepinoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Störm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page created by undisclosed paid editor: User:Störm

https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01910ab31d373a68bc

Can anyone check all of his edits and stop him by creating a legit storm. 178.165.130.210 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam § Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy, as this is not a link spam report. The Upwork listing requires registration to view. It is a job listing titled "Need someone to help us create a Wikipedia page." It was posted on "April 14, 2021", and contains the following description:

— Newslinger talk 07:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is probably dozens to hundreds of paid articles here: Eric Kalala. scope_creep^Talk 11:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand on that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this paid post. Although, he is a notable figure in Singapore, I've requested speedy deletion for this page. Further, there is nothing paid in my work. Störm (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Craig Shirley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Whadden93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (active)
• 141.156.49.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Torrentialthomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ScottMSBPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ppetrovich4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of editors that appears to be COI have both added immense levels of puffery to the Craig Shirley page, as well as cited his books on a bunch of other articles. 12:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This page has been purged of information by an anonymous user several times over the past few months, seemingly to protect the reputation of the Institute which is the subject of the article. Any revision which reintroduces information having to do with the School of the Americas is deleted not long after on the grounds of "spreading misinformation". 2600:1700:4EBC:1000:A5AE:F4EE:9347:C12 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandon Lapin
• Michelle Beckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Wendy Sachs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jana Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A sockfarm seems to have been working for a PR firm, perhaps specializing in U.S. political figures. - Bri.public (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Tenants Union

• Vancouver Tenants Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aïssa 93 390 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has declared on their user page that they are a member of the subject organisation the Vancouver Tenants Union. The article was created as a draft, and accepted at AfC on 25 March. So far so good. As they were unaware of the need from that point on to make edit requests rather than edit the article directly I left them a template message on how to manage a COI. They didn't like this, and replied to me at User talk:Curb Safe Charmer#Conflict of interest where I further explained what the issue was. They replied "I disagree with you and i disagree with your interpretation of the rules. why would one need to disclose their conflict of interest if they can not write or edit a post on which they have a conflict of interest? the rules are meant to ensure the articles are true rather than biased and that is the case for the Vancouver Tenants Union. you do not need to respond to this and i do not wish to engage with you any further. good day to you" Fine, I wasn't intending to contact them again on the matter, but Timtrent felt that it would help to have an uninvolved third party explain the issue which they did here. I would have thought that would have had the desired effect, but today Aïssa has removed the COI messages from their talk page (which they are entitled to do), removed the COI tag from the article (which they should not do) and has left a message on the article talk page accusing Timtrent of bullying and harassment.

Aïssa 93 390, an WP:SPA seems unwilling to accept advice from other editors, and appears not to accept the rules that COI editors need to follow. In an earlier message to me, they wrote "i have made the changes you requested and i have disclosed my COI, could you please review my submission and if you are agreeable, publish the page for our Union ? The Union has an important meeting with the Minster of Housing coming up and we want our Wikipedia Page ready on time for the meeting." This suggests that their motivation is to publicise their organisation, not to build an encyclopedia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my actions. I interpreted Aïssa 93 390's statement on Curb Safe Charmer's talk page as something that required reinforcement. I am grateful to them for brining the matter here.

I was very careful to leave a collegial message as part of a WP:COI warning. I extended our boilerplate warning in a courteous and friendly manner hoping I had dealt with the very limited circumstances n which a COI editor may make direct edits to the article.

I suppose I was not entirely surprised that they have failed to assume good faith after their curt note on CSC's talk page and are now resorting to bluster.

I hope a friendly word from a third person will bear fruit. I hate it when things turn into 'processes', but if that fails I think something may be required to curb their choice not to listen Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above noted comments. Nowhere did Aïssa express that they would not follow the rules and nowhere did Aïssa show bad faith.

This was a simple process and a requesr for information was made. All the rules have been respected and followed as soon as Aïssa was made aware of them.

Again, timtrent stepped in and claimed that Aïssa stated he would not follow the rules. That is simply not the truth.

Again in the above message he noted that Aïssa failed to assume good faith, which is not the truth and not backed by any facts.

This article was never intended for publicity but rather to document the existance of the Vancouver Tenants Union, another fact that both Curb and Timtrent failed to mention, which suggests they may be acting based on an improper motive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.93.32 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given this IP editor's previous edits and in particular this one where they signed as Aïssa they are editing while logged out and talking about themselves in the third person. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your IP has made three edits to date, all of which were directly related to the Vancouver Tenants Union (and one of which explicitly signed as Aissa), I'm a bit troubled by the fact that you're talking about Aissa in the third person. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Setting that aside, I am, impressed with the organisation. I am impressed with what it has achieved. I agree that is notable, and, in its real life role, necessary. I note that a person sharing the same forename as the editor under discussion is stated in the article to be on the steering committee. I understand a steering committee member's need to be assertive in that role. If they are the same person as the editor it is unfortunate that they have felt the need to display something that exceeds assertiveness here. We are trying to discuss the mode of editing, not the pros and cons of the real life organisation. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I stumbled on this from recent changes. If the steering committee is un-paid, then it’s an interesting borderline case. It’s a bit disingenuous for Aïssa to declare that they are a "member" when the article's infobox says that someone also named Aïssa holds a management position. I wonder whether we would have been so generous with the article had it been about a commercial operation rather than a non-profit. But anyway, article passed AFC and Curb Safe Charmer tagged the talk page that he have checked it for CoI neutrality. What's the desired outcome here? Tag the article for CoI also? AfD? Given that Aïssa has already started with talk page section blanking (yes I know it’s allowed), "don’t talk to me anymore" statements, and allegations of harassment, I think it's a good idea to seek more eyes on this, though. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:58 Wed 21, AEDT) 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelagic Thank you for your feedback, i will apply all three points you made available to me to the best of my knowledge. I looked up the wikipedia article for signing with ~~~~ and also the article to ping a user, i am still unsure i understood them perfectly but i will do my best to follow all the wikipedia rules and articles. To give some context, i was a simple member of the Union until the last election during which i was elected to the steering committee. I should mention that the Steering Committee is not a decision making body but rather a group of members who volunteer to help with the administrative part of the Vancouver Tenants Union. We are all volunteers here and all we are trying to do is inform citizens of our existence and our mission is to help the most vulnerable citizens in the community. That being said, i have zero personal interest in this, i am a simple citizen trying to help the community. Aïssa 93 390 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of a union isn't in the same league as being an official or a branch organiser. # In the linked diff, Aïssa says to Curb Safe Charmer "i disagree with your interpretation of the rules", that's very different from intending to "disregard the rules". # Only WP:PAID editors are required to go through edit requests, others may edit directly so long as their interest is declared.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aïssa 93 390 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Note: The above post appears to have been made originally made at Talk:Vancouver Tenants Union#COI tag (April 2021) by Pelagic here and here and was copied and pasted into this discussion by Aïssa 93 390. Please try to avoid doing such a thing Aïssa 93 390 because it makes it seem as if you are the person making the post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Aïssa 93 390: Please also try to log in and use only your registered account to edit or make posts because it just confuses things and not doing so might be mistaken by some as an attempt to use multiple accounts in an appropriate way.

FWIW, Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, but it does highly discourage it because it can lead sometimes lead to serious problems; so, yes COI editors can and often do directly edit articles about subject they're connected themselves. Wikipedia does, however, encourage them to follow WP:COIADVICE because doing so can really help them avoid any problems with other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which disputes over content are expected to be resolved through WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. So, when an editor is WP:BOLD in making a change, but subsequently WP:REVERTed by another, the editor who wants to make the change is expected to start a discussion about it on the article's talk page and see if they can establish a consensus for it.

Vancouver Tenants Union is a Wikipedia article written about the union, but it's not one written for the benefit of the union and neither the union nor anyone connected to it has any final editorial control or ownership over it. If you or anyone else edits the article and the edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then perhaps they will stand. On the other hand, if another editor disagrees and feels there's a problem with the edits, the WP:ONUS is upon the person wanting to make the change to seek a consensus to do so. This might not fit in with the particular plans or scheduling concerns of the article's subject, but that's not Wikipedia's concern. So, if even one editor disputes a change you've made, it's going to be considered contentious and you are essentially going be expected to make a de-facto edit request on the article's talk page to find out what the concern is and see how it might be addressed. The same would apply to pretty much any editor and pretty much any article regardless of whether they had any connection to the subject of the article.

You can of course decide not to discuss (Wikipedia can't make you discuss things if you don't want to), but not discussing doesn't mean you can try and force through the changes you want to make. Basically, if you're BOLD and subsequently reverted, and then you try to force things through, the response from the WP:COMMUNITY might lead to an administrator being asked to step in and take action against your account. So, if you and the union are looking to have more control over things and find Wikipedia's policies to be too much of a hassle, then perhaps you'll find WP:ALTERNATIVE helpful.

The union seems to do some really great things as Timtrent posted above, but it's not Wikipedia role to help it to continue to do great things. Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect what reliable sources are saying about a subject; there are lots of things that are probably true about your union, but Wikipedia is only really interested in what is verifiable. It makes no real difference to Wikipedia whether article content is positive or negative; only whether it accurately reflects what reliable sources are saying and whether it is otherwise in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Finally, please take a look at c:User talk:Aïssa 93 390 because there are some issues with the files you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons that need to resolved if you want to avoid the images from being deleted. I also suggest you take a close look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:License revocation, c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? and c:Commons:Email templates/Consent to make sure you and the union understand what it means to upload a file like the union's logo to Commons. It doesn't mean you're transfering copyright ownership of the logo to any third-party, but it does pretty much mean that you giving advance permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the logo at anytime and use for any purposes, including to make money off of or to use in a way that neither you nor the union would approve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]