This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This duplicates a thread just started at WP:ANI. We clearly shouldn't discuss the same issues in two different places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I wish to bring to the attention of the Wikipedia Community some unusual activities involving the Wikipedia administrator, Chetsford. My concerns center around potential Conflict of Interest (COI) issues related to this administrator's behavior on the following pages: John Anthony Castro and TaxProf Blog (now deleted following an Articles for Deletion (AfD) process initiated by myself): Key Points: 1) On March 22, 2023, Chetsford transitioned the page from 2021 Texas's 6th congressional district special election to John Anthony Castro, as can be seen in the page history. 2) In April, I found several issues on the page, including potential policy violations and heavy reliance on primary sources. This page, overseen by an experienced administrator, was laden with negative content about the subject. Upon discovery, I alerted the BLP Noticeboard and the Talk page of Castro. Another editor, Morbidthoughts, took action and removed numerous sources. From the onset, Chetsford's responses to my concerns seemed confrontational, as illustrated in this Talk Page section:
Or here:
(This can be interpreted in different ways) 3) On April 15, Morbidthoughts questioned the use of TaxProf Blog as a source on the RSN NoticeBoard. The consensus was to remove it entirely due to its "self-published" status, as seen here. 4) It seems that Chetsford created a page for the non-notable TaxProf Blog, which was then used for contentious claims about Castro. When I nominated this page for deletion, both Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFab actively obstructed the nomination and interfered with the voting process. It appears that their intense efforts to maintain the page were not in good faith, as seen here. 5) On June 22, 2023, a message was posted on John Castro's page alleging that Chetsford had used unauthorized and unreliable sources to place negative information about Castro. The issue led to extensive editor discussion and the removal of the contentious source. See here for reference. 6) I believe that Chetsford retaliated against my actions by opening a sockpuppet investigation against me, as I was actively engaged on the pages they had created. This occurred just two days after the TaxProf Blog deletion and my post on Castro's Talk Page, seen here:
7) Interestingly, Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan have frequently collaborated on matters related to John Castro directly or indirectly, seen in these instances, where they sometimes made active edits on the John Castro page mere hours apart: A) [1] (An alleged back up on the use of the source) B) [2] Vigorous defense of a non-notable website and similar statements C) Defending Chetsford edits here on the Talk Page: [3] D) And finally, active edits on John Castro page on June 7 - just 4 hours after edits done by Chetsford: [4] 23:40, 2023 June 7 2601:8c:b80:7ec0:206e:456:4bf9:dc07 talk 17,232 bytes +72 No edit summary 23:32, 2023 June 7 TulsaPoliticsFan 17,160 bytes −125 work on WP:OVERCITE issue 21:08, 2023 June 7 TulsaPoliticsFan 17,285 bytes −1 Move from lede to body; info not in body shouldn't be in lede 21:08, 2023 June 7 TulsaPoliticsFan 17,286 bytes −5 update infobox per body of article; remove lede cite 21:05, 2023 June 7 TulsaPoliticsFan 17,291 bytes −41 →Electoral results: ce 21:03, 2023 June 7 TulsaPoliticsFan 17,332 bytes −274 move cite from infobox per MOS and add content to early life from the cite 20:55, 2023 June 7 TulsaPoliticsFan 17,606 bytes −166 Overcite/bad source This pattern of activity raises significant COI concerns regarding Chetsford (possibly related to political views?), as well as the close and extensive collaboration between Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan on matters pertaining to John Anthony Castro and TaxProf Blog. I urge the overseers of this NoticeBoard to carry out a thorough investigation into this matter. Additionally, I propose that both Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan be prohibited from making edits to John Anthony Castro's page or recreating the TaxProf Blog page, considering the potential political bias and indications of non-constructive behavior. Given Chetsford's administrative authority on Wikipedia, this recommendation seems particularly essential to ensure fair and unbiased content management. MartinPict (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The editor has made thousands of edits and contributions to the above subjects (and their respective talk pages), in which a large number of edits seem focused to promote NIAID via discrediting the COVID-19 lab leak theory as well as the origins of Covid 19. The User:Shibbolethink contains links to the editor's reddit page, which contains his real name, (first name redacted by starship.paint) xxxx, PhD (i have redacted the last name). The user also places his photos on his wikipedia page thus implying a willingness to be associated with his account, and the same photo can be found at his student profile here which bears his name. The same (first name redacted by starship.paint) is listed as being paid by NIAID in a grant in reference to "Framing the Response to Emerging Virus Infections (S2)". The NIAID funded bat research at the Wuhan lab, and it is widely noted in RS, for example this. It is the position of NIAID that the NIAID's paid gain of function research at the Wuhan lab did not result in a lab leak. This position is exactly the same position as this editor is arguing. The same editor also listed in this media opinion piece in his advocacy titled "HOW US MEDIA MISREPRESENT THE WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY’S LABORATORIES AND SAFETY PROTOCOLS". I havent done much research beyond this to see if the editor has received any other payments from NIAID. Curious if this meets COI, I suspect there has been previous admin discussions relating to grant recipients, but it is sure is a WP:QUACK and quite a lot of WP:SOAP from what appears to be a COI... Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
the position of NIAID that the NIAID's paid gain of function research at the Wuhan lab did not result in a lab leakyeah, well guess what this is also the mainstream scientific view, so I hardly see why this is relevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
media opinion piece" (which was not authored, but rather apparently fact checked, by the person who you say is Shibbolethink) doesn't present any evidence of a COI. It's wholly irrelevant. As a complete side note, I think it's a little misleading for you to present the piece's title in all caps when the website itself uses sentence case.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Framing the Response to Emerging Virus Infections (S2)" was a one-time $1200 travel grant I was awarded based on the merits of my research (on TBEV and Andes virus) to give an oral presentation at a 2018 conference in Hong Kong. I honestly didn't even know the money came from NIAID. I applied to Keystone Symposia, but it doesn't surprise me, since NIAID funds lots of similar things to promote PhD students going to conferences. Receiving such awards is often a necessity for being able to actually attend. There were no conditions placed on the grant, other than that I attend and turn in airfare/hotel receipts. It covered maybe 1/3 of my expenses if I remember correctly. The rest was paid by my PhD institution.I also received a similar grant to attend a conference in Santa Fe in 2016. I also received an NIH grant in 2017 (a T32) that (partially) covered my tuition that year. There were no conditions, other than that I conduct my regular research (not on coronaviruses, btw). To the best of my knowledge I have not (personally) received any other NIH money, although I certainly spent a lot of my boss's NIH money on reagents/experiments during my PhD. Research is expensive. I think one would be hard-pressed to find a single biomedical PhD in the US who hasn't received some NIH grant money.It would be likewise impossible to find a PhD virologist in most countries in the world who has not, at one point or another, spent some of the NIAID's money. That's the point of the NIAID, to give infectious disease researchers money.None of my research since my PhD has been in virology, it instead focuses on brain and spine tumors. I have not received a single cent from the NIAID since 2018. I did one project in 2020 using modified herpes viruses to try and shrink Glioblastoma in mice that hasn't been published, the results were unfortunately mixed. It was funded by a fellowship from my medical school.All of my editing is based on applying the five pillars, with a particular interest in WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS, to scientific and medical topics. I edit many things aside from COVID and the lab leak, but it is an interest of mine. I find it interesting because the scientific/scholarly consensus is so different from the view of many in the public. My view of the topic is very much in line with the consensus of relevant experts, as can be seen in the many many high quality scholarly citations over at the lab leak theory page. I would be curious to see if OP or anyone can actually provide evidence that I have "covered up", "white-washed", etc. anything re: the NIAID. Because I am very much a fan of just saying what the RSes say, in WP:DUE proportional weight to the coverage in those RSes, regardless of whether it paints anybody in a positive or negative light. I consider my virology knowledge an asset, and I would disagree pretty heavily that it constitutes a conflict of interest.This is akin to saying an artist or poet has a COI for the NEA. Or taht a Senator would have a conflict of interest in editing articles related to the US government, writ large. Or that a Medal of Honor or Purple Heart recipient would have a COI wrt the US Army. Or really, most accurately, that a former employee of Google's special projects division would have a COI wrt the Department of Defense. The money/awards in such instances intentionally come with no strings attached, is several steps removed, and many persons in such situations have a wide range of views about those institutions. I have quite mixed/negative views about how the NIAID and NIH works, wrt grant funding politics, a lack of support for early-mid-career researchers, etc. The grants I described above are awarded based on a committee of relevant academics, not anyone from the NIAID, and my actual connection to the NIAID is extremely tenuous at best. The NIH/NIAID intentionally do not require grant awardees to speak positively about them. But I personally don't have to care much about the NIAID anyway (even if it were a COI) since grants in the rest of my academic career will likely come from other places. I no longer work in virology. Are we really going to say that we don't want people with topic-relevant PhDs editing the topics of their expertise on Wikipedia? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
You clearly have a COI, I just disagree with the OP that is a COI about COVID writ large and not the NIAID alone.
How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.My common sense tells me this is not close enough, but reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the explanation above, and baring any new evidence, I am satisfied that there is no (or even charitably, no significant) COI. starship.paint (exalt) 14:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks like an awful lot of Jtbobwaysf's edits to COVID-related articles are focused on promoting and/or defending fringe ideas and the people known for pushing them. The lab leak theory in particular appears to be a focus going back years, as well as e.g. the use of "Wuhan virus". I'm looking at the history of COVID-19 pandemic, JP Sears, SARS-CoV-2, etc., and especially their talk pages. And now here this looks like an attempt at intimidation or otherwise an effort to remove an opponent based on no real evidence at all. No, we're not going to topic ban someone because they got a travel grant from a government agency years ago, or because they're writing about an area of expertise. IMO this probably isn't quite WP:OUTING, but it comes off as creepy and desperate. Combined with years-long POV pushing, I suspect there's a good case for WP:AE (alerted in 2021) or WP:ANI. This isn't an area I'm particularly active in, so I don't plan on doing so myself, but this report was a red flag that led me to dig into the dispute a little (and it didn't take much digging). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I have no comment on the complaint but Jtbobwaysf's concerns are plausible and not related to any specific disputes with Jtbobwaysf (no diffs provided). So a boomerang should be categorically opposed here--concerns regarding Jtbobwaysf should be brought to a noticeboard independently(why haven't they been, if they exist?). Unless editors think Jtbobwaysf has a COI given that this is the COI noticeboard. Assessments of possible COI should never result in a boomerang. SmolBrane (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that this report merits a site ban of the reporter. It is not strictly outing, as Primefac said. If there are issues with other edits of the reporter, take it to another noticeboard. starship.paint (exalt) 14:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
There's also Maiaberliner's LinkedIn, which blatantly advertises the connection between the above user and article. I've mostly reverted to the version before their edits, but would appreciate further review. Graham87 10:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
A new user, who judging by their username has a (paid?) a connection with the company insists on reintroducing unsourced promotional materials. I have provided two WP:PAID warnings, to no avail. Kleuske (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
((paid))
disclosure on their userpage. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Indicative of promotional editing. User profile text appears to be just there to avoid scrutiny by not appearing red. The edit pattern is definitely not indicative of someone just starting out. The articles appear to be pre-crafted and account was specifically created for promotional purpose. They've been here less than a month and have already had about half a dozen articles, all having to do with musical people/bands that were CSD'd. Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
The editor they said they're not editing for compensation. User_talk:Deer876#July_2023. They have considerable number of edits going back to November 2021 and almost all, if not all of their edits are made up of editing on Del Water Gap page, or adding a link to him on other pages. They explained they're
independently been working on an oral history of the music scene that came up around NYU in the late 2010
and just coincidentally noticed Del Water Gap didn't have an article.
I feel there is coordination between the editor and Del Water Gap or his staff in what may amount to COI even if there is no payment being exchanged. For example. I don't think someone just casually interested would come across a very trivial mention of "Del Water Gap" in a video, which was added here. Talk:Del_Water_Gap#A_Commons_file_used_on_this_page_or_its_Wikidata_item_has_been_nominated_for_speedy_deletion_3 this looks like there is communication happening with a professional photographer that took Del Water Gap's photo, which isn't typical for casual wiki editors. They've added quite a bit of links to Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and such sources over time. Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Group 1:
Group 2:
Unknown which group, but involved in this:
The article Draft:Bob Nouri appears to have the involvement of multiple unique sockfarms based off of checkuser investigations. The first version of this draft was previously was created by TurnKey Marketing (which appears to be a marketing firm) in April and was moved from the draftspace to the mainspace by Love740, who has since been blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising. A second draft of the article was created by GRiven12, who has since been blocked as a sock of SAMEBREED, who was blocked as a sock of TRucut, who was blocked for UPE. After the second draft was created, Butch Flarida (who is confirmed on Commons to TurnKey Marketing contributed to the draft.
My understanding of the CU analysis on this is that there's two distinct groups here (though I'm not a CU, so I haven't actually seen or been told the nitty-gritty of the data), but this does look like some sort of organized COI editing here. I'm unsure where Love740 goes here, but I figured bringing it to this board might be the right place to see if there are more related accounts that I've missed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hannah.hill747 asked another editor on June 6 is it necessary to give disclosure for paid contributions? if yes, can you help me how to do it without getting blocked?
They were given an unrelated paid editing warning on June 16 and a You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing.
follow-up on June 26.
They continued to avoid answering this question at Talk:Talking_Rain#New_Addition, and have made further promotional edits to company articles. Belbury (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
There is news media associated with Wikipedia editors trying to create https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudul_Hasan_Azhari Context for why there is a COI is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mahmudul_Hasan_Azhari Chamaemelum (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Not for the first time (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 196#Continuing UNESCO COI issues, we have someone at UNESCO adding UNESCO's POV to an article - e.g. here, where "it is crucial that questions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity are handled with utmost care" has been added in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution of the POV. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
LGBT+ people are normalis most definitely not a different perspective.
we shouldn't tip-toe around issues of sexuality- In an enlightened world where some people aren't bullied, harassed, assaulted, shunned, and otherwise stigmatized by peers, parents, and lawmakers just for being who they are, you might find some reliable sources which support the idea that "handling with care and sensitivity" = unnecessary "tip-toeing around", but for now, no, that's not remotely the consensus view. Regarding
the training that UNESCO say they're providing, but clearly aren't delivering on- WP:TONE is something that is often missing from new user training, and also something that clicks more quickly for some people than others. That's not an excuse, but any widescale training exercise that follows best practices for training still nonetheless produces some newbies who still make newbie mistakes. This particular diff isn't IMO all that worrying, but if there were lots of other diffs from this person and other people showing a pattern (sorry if those are in the other thread -- I haven't looked at it yet), that's certainly worth talking about. Is John Cummings still heading up their Wikipedia program? Probably worth a ping here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This particular diff isn't IMO all that worrying, but if there were lots of other diffs from this person and other people showing a pattern.... It was perhaps not the best example. For others, see this, which added "Looking to the future, adult learning needs to extend beyond labor market needs, connecting career change and reskilling to broader educational reforms. Lifelong learning should be reconceptualized as transformative and responsive to societal changes. It is crucial to address the participation and inclusion of vulnerable groups, appreciate informal learning, embrace digital means of participation, and promote scientific literacy while combating misinformation"; or this, which added "It is thus important that education takes a humanistic approach, especially when considering the rise of digital technologies". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
[it] shouldn't be sourced to a UNESCO report(i.e. some other source for the same content would be better)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, sorry for missing this before, I'm taking a very long break from Wikipedia work save for a few personal interests due to long covid. I've asked a few other people to take a look UNESCO's new interns work and offer some support. If anyone has any suggestions for improving documentation especially the tone section on Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia I can integrate it, it should help in this case and for anyone else wanting to add open license text to Wikipedia (this should help avoid some of these issues happening multiple times). Please don't feel offended by a delayed replying. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
User:Raymondelane I believe there is a large scale conflict of interest regarding pain management pages and a PR campaign of those involved. Particularly, the figure Laxmaiah Manchikanti and his associated "organizations" that he or enlisted staff have edited on wikipedia to provide a aura of legitimacy to a sketchy corner of medicinal practices. His organizations seem to exist in a territory that isn't particularly well regulated by the US government, or not not confer any additional regulatory or licensing qualifications beyond the official boards that are much more prominent such as the American Board of Anesthesiology or American Medical Association. I found his organization's other websites that seek to promote a somewhat not recognized institutions beyond. A number of other weirdly unrecognized an oddly named / oddly acronymed organizations that seek to pass as something more than what they are also exist and are connected to these figures.
I don't oppose the existences of the articles for the organizations, but a better POV is definitely necessary on them. The articles for the individual figures however should be disputed as their existence is questionably neccessary.
It seems that the user User:Raymondelane edited many such articles so I included him on this post. In addition, please see the history of disputes regarding the user Saidul123 his conflicts of interest in the same article that I am referenceing
- AH (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suspect the user Yae4 has a strong conflict of interest, that the user did *not* declare while working on the Libreboot recently.
There has recently been a massive content dispute at the Libreboot article, and it boils down to: should libreboot.org (original and ongoing project, with good sourcing for wikipedia) or libreboot.at (proposed fork, currently defunct and with poor sourcing) be the main topic of the article? Editor consensus reached the verdict that, at this time, only Libreboot.org should be present in the article. What's important is that the Libreboot.AT domain name is owned by the FSF (see whois and host command, host command reveals same IPv4 subnet as gnu.org).
It is on this basis that I believe user "Yae4" had a conflict of interest, while working on very aggressive and disruptive edits on the article, seemingly in bias favouring the .AT domain.
I also wrote this on the ANI entry, where Yae4 has been reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Yae4 - i believe it's useful on the talk page too, since the ANI entry will disappear at some point.
I've accused Yae4 of being biased in favour of libreboot.at, but I now believe he may in fact have a Conflict of Interest; I believe Yae4 is actually working on behalf of the FSF, without having disclosed such fact.
My evidence is thus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4/Hundred_Rabbits&oldid=1161284056 - draft article by Yae4. Hundred Rabbits isn't well-known, but put into context: Hundred Rabbits was the keynote speaker at FSF's "LibrePlanet" conference of 2022. This on its own doesn't mean anything, but consider Yae4's aggressive editing in favour of libreboot.at on Libreboot, edits that have now been largely removed per editor consensus
Now, more items:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - on its own, a trivial change, just adding info to the FSF page
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1158799817 - more FSF edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FSF_Free_Software_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1158988792 - pertaining to FSF Free Software Awards which are held at LibrePlanet conference.
LibrePlanet is a relatively obscure conference. It only has a couple hundred people who view it and doesn't really reach much news online, very much an internal FSF thing that members get involved in. FSF relies a lot upon intern/volunteer labour, and, well:
Yae4 has been editing the Libreboot article since about 26 May 2023, almost a month now, and has warred with multiple people (his actions qualify as edit warring, he was constantly reverting people's changes often without giving any reason).
Even if Yae4 isn't in league with the FSF, these diffs show a pattern of preference towards the FSF, and thus it could be argued that Yae4 had bias (non-neutral point of view) while editing the Libreboot article. Yae4 has also made numerous edits on articles like GNU Taler and GNU LibreJS, all positive edits.
(GNU is closely associated with the FSF, who provides hosting infrastructure and funding for it)
Here is the talk that Hundred Rabbits gave at LibrePlanet 2022, hosted by the FSF: https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/software-doldrums/
one part i forgot to mention earlier, look at this diff from Yae4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALibreboot&diff=1161276868&oldid=1161273531 - regardless of the merit behind the argument (merit rejected by other editors on that talk page, per consensus agreement:
pay attention: Yae4 refers to "distroboot". distroboot.org was only online for about *2 hours*, and not widely publicized, I mainly only mentioned it on Libreboot IRC (private chat room); i used another name instead (osboot) that same day, and it stuck for a while. distroboot.org is owned by me. (EDIT: to be clear distroboot/osboot refer to the same software, which is now part of Libreboot on libreboot.org, which is the subject of the Libreboot article)
this, combined with the recent crusade by Yae4 against Libreboot, suggests that Yae4 is definitely someone inclined to watch closely what the Libreboot project gets up to, far closer than most people would inspect it; it could suggest that Yae had a vendetta on behalf of the FSF. I think Yae4 works for the FSF.
the last, and arguably most damning bit of evidence against Yae4, is in diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157433496 <-- yae4 makes reference to links that are *not public* - how would Yae4 know about these, unless he was intimately involved with the project? I sense that Yae4 likely had an undisclosed conflict of interest the entire time while working on the Libreboot article
Now, FSF relies a lot on intern/volunteer labour. Whether or not Yae4 is a *paid* editor is unknown to me, though Yae4 *did* spend almost a solid month editing the article sometimes all day, which would imply that he might be paid, but I don't have enough evidence of *paid* editing on his part. Besides the above diffs used as evidence, there may be more that I missed, and the overall pattern of Yae4's edits do at least suggest bias, if not conflict of interest.
PS: I myself also have a COI for the article in question, *but* I've declared this in my user page, and admin ToBeFree expressed satisfaction with this on the linked ANI thread.
Libreleah (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Some details
|
---|
|
A website called nnn.ng seems to have a small WP media-blitz going on, [8][9][10]. One quote:
"In this article, we will dive deep into the concept of buying Wikipedia backlinks, exploring the pros, cons, and best practices for harnessing their potential."
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a remarkably aggressive cross-wiki campaign to get Davide Lo Surdo mentioned on Wikipedia at all costs. The article is a little better now but when I nomninated it for deletion it looked like this. In addition to the links above, see this comment of mine on its AFD and, just as an example, these global contributions. I blocked Enrico Manni due to their disruption to pad their edit count but any uninvolved admin is free to undo/modify my block if they feel the desire to do so. As I said in the above-linked comment, the museum article was also created in Spanish by Enrico Manni. I think I'm out of my depth here so I would very much appreciate review/backup. Graham87 06:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be the author of books used as references. See edit summaries and talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
How would it be possible to cite your own book in a way which was not self promoting besides doing it as an edit request- The same way anyone else would cite your book without making it promotional. If the source is used properly, and the article is better off for it, that's what matters. Content, not intention. The problem is that promotional intent often leads to promotional content. Lots of people come on here and cite their own book in ways that don't actually help the article, like by tacking it onto a list of references without using it, or prioritizing it over better sources. I'm certainly not going to fault anyone for questioning whether we should include a self-published book on RS grounds, but the edits themselves don't appear promotional. They appear to be a good faith attempt to improve coverage of an article by one of a relatively small number of people with some knowledge on the subject. IMO that matters too -- inserting a self-cite in a big article with a ton of sourcing available (and lots of uninvolved editors who can select the best sources) should raise eyebrows more than a niche historian adding information about their niche (because if they don't, who will). Certainly agree using the talk page is better, but when this person did that they still got shut down for COI (with no other reason provided until, apparently, "you used the wrong template"). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The logic "because if they don't, who will" has been repeatedly rejected by the community- links? that would be an odd thing to have an rfc about. Note I'm not arguing for modifying WP:RS/WP:COI, but for going by what it currently says (paraphrasing: that if a book should be cited in an article, our policies do not prohibit the author of the book from doing so, although using the talk page would probably avoid a lot of hassle). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
if it was going to be cited then what is the point of having the author do it?- Because that assumes that everything that should be included would be included? We have ... a lot ... of very low quality articles. Obviously they're not all lousy quality because there aren't any good sources for them, but because nobody has found the good sources and comprehensively summarized them. If someone wants to add one of a small number of decent sources that could be added about a subject, who cares who the editor was? Why is sticking to some hard rule about COI more important than the quality of the encyclopedia? That's part of why COI isn't a prohibition -- because the content matters more than who writes it. We are not obliged to treat niche subject-matter experts the same way we do a billion dollar company's PR department trying to whitewash an article about the company. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
User was given an "asked to cease editing until" paid warning at 7am, and made a lengthy promotional edit to the Talking Rain article an hour later. They also ignored a general COI warning and a direct question in the reviewer feedback on Draft:Lectron EV, at the start of June.
Their most recent two edits restored elements of promotional edits to two articles that paid editor User:Hannah.hill747 had made last week (before being blocked for failing to respond to a paid warning), so this may be block evasion or a paid editing organisation trading work between editors. Belbury (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
As a paid contributor, I am requesting the following..., but have still yet to formally declare a specific employer or client. Belbury (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are some issues on the Werner Hegemann article. A user "Wmdarrow" claiming to be Hegemann's grandson [12] has been editing the article for the last 8 years. This is a low-traffic article and nobody has been checking their editing. Unfortunately almost every edit they have made to the article is unsourced. The same user has received warnings in the past for adding unsourced original research onto other articles. They seem to be using the Werner Hegemann to do their own historical research about their grandfather. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
A stronger claim of conflict may arise from your seemingly compelling and peculiar interest in undermining my work on the Hegemann page. You have deleted carefully sourced info that I inserted, including the discussion of Hegemann's two books - Napoleon and Fredericus - that he wrote as the Nazi's came to power. Those books contributed to the Nazis denouncing him as a "historical forger" and burning his books. I purchased both those books, and quoted from them by page number, to ensure accuracy and sourcing in my contribution to the wiki page on Hegemann. Yet you deleted my work. A reasonable inference is that sourcing is not the problem. You have gone back years to review and quibble about my edits and contributions. Again, Why? You also deleted my section summarizing Hegemann's lecture tour in the US during 1912-15. Another important part of his life and work. Today I replaced that section, adding a footnote citing the specific pages of the Craseman Collins book on Hegemann where that tour is described in 30 pages of text and illustrations. All of these aggressive, one-sided and contradictory acts on your part followed in the wake of my challenge to your own brief mention of Hegemann's "Der Gerettete Christus," a minor work that has no known place in his life trajectory and seems to have had little impact on his time (Weimar and the rise of Hitler). And you do not quote from the book - did you buy it and read it as I did with the Napoleon and Fredericus? Yet you delete accurate summaries of those two books that contributed to the book burnings and his flight from Germany? Could it be that you have the conflict - animosity because you were challenged? Let's get back to accurate and meaningful work on wikipedia - trying to improve articles, rather than hacking at them and attacking contributors. Wmdarrow (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This user was recently created (17:08Z) and has been continuously editing only one article. The edits are of seemingly good quality, with mostly good sources. That said, the article seems to be progressively turning into a puff piece for the company. I'm assuming good faith, especially because the edits are mostly of good quality, it's just the potential warped POV and WP:PUFFERY makes me wonder. I've left a warning and a follow-up with norReponses. The user has made multiple edits after placing the notice, and still nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't a COI, however I don't have the tools to verify and the lack of a response is troubling. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ScoobieDoobie999 has made edits to various Playboy related articles to remove the name of playmate Joan Bennett. One of their recent edits descriptions (Please respect the privacy and wishes of the person's information) [17] suggest possible conflict of interest editing. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware the COIN guideline says "a specific article" and this is more about a specific user across several articles, but I can't find anywhere else suitable to raise these concerns. Feel free to point me in the right direction and close if this is an issue.
Drumspleasefab made their first edit on June 3rd 2020, adding content from an interview with music blog "The Forty-Five". Between then and July 2022, they made 30 edits - of these, twenty-three (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) have been additions of The Forty-Five as a source - of the other seven, four were just copyedits to pages they had added this source to, two were additions of a source for EasyJet's travel magazine and one was an edit to its own talk page.
That means 27/30 (90%) were additions of this one source. As if this statistic doesn't speak for itself, many of these additions have been on the exact same DAY that the Forty Five articles in question have been published, leading me to believe there's a big COI issue here. Furthermore, some of these edits (for example, example 1, example 2, example 3) have removed existing music sites such as the well established Sputnik and NME to prioritise their own, and some edits have been bordering on fancruft to the level that it's hard to see it as anything bar WP:REFSPAM - this edit adds this (otherwise unnotable) blog's opinion of a band's best song.
In July, I left a comment on their talk page asking them to clarify any connection they may have, and they did not respond. The account then stopped editing until December, when they again added an article from The Forty-Five as a source, on the same day this article had been published. Since that, they have made seven more edits - three of these (1, 2 3) were additions of The Forty-Five as sources again, one of these was a copyedit to the last edit and now three (1 (reverted for not being encyclopedic), 2 and 3) have been to add sources from Cinemablend - one of these was added the same day the article had been published, with the other being a few days later, worsening my COI concerns.
Having tried to engage with the user to ascertain any potential connection to the website only to be ignored, I am left with no choice but to come to COIN about this. Given the sheer amount of WP:REFSPAM this account has engaged in, it seems increasingly obvious the account is WP:NOTHERE for anything bar refspam self promotion. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Five years on from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_129#Sander_van_der_Linden and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Maasuni/Archive and a decade since it started, we are still getting numerous SPAs around this topic and nothing has really changed, except that they've gotten better at not getting caught.
director of studies in psychological and behavioural sciences...)
There is no conflict of interest. (Note that they refer to Against Empathy in that same post, which AntiMusk also edited).
Altogether, I think this demonstrates a continued effort to promote themselves here and if there is a consensus that these are all linked to the previous accounts, we should be removing their contributions per WP:BANREVERT and deleting the created articles per G5. SmartSE (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I literally took it from hereis bullshit though isn't it? Even after adjusting the image URL at that link to increase the size, the image resolution is 500 x 769 not 1500 x 2300 like the version you uploaded. It is indeed a remarkable "random coincidence" that you had access to an image that nobody else has isn't it? There is other evidence that I've shared with Jim, which also reinforces that you started writing the article before this account was even created. As for a "balanced account" the BBC didn't call it one of their best books of the year did they? And you omitted this very thorough negative review and called this balanced review in the FT "positive". SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I believe that these users have a COI with Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair, two of them are obvious since they have Ghurair in their usernames.
User:Saad Hakim 182546458 "I am his officail Communication Manager. The changes I made was updating his bio"
User:Ghurairpublicist 263634834 "His Children are minors and would prefer to remain unnamed."
User:Salghurair Special:Contributions/Salghurair
User:Lebaneze - especially 1131286946, Mashreq (bank): 1136205238 Vyvagaba (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I suspect that 5.59.21.198 is the subject of the article, Karl Deeter. They have made a number of large edits to the article which are self-promotional (WP:PROMOTION) in nature. The IP editor has used the article to list off the highlights of the subject's CV (Resumé).
In "real life", the subject of the article is a mid-level Irish media personality whose main topic is finance. Because of the nature of their topic, I being it's unlikely a "fan" would be behind this. Additionally, the IP editor added details to the article about the subject's father which don't seem to appear in any online reliable secondary sources and are likely only really known to the subject of the article themselves.
I previously left a Template:uw-coi notice on their talk page, but they did not respond to it and continued to edit the article. They are also in the habit of using either no sources, or primary sources to state their claims, rather than reliable secondary sources, and this has been pointed out to them in the edit history section. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Continued promotional editing after multiple warnings, with editor unresponsive to questions about undisclosed paid editing (a google search shows a fairly clear connection). Melcous (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
HiResolutionEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
I came across this user via RCP. I noticed them just undoing a bunch of good faith edits without any warning. I left a disruption1 template. They then undid my revert with again, no explanation, and I left a disruption2 template. I then checked their talk page, and they said that they were friends with 6 Dog's producer [21], to which I suggested that they not edit the article due to COI. They then said "Yoshi, my friend Chase (6 Dogs) has passed and would not like Tommy Ice to be promoted on his wikipedia. I would like no more problems. Thank you."
[22] To which they now say 6 Dogs is their friend. I then left a COI notice on their talk page, to which after their most recent reply, they have ignored it, and continued adding edits, most of which seem unsourced.
Apologies, as this is my first time here, I'm just not sure what to do. Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Ping me when replying, please. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 23:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
This editor removed maintenance templates (Copy edit, External links, BLP sources and COI) from the article, as shown in this diff. On being warned, the editor wrote "that's aunt page and she didn't know how to remove this tags so she ask me to help" diff). The editor then removed the Copy edit template again and, following that, I placed a CoI notice on their Talk page. After the editor edited the article again, I followed up the CoI notice with a further note. Editor has since edited the article again. Tacyarg (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Corporate communication of University of Makati. Single purpose account making promotional edits. COI is obvious, undisclosed paid editing more than likely. Kleuske (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
My name is Erik Anderson. About three years ago, I was pretty invested in updating pages about memorials being changed in the aftermath of the George Floyd protests. During that time I started a Change.org petition to rename the Andrew Jackson Post Office near where I live in San Diego. I did not expect it to work, but it made the news multiple times and earlier this month there was a ceremony to rename the post office after Susan Davis. I should have declared the COI then, obviously, but I did not and now it has begun to snowball. Please review. All of my edits have been well sourced and no one has ever objected to them. I'm not paid by anyone, but I did start the petition and my name is in several of the citations. I'd like to have two more articles about the ceremony added to the two pages listed above and at least two others: Rolando, San Diego and El Cajon Boulevard. I believe they are noteworthy, encyclopedic and add value to those pages. I don't want to create a controversy by declaring a COI in the talk page and then having someone object there be a conflict and come here, so I'm coming directly to the source. Me culpa. I'm sorry. What is the next step? Kire1975 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not entirely sure if this constitutes a conflict of interest or if it's just the work a well-intentioned but misguided user. I do feel like there is an issue that needs to be addressed here, but if it's not COI, please point me in the right direction.
Ever since 16 December 2020 the article about the Wallenberg family has grown exponentially, to the point where it's now mostly a collection of MOS violations. Without going into too much detail, it's become an exhaustive collection of statistics, embedded lists, minutiae, overlinking, and images (including a gallery). Also: quotes. Lots of blockquotes. Something about its neutrality feels off. It's like an attempt to showcase as many of the family's accomplishments as possible.
Almost all of this seems to be the work of a single-purpose user who has had a free rein over a period of three-and-a-half years to bloat the article to its current size – using multiple user accounts as well as dozens of IPs. The accounts listed above have contributed most (the one at the top in particular), but there are more. The vast majority of their edits are to the aforementioned article. Other edits—few and far between—are still mostly within the Wallenberg sphere. To individual Wallenbergs' articles for example. Next to some of the usernames being obviously similar, there's an easily discernable pattern in editing style as well as behavior. None of them ever leave an edit summary, for example. I do want to clarify that apart from a handful of minor instances these user accounts never appear to have been used concurrently. Also: most of their edits appear to be properly sourced. Excessively sourced, even. Nearly all of the IP edits since late 2020 exhibit a similar pattern and it also seems like all of them can be geolocated to the same general region.
This user lashed out the moment I tagged the article by engaging in contentious edit warring by constantly removing the maintenance templates ([23], [24], [25], [26]), about which I repeatedly warned them on their user page. This they eventually responded to by calling me a fascist dictator, which, not being the issue at hand here, I can live with. This panicked response of theirs has got me thinking that perhaps I'm not too far off in sensing a conflict of interest, because the other maintenance tags they ignore (though keep removing) yet they hone in on the COI tag. Jay D. Easy (t) 21:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm hoping to nominate for Recent deaths an article that I've just begun as a draft (going cautiously through AfC, as the subject was a relative of mine). She served on the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board in the 1980s; significant coverage of her career includes a profile in the Baltimore Sun and a bio/feature interview in the Los Angeles Times. I've of course disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page. I'm hoping it's possible to get some eyes to review the draft (mostly for notability and NPOV) in a timely manner, to be able to nominate this at ITN/RD. Point no. 10 of WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI § Advice (though some other links there are outdated) suggests asking here. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Immanuel Ness: I found an autobiography/paid job that need attention. Oluwatoniyi (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I dunno. Somebody else can take a crack at it. I can't countenance "profiling employees" as a euphemism for making employees miscarry at work. GMGtalk 19:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user keeps refspamming their website https://prasiddhaacharya.com.np/neb/www.prasiddhaacharya.com.np on this article a WP:UAA report was made as the name of the website is the same as the account but given its a real name was denied and told to go to COIN. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, the user Chakravarthy76 has been continually editing the article to add a lot of content that is very promotional in tone, e.g.
Integrated PCS – POS and PCS – ICEGATE for seamless fast track transaction platform - Full-fledged ERP system with e-payment module – under implementation - Implementation of E-Office system - Fully automated container terminal - Container Scanner to identify radioactive material - Gate automation through RFID is taken up for implementation - 24 × 7 Electronic Surveillance through CCTV cameras - Digitisation of office records.
The user has been warned multiple times on their user talk page about adding promotional content to the article, and I also dropped a uw-coi notice. However, the user has continued to restore the problematic promotional-sounding version of the article afterwards, and they haven't responded to the notices on their talk page (especially the one about COI). I do suspect COI, but I'm not fully sure here.
It does seem like a good-faith attempt to expand the "Modernisation" section of the article. Just a bit too overly-detailed and sounding like an advertisement in its current form. The information also looks like it's been copy-and-pasted from another source, but I haven't been able to find a source using google.
Perhaps could anyone give advice on what to do? This is quite a large amount of content to work through and clean up, remove excessive detail. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
They can be seen editing these three articles and few other related articles, their edits are mainly around films and professionals in the film industry only. They have been seen edit warring on the same pages and have been canvasing other editors to take part in the deletion debates too. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The page is a mess, and it's getting even worse with a WP:SPA who is obviously closely connected to the company. Not sure how I came across it but again, it's a mess. tedder (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Just take a look at the article, the sources are a collection of Google Scholar search links and to the subject's own papers. It is simply not properly sourced, but seems to be done by someone intimately familiar with the subject's work. Also, check the user page of the linked user: he has 2 other accounts disclosed, BUT it appears they have all worked on the same articles to evade detection. Skyerise (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this user as they were deleting every reference to the Praat page from multiple articles (apparently competing software). Then I find these users they had created both Intelligent Speech Analyser and the article for its creator, Raimo Olavi Toivonen. When I found it, there was no description of the software, just a giant promotional list of academic papers it had been mentioned in.
They also seem to have spammed Commons as well to promote themself. [27] [28] Skyerise (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
And doing the same on Finnish, German, and Swedish Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
After looking into this further, I've also opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R.o.t. All four users have been blocked as abusing multiple accounts on Wikimedia Commons. Skyerise (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
All four users have now been confirmed as abusing multiple accounts and have been blocked, so this report can be closed. Skyerise (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Looks to be a WP:SPA, editing on behalf of Mr. Houghton and his endeavors. This explanation doesn't help [29]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
My description above is moot, as it appears that all three drafts have been deleted by an Administrator at the request of RolandCooper. David notMD (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
So I am employed by the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), but it's not my job to make wiki edits. It's not even in my job description. I have made updates throughout the past few years on ASA pages since I noticed them, but I just learned today that I guess I shouldn't have been doing that. I've added the paid employee notice to my profile and added the COI notice on the pages listed above. My main question is, do I need the paid employer notice even though I'm not paid to make edits specifically or is the COI notice sufficient? Relatedly, should my requests for edits now only be made through the talk pages? Is there anything else I'm missing? Thanks and sorry for my ignorance! Citizenofooo (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
IP resolves to mail.natoschool.nato.int; user(s) apparently editing article(s) related to the same institution, NATO School. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Some COI concerns were raised at User talk:SolaSands#July 2023 byDavid Gerard and the SolaSands was encouraged to try and use the article talk page to propose edits be made. This, however, doesn't seem to be what has been happening and quite a lot of unsourced promotional content (at least in my opinion) continues to be added to the article so that it's now starting to have a CV feel. Perhaps some others can take a look at things and see help figure out whether this is just a case of well-meaning editor just not too familiar with Wikipedia or whether there's a real COI here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
IP 208.103.173.105 is registered to Vermont Information Processing and should not be editing the article directly. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
As per https://www.dicksoncountytn.gov/mayor.html, this individual appears to be Dickson County's mayor & edited its respective page twice. MeilingHong (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)