CAT:EDITREQ backlog and an otherwise not-very problematic kind of request

User:Cf2022 has made many many requests where the question is either adding some reliable source or the like or adding a sentence or two. Now, while it technically falls under paid-editing, it isn't as far as I understand editing done to promote or advertise a subject (at least, I haven't come upon such an example so far). The main (if any) problem with their requests is usually minor issues of wording or style, which can get fixed easily enough - not enough, in my opinion, to warrant having each and every one of them go through the process of being delayed for a while while somebody takes the time to clean the backlog of other COI requests. Is there some other suggested solution to this situation (I frankly don't have a problem with just checking each edit manually after it's done if anybody insists: not much different than patrolling recent changes, and also more pleasant since it very likely won't involve silly trolling by the average schoolkid vandal)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I counted something like seven (!) articles that they requested changes be made to, on the same day (January 24th)! My two cents would be that they should not be making so many requests. That is obliquely mentioned in the COI guideline "you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise." Possibly (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said, it would be much simpler just to review the seven edits manually than having the COI queue continuously grow. @Cf2022: What do you propose to solve this little issue you've gotten us into? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I sympathise with @RandomCanadian:, but @Cf2022:'s requests involve adding sources in which they have a COI. I recommend that they continue using the request edit system to ensure their prose represents the source's information and we are not putting WP:UNDUE weight on their sources.
I disagree with @Possibly: about the number of requests Cf2022 is making. CF's requests seem simple to assess and implement, and there are other editors who have numerous requests that take a lot longer to fulfil. I hope Cf will continue to be mindful about how many requests they have in the queue to avoid overloading it. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: Yes, but at CAT:EDITREQ there is no way to distinguish their requests from all the others and its somewhat discouraging. Anyway, the COI they have is not very problematic (they're employed by a library - basically WP:Wikipedian in Residence - its not the same thing as COI John Doe working for a PR company...), and coming up with a better solution is certainly possible, if we're willing to make an exception: as I said, checking a diff for a mistake or two takes much less time than having to parse it from the request manually. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are their requested edits for one day (January 24th):

They also appear to have added directly material by Boston University authors, without going through Requested edits, to Stereotype threat (diff), Water scarcity (diff), Son of Sam law (diff) and Working class (diff). It's not hard to see that they are here to use Wikipedia to promote the reearch and publications of Boston university law faculty. Possibly (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This (Stereotype threat) is not from a Boston university publication (its from Georgetown University Law Center, FFS). Really, even if them adding references to academic publications held by their library, some of which happen to be published by the authors from the university, somehow fits under some form of the definition of "promotion" or of COI, this is clearly not as problematic as you make it out to be. In fact, given what we know about reliable sources and how academic publications are usually closer to the better end of the spectrum of reliable sources, I don't see what the problem could be, unless they were personally a researcher citing their own papers, which is clearly not the case here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
So I'm concerned that Cf might be adding material to articles using sources they have a COI with. If they are doing this, I strongly encourage them to return to using the request edit template. I disagree with RandomCanadian's suggestion to just check the diffs; I think it would take me roughly the same amount of time to check the diff than it would to check an edit request. The difference is the diff, which may have problems in it, would be live on Wikipedia for months before it was assessed. I am not OK with that. I also don't want to separate COI requests into "approved COI editor" category and "not yet approved" categories. The backlog is long, it sucks, but I hope more reviewers will help us clear the backlog. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC).
Good afternoon, In order to avoid any issue with COI, I was previously told to only use the Request Edit function by other Wikipedia editors. I do not want to be in violation of any Wikipedia guidelines, so I am happy to comply with whatever everyone believes is best. With regard to the edits I made to the Stereotype threat (diff), Water scarcity (diff), Son of Sam law (diff) and Working class (diff) pages, I did request edits and received approval by an editor to make the changes. My requested edits were reviewed and approved before I was allowed to made the changes (see talk pages for articles). The editor who reviewed the changes simply told me to "Hi @Cf2022: Please proceed with making the edits above. Thank you!" Please let me what would be the best way to proceed. Cf2022 (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022
I think the work that Cf2022 is doing is rather interesting and I would like to know more about whose idea it was etc. Might reach out to her with a Wikipedia e-mail as I find it an interesting concept. I first came across her edit suggestion on the talk page of Water scarcity in Africa. To me it seems all quite legitimate so far. Wouldn't it be sufficient if she just proposed her edits on the talk pages of the respective articles (rather than adding to a COI resolution queue) and then the people who are watching the page can decide for themselves (and make the edit for her or let her do the edit)? EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

wikiprofessionalsinc redux

A follow up to this thread on the agency Wikiprofessionals_inc], whose FAQ creatively declares that they avoid paid editing rules via our WP:IAR policy. A claim was made in this ANI thread that the agency had been paid to edit W. Mark Lanier's page. The previous COIN case mentions a number of articles; the testimoney section includes some new ones that may be worthy of scrutiny.

Mayafan2

Looking at the first one, Ave Kludze, I see a series of possible COI edits from new user User:Scientisted. I haven't had a chance to look closely at the others yet, but wanted to make a note of this now. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: as has been mentioned before, you need to notify the user of a discussion here. Possibly (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that, was in a hurry and forgot. I've added another WP:SPA-like account under Hansen and notified them. For the other mentioned accounts, WP:SPA patterns aren't as clear. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment I have to say, that FAQ really is quite the kicker. Creative application of wp:IAR is an understatement. Thanks for pointing this out, i've added these articles to my watchlist, and will keep an eye out for their long-term abuse characteristics. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx))) 00:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ronald Kessler

Extra eyes please, perhaps with more COI experience than I have. User: KesslerRonald had been editing pages such as Ronald Kessler (author/journalist), this includes removing content from that talk page, (these are older edits, but the page still needs to be sorted out, and we don't want to see anymore edits like that) and pages Minuetta Kessler (Ronald Kessler's mother) and Greg Kessler (another possible relation). He has added content to several articles that includes multiple mentions of "Ronald Kessler" (I can add diffs if req'd, but virtually every edit he makes seem to all be along the same lines), as well as adding photos of "Ronald Kessler with [article subject]" (yes, his name is always first - 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5), adding multiple "Ronald Kessler" refs to multiple articles, and (this is what first caught my attention), "updating" some of these sources to include links to Amazom pages where one can purchase the book by "Ronald Kessler" (1 & 2). These last two edits were made after a COI notice was placed on this user's talk page. To me there seems to be an on-goign campaign of self-promotion here, but I would be interested to see what others have to say. Thanks - wolf 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You could also drop a note at WP:UAA. Our username policy requires that editors editing with what appears to be a real person's name either provide evidence that they are that person or clearly state on their User page that they are not that person. Editors who do not comply with that policy are blocked. I am not saying that this editor necessarily needs to be blocked but it would be very helpful to know for sure if this is the subject who is editing his own article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done - wolf 07:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
User KesslerRonald was warned about COI back in 2008. During the time they have been on-wiki, they have made:
465 edits to Ronald Kessler,
44 edits to Minuetta Kessler and
36 edits to Greg Kessler.
Such a large number of edits has the appearance that it would impact the neutrality of the wiki. A WP:PBLOCK seems like it would put a stop to that appearance. Possibly (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. As I stated, I posted here seeking advice from those more versed in COI policy than I. UAA was advice I received (and appreciated). I see you left a lengthy post on his talk page, and that is also appreciated. His username was not so much of an issue as the obvious disregard for the guidelines, (despite being repeatedly advised of them), the blatant COI edits, sales pitches and boastful self-promotion. - wolf 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that the UAA instructions indicate that real names are not grounds for a report, even if the user has not verified his identity. Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Additional example: came across this comment (from 2018, but currently posted) on the Mark Felt talk page ; Talk:Mark Felt#Jarring, strange placement for Kessler mention. In the article, Kessler's name is mentioned in the body twelve times, including an image caption (five of them linked). He has two books cited a combined six times, out of 114 refs. (fyi) - wolf 10:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Mr. Kessler did contact OTRS and I have marked his account as verified, which should address the UPOL/UAA concerns. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I am mystified by the claim that contributing verified, relevant material based on my journalism or about my relatives who are already the subject of Wikipedia articles is a conflict of interest. All of the material I have contributed over the years is from major publications such as the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews or consists of unique photos of historic interest published in my best selling books. It seems to me that the only criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia articles should be and always has been whether the material is a relevant addition and whether it is verified with a citation, as has always been the case with my contributions. Most of the items mentioned here by Thewolfchild were contributed years ago and were approved multiple times by dozens of Wikipedia editors. If such material cannot now be included based solely on who contributed them rather than the relevance and veracity of the information, it seems to me a large portion of Wikipedia knowledge would have to be deleted, nor could such information be posted in the future. Moreover, if such a rule were to be imposed, any individual could post the same material on behalf of the individual involved and no one would be the wiser. To characterize material quoted from the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews with major historic figures or that consists of unique historic photos as "sales pitches" or "self-promotion" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the way journalism works and, if adopted as policy, would radically undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia, which we all love. Note that with the exception of one item decades ago, I have never deleted material posted by others, but rather in a few cases I have replaced items that I or others have written with exactly the same information written better in order to improve clarity.--Ronald Kessler — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 09:52, February 1, 2021 (UTC)

I am mystified that an experienced journalist would have such a poor understanding of basic conflicts of interest. I strongly recommend that you review not only our policy but also broader material about this very common phenomenon.
Of course we wonder about, question, and sometimes challenge the underlying motivations and unspoken reasons for some editors choosing to contribute (or delete) material to articles! It would be the height of foolishness and irresponsibility not to! And it's only human for all of us to allow, sometimes despite our best intentions, our emotions to play a prominent role in our editing. Having a conflict of interest is not a bad thing; it's completely natural and inevitable for everyone. It's how we deal with them that matters. ElKevbo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
RESPONSE: Thank you for this perspective. All of my contributions cite major media sources such as the Washington Post or New York Times or major published books and therefore conform with Wikipedia policy below. That is why dozens of Wikipedia editors have approved the contributions literally hundreds of times over the years.
"Problems in an article about you: If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral—to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources."--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 11:41, February 1, 2021 (UTC)
If you have or think you might have a COI with subject, it's always best to post a request or suggestion in the article's Talk page so that other editors can evaluate it and possibly carry it out themselves to minimize the possibility of a conflict of interest. I'm sure you'll find that most editors are very appreciative of helpful suggestions and request, especially those accompanied by high quality sources! ElKevbo (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
RESPONSE: Thank you! Will you be removing the warning label at the top of the Ronald Kessler Wikipedia article, including the absurd statement, "This article relies too much on references to primary sources?"--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 1, 2021 (UTC)
@KesslerRonald: you do not need to write "RESPONSE" every time you respond. We generally indicate response by the indentation level. Regarding the tags, I placed those. The COI tag that is there says something like "this article has been extensively edited by the subject". Is that true? Yes, you edited the article 465 times (and twice today). The other tag says "this article relies too much on primary sources". Now, are you cited excessively in the article? I can say, yes, as I stopped counting after about a dozen. So that tag is also correct. Finally, I do not think you understand that the general message of the COI policy is that you need to leave your own article alone. If you can commit to using the talk page to make edit requests on your article and on your family's articles, and to following WP:SELFCITE when inserting sources that are your own work, we are golden. Can you commit to that? Possibly (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I commit to that one hundred percent. I misunderstood and thought "primary sources" referred to first hand sources, not the subject of the article. Thank you for your advice and help!--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 13:46, February 1, 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Possibly (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@KesslerRonald: Jtbc that SELFCITE applies to all articles you may be editing, not just articles about you and your family. There are still issues that are outstanding, that you either don't grasp, or don't wish to grasp, given your statement above; "To characterize material quoted from the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews with major historic figures or that consists of unique historic photos as "sales pitches" or "self-promotion" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the way journalism works and, if adopted as policy, would radically undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia, which we all love."

Do I really need to point out all the problems with that sentence? There are multiple issues with your edits and the way you seem to be constantly promoting yourself, ie; adding your name multiple times into non-Kessler articles, adding your photos as well, adding links to sell your books, and I supported all this with multiple diffs. Nothing you've said here seems to acknowledge any of that, or commit to stopping it, or address how these articles are going to be fixed. - wolf 02:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I think you have got to assume some good faith here, especially given their declaration. I asked KesslerRonald that he follow WP:SELFCITE, which covers all of Wikipedia, and he agreed. So your statement "Nothing you've said here seems to acknowledge any of that, or commit to stopping it" is really incorrect. He's agreed to not directly edit family articles, and he's agreed to not insert his own work into articles in violation of SELFCITE. If, in the future, KesslerRonald decides to return to inserting his own work into multiple articles, and to edit his family's pages, then it's probably time to ask for an editing block. Possibly (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: I saw the replies, and was addressing additional issues, but... fair enough, I agree with you that AGF is important. That leaves clean-up, ie; articles like Mark Felt will need some tidying, and the Ronald Kessler tp should be reconstructed and archived. But, I'll wait awhile and see what further responses there are here, or progress made on these and other pages. And then I'll take it from there. Thanks to you and ElKevbo for all your assistance. - wolf 03:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues, as you suggested you may be doing. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. Note also that I have made only a few contributions to my mother Minuetta Kessler’s Wikipedia article, such as a link to her papers at the Boston Public Library. Ninety-nine percent of her article was written by yoninah17@gmail.com, who did prodigious research to compile it. The multiple submissions from me again constitute my failed attempts to get the Wikipedia citations right. Please consider removing the tag on her article as well. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so the tag can be removed, as you suggested you might do. I appreciate your help and understanding.--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 2, 2021 (UTC)

CORRECTED: Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. Note also that I have made only a few contributions to my mother Minuetta Kessler’s Wikipedia article, such as a link to her papers at the Boston Public Library. Ninety-nine percent of her article was written by yoninah17@gmail.com, who did prodigious research to compile it. The multiple submissions from me again constitute my failed attempts to get the Wikipedia citations right. Please consider removing the tag on her article as well. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so I believe the tag can be removed. I appreciate your help and understanding.--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 2, 2021 (UTC)

@KesslerRonald: That tag will eventually be removed by another editor. You could suggest its removal on the article's talk page; this is not the place to request article edits. See WP:REQUESTEDIT for how that works. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@KesslerRonald: I just wanted to make a general comment in a perfectly friendly way, as I am just watching this page and am not involved in your article. Please look at it from the perspective of Wikipedia editors. We volunteer our time without compensation for any number of reasons, but in the vast majority of cases we don't have a conflict of interest. We're just interested. Time spent dealing with interested parties (in the COI sense) such as yourself can be stressful and, I must emphasize, time consuming. When it is perceived that time is wasted, or unnecessarily consumed dealing with conflicted editors, it can create tension. Dealing with tense and unhappy editors is not in your or anyone's best interests. Large blocks of text (as you have added above) take time to read. That doesn't help. I strongly recommend that you keep these factors in mind going forward. Thanks for listening, Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
KesslerRonald submitted a request edit on Talk:Ronald Kessler to remove the autobiography and primary source tags at the top of the article. I declined the request because I think the tags are still relevant. KesslerRonald is welcome to use the request edit template to suggest changes to the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Rex Gatchalian

This user seems to be trying to promote this politician. They keep adding a very long list of "awards" received by the city and most of the refs do not even mention the mayor by name. I have removed the list several times to no avail. COI message on user TP ignored. MB 05:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and warned about edit warring.They have made some huge edits..one of them was +45Kb. Possibly (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
They have said this on their user page, and I advised them how to disclose on their user page: "I am an employee and was tasked to put the awards on both Wikipedia pages. I am being compensated for my job, not for editing here. I was just tasked to update the Wikipedia every now and then." I can't remember what we do when we catch UPE: we let them continue given proper disclosure, or do they get blocked?Possibly (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that blocks are "preventative not punitive", why would we block such a person, after they have made a proper disclosure? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

International Swimming League

There seems to be an ongoing issue with the International Swimming League using Wikipedia pages for self-promotion. There are several instances where there is blatant edits made by employees of the league or its owners, including:

I'm not trying to out anybody in violation of rules, but, in many cases, they have used their names in their usernames. Dellano Silva is the name of someone who works for Konstantin Grigorishin, the founder of the league, Maike Wellmann is an agent for several pro swimmers and a member of the staff of the New York Breakers, the name of the Toronto Titans' Director of Marketing is Jayne Brintley. The list goes on and exists for most teams.

Rolling off that, there are plenty of other examples of users who have gone through and done the same for other teams.

There are other less obvious examples of this.

One such editor, seemingly clueless to the rules, acknowledged that she was a team manager and that the ISL had instructed teams to update their athletes' pages (MWellmann)

There seems to be a concerted effort to fill Wikipedia with links and team listings for credibility. Is there a way to deal with this on a large scale, or does the discussion need to be had page-by-page? Some have been dealt with, others have not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HatBucketBalls (talk • contribs)

@HatBucketBalls: you need to notify any user that you mention here. See top of this page, where it says "subst:coin..." Possibly (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion at this noticeboard about this editor on or about 29 November 2020. In other words, this isn't new. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Tom Kirkwood

User adds large content in consent with Tom Kirkwood on the article Tom Kirkwood: [1]. The edits are largely unsourced or not sourced to independent and reliable sources (13 out of 18 references where publications by the article's subject). User has been warned by four other users already. NJD-DE (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The link indicates this editor also puffed up the lead (he's now a "major" contributor to his field), so there is self-promotion as well as BLPSOURCES issues here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
LexaDlawok has explained on their talk page that "I have ABSOLUTELY no financial interest in modifying this page. Instead Tom Kirkwood is a colleague of mine and he asked me if I could update this page about him. I'm doing this as a favor without receiving any money or other benefits." Possibly (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, there is no self-proclaimed paid editing situation but apart from that I think their statement is beside the point. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: ? Their statement confirms their COI, and makes it clear that they should not be editing the page. Possibly (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I was acknowledging that. My point was that they thought that not being paid was exculpatory. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Varapuzha Former Cathedral

No, friends, not an article name, it's a user name: Varapuzha Former Cathedral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going around and reverting my requested moves, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: You don't appear to have talked to them about COI on their talk page, you also did not notify them of this discussion. Both are required, see the top of this page. Possibly (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

An agent for people in the film industry

He admits to being an agent for all the persons who he has created an article for. That's a clear case of promotion, to create articles for them. Granted a couple of them do pass notability standards , but there is a bit too much COI here. Daiyusha (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Daiyusha: Did Smithsonutivich say they were an agent on Wikipedia? If so, can you provide a diff of a link to the declaration? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: if you look at Smithsonutivich's contribs, it is declared in the edit summaries. Possibly (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Possibly, I did not see the declaration in the edit summaries. I posted information on declaring COI on Smithsonutivich's talk page. I also added paid COI banners to the talk pages of the drafts that they created, as they made the declaration in the edit summary. Z1720 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard

The user in question has admitted on another website (RationalWiki, a wiki which has a much more critical article on Kirkegaard) to creating the article in question on behalf of its subject. (Redacted) He admits that his motivation for writing the article was that the RationalWiki article was too critical, meaning the Wikipedia article was intended as a puff piece. It’s perhaps worth noting that the article has been deleted before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard. I believe it should be deleted again, but I’m unsure if I should make a post in Articles for deletion (and unsure how, given that one already exists) or if this is enough for someone to delete it. Throwaway314 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki items redacted, per WP:OUTING. The redacted links suggest BerlinburgerTor is working on behalf of Emil Kirkegaard. On the one hand, plausible; on the other hand, anyone could have written that. BerlinburgerTor, do you have any COI to disclose? Possibly (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
”Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph”. The links revealed nothing fitting those descriptions, and no other sensitive personal information. As of writing the original comment, the two links I provided were the only two edits on his newly created account, although he has now started to argue in the thread he made. Throwaway314 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:TwinTurbo

I have blocked the above editor for UPE, proved beyond reasonable doubt by the use of fake news black hat SEO sources and spam blacklist evasion on Draft:Craig Davis (entrepreneur) and Draft:Fast Wave Communications. They have over 8500 edits, so other contributions need intense scrutiny. MER-C 13:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I added their article creations, which go back to 2012, to the list above. They also created something like 300 redirects--not sure if those matter. Possibly (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Luxembourg School of Business

This editor has been editing Luxembourg School of Business since 2018. Their edit summary for their first edit was "We have updated our programs, management and changed some minor details. We have added some new references". Another editor posted Welcome CoI on their Talk page in 2018. I reverted their recent changes to the article today as they sounded promotional and some text - though not a large amount - had been copy/pasted. I warned them about CoI on their Talk page using a template but they have made further changes. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: the account has been blocked by an admin for violating WP:ORGNAME, but it may be worth keeping an eye on the article for further attempts to add promotional or copy/pasted material. Best, DanCherek (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Sdrqaz

This accusation was based on no evidence. This is tilting at windmills. Fences&Windows 20:24, 9 February 2021 (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.

Fairly confident this user is a paid editor for The Blackstone Group.

Left messages on my talk page pretending to be a neutral party, after repeatedly removing my edits and making accusations of an edit war.

However they exposed themselves when they made a normal PR edit to Blackstone recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Blackstone_Group&oldid=1002112827

Do we want paid editors leaving warnings on other people's talk pages?

I will be honest I was so shocked by how much corruption I came up against on Wikipedia I have almost stopped contributing and had to take some time out.

However on finding out that User:Sdrqaz is a paid editor I am now inclined to come back and do something about this situation as best I can.

This would be the second paid editor definitively discovered for Blackstone in the last 6 months or so. Blackstone have a huge PR budget and can afford to bribe top Wikipedia editors. They have done in the past and will do again.

The last one was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theoracle102 - there were others involved but we could not prove the others. Colinmcdermott (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like you had a content disagreement with Sdrqaz. Please provide diffs that show some evidence; the one you gave is not a proper diff. Possibly (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that that is out of the way, I am not surprised that I have been taken here by the filing party, given that they seem to have a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude to that company: they have a history of making accusations that other editors are "shills", "paid thugs", and part of Blackstone's PR team. They also made a post on the article talk page here implor[ing] anyone in Blackstone's PR team to have a good think about which side of history they are on here.
Moreover, this complaint is a rehash of an edit war, where the filer inserted information regarding Amazon deforestation in either the first or second sentence of the lead here, here, and here. This resulted in the page being fully protected for a week. Three months later, the filer reinserts that information here and here.
Given that the filer's previous conduct in a COIN discussion regarding Blackstone resulted in a block for personal attacks and in this one has accused me of corruption and being bribe[d] (though I am flattered I am considered a "top" Wikipedia editor), I advise the filer to be more careful before making frivolous complaints.
PS: to my knowledge, Theoracle102 was not a paid editor definitively discovered for Blackstone. Such blanket statements are inadvisable. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raviv Zoller

paid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.71.7.239 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is declared at User:Ovedc. Fences&Windows 20:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sword of the Spirit

Hi all. COI on this page is getting out of hand. I am new to dispute resolution and the like, so some guidance would be greatly appreciated.

LinnCDoyle is me, as other users have raised suspicions about me being a COI user. I can understand, given the topic of the article, how editors may assume I am harbouring a negative bias. I am, however, confident my edits are accurate, well sourced and neutral.

Franciskouj declared COI, tendency to WP:PA and disruptive editing. Angling towards WP:LEGAL and WP:OUTING on the talk page, as well as at least attempting to share individuals personal information. I have evidence of what I strongly suspect is this persons identity. Potential undeclared paid editor.

JCAragorn1989 I have evidence of this users identity, though again I am not sure who to divulge this information to in order to avoid WP:OUTING. This users edits have actually not been a problem, however they do have an undeclared COI and author content on behalf of the orginisation described in this article elsewhere on the web.

Petercoyle92 This user has made only one helpful edit but otherwise is still an undeclared COI.

Jadbaz I do not know for sure that this user is an undeclared COI, I have asked, and been told no. However I do have some evidence (though again how is this done to prevent WP:OUTING?) as to what I strongly suspect is their identity. In either eventuality this user has been lobbying for the same edits as known COIs, and has been generally disruptive. Review of editing history is also suspicious.

Sudonymous I am unsure about the COI of this user, I did notice some odd activity and behaviour, though I may simply be seeing COIs everywhere at this point, so would appreciate a fresh set of eyes.

  • 20th Jan, strongly suspected COI places third opinion request
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1001602460
  • also 20th Jan, user who's name is a play on the word 'pseudonym' starts editing (though on unrelated articles)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_World_War_I&diff=prev&oldid=1001583959
  • This new user moves straight to answering 3rd Opinion Requests.
  • Reviewing the users activity their editing since answering the third opinion request for this page on the 23rd Jan, it can be seen that their editing has been predominantly centred around this article. This lasted until today, where I alerted them of my observations
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Linn_C_Doyle&diff=1005035888&oldid=1005031928 , immediately after which they suddenly started editing other wikis again.
  • There has been some uncivility and hounding this user does not extend to the COI editors. I am aware the user monitors my contribs.
  • This user is aware of contention in source inclusion being checked with the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Penguin_and_Synodus_Episcoporum_Bulletin
  • But still seems to claim Atwood as not a notable or relevant opinion, despite the fact Handmaid's tale is based in part on aspects of this organisation. This seemed odd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005156082&oldid=1005104914
  • The editor has lobbied for the exclusion of the same material as COI editors and made BOLD edits removing this material.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005024004&oldid=1005023494.
  • The user was allegedly providing a third opinion, but started making their own unrelated edits without achieving any consensus
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004966726&oldid=1004929187
  • Edit justifications such as this on the talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005023063&oldid=1005022628
though the user has since said that this was 'autocorrect' and they intended to say 'editors' instead of 'idiots' and this has been corrected on the talk page.
*claims not to be blanking content and references when I believe this edit shows differently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004966726&oldid=1004929187, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005024004&oldid=1005023494 .
  • The user also lapses into referring to their own opinions with 'we' on the talk page.

Linn C Doyle (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a WP:walloftext that very few will be interested enough to read. Possibly (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Hopefully this is better? Is there a way I can improve further?Linn C Doyle (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone going to respond to this? I'd like this issue put to rest so that Linn stops baselessly accusing me of being associated with SoS. Don't mean to be rude, just seems like this request got forgotten. Sudonymous (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"I may simply be seeing COIs everywhere at this point" - Linn C Doyle: well, quite. I see no reason to suspect Sudonymous of a COI; though they are a new editor, they became involved when they responded to a 3O request. Them disagreeing with you is not a COI or a behavioural problem - indeed, attacking someone who was aiming to help resolve a dispute is not reasonable. Linn C Doyle, you need to dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and provide diffs and specific evidence for your claims about the behaviour of the other editors you listed above. Fences&Windows 22:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Fences and windows Fantastic, so the evidence I have to the four listed as definite COI I cannot share without WP:OUTING. What is the correct way to go about this? And if the user uses their own name (or close) in their username, does WP:OUTING still apply? And totally open to guidance on Sudonymous. I would point out that I never accused the editor of having a COI for disagreeing with me. I requested a fresh pair of eyes as after the issue the 3OR requested for was resolved, the user continued to edit only this page for 2 weeks making similar edits to the 4 known COIs (which were unrelated to the 3OR issue), and did not differ from this behaviour until specifically pointed out by myself. I have tried to provide this info above without being too WP:TEXTWALL. I never claimed that the user disagreeing with me was a behavioural problem. The above links demonstrate specific instances of issues such as WP:PA and blanking which are the behavioural issues. Linn C Doyle (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Linn C Doyle: The noticeboard description says you should email the information to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org or email a functionary for advice. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Granted, it also says "if the issue is serious enough to warrant it", which may or may not be the case here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Sudonymous Though I must say I do apologise if you do not have any relation to the topic of this page. I hope you can understand my suspicions given a new COI editor seems to be showing up on this page with some frequency.Linn C Doyle (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Linn C Doyle, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Avoid outing for details on sending private information to functionaries and/or Arbcom.
I was focussing before on Sudonymous as that was the bulk of the post and I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Looking more into the other three editors, I suspect they each do have a COI, due to both behaviour and usernames:
I would say it's likely User:Petercoyle92 has a COI as they wrote a deleted draft at Draft:The Sword of the Spirit in 2017.
Also User:Jadbaz created a version of the article back in 2008 which was deleted at AfD, which was their first major edit. That's still visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jadbaz/Sword_of_the_Spirit&oldid=232154352. They then worked on another user's draft at User:Sosuser/Sword of the Spirit, made a handful of edits to other pages up to 2019, then returned in January.
User:JCAragorn1989 started a Spanish-language version of the page on their user page as their second edit last April: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JCAragorn1989&oldid=953706926. If all three will not declare a COI then Arbcom will have to take this up in private. Fences&Windows 17:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

H. J. Whitley

A few accounts here, but not really socks, as there is no effort to obscure identity. A descendent of H.J. Whitley (they have disclosed this on several occasions) who has put up a website and written a self published book has been quite active on this article, and in adding mentions of Whitley on other articles about Hollywood. This has been going on for years - here is an RSN discussion about their book from 11 years ago. There are some factual issues (this user often adds text claiming that Whitley named Hollywood, but most sources say it was Daeida Wilcox Beveridge), but the bigger issue seems to be that this user doesn't understand that blogs and self-published books are not reliable sources, and that they shouldn't replace proper newspaper citations with links to scans of the newspapers hosted on their own website. I'm getting back personal attacks and I didn't hear that style comments on the talk page. I think they're frustrated enough with me personally that they aren't really reading my comments any more, and I'll admit I'm getting a bit frustrated as well. More cool heads on Talk:H. J. Whitley would be greatly appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That one looks hard to deal with. It seems like it's one person, or the family, operating many accounts and switching between them rapidly, along with IPs. Possibly (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the diffs in the SPI, over time most of the accounts have admitted to being/claimed to be a grandchild of Whitley. The declarations by the above-listed editors amount to at least one grand daughter and two grandsons.Possibly (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: the SPI confirmed that the recently active accounts are the same person. The behavioural seems to indicate that all the accounts are the same person (a relative). I wonder if that information will help the disruption any? Possibly (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

John J. Ensminger

After removing a good deal of copyvio and inappropriate quotation from Search and rescue dog I happened to glance at the other contributions of King.parker3, which consist almost entirely of edits to John J. Ensminger. I added some maintenance tags to that page, with the edit summary "Added ((Cleanup rewrite)), ((Notability)), and ((Autobiography)) tags: notability is very doubtful, he appears to have an h-index of 5 (https://www.scopus.com/results/authorNamesList.uri?sort=count-f&src=al&sid=5cfc0c262b668a96c0cf4cfc19fbba7b&sot=al&sdt=al&sl=46&s=AUTHLASTNAME%28Ensminger%29+AND+AUTHFIRST%28John+J.%29&st1=Ensminger&st2=John+J.&orcidId=&selectionPageSearch=anl&reselectAuthor=false&activeFlag=true&showDocument=false&resultsPerPage=20&offset=1&jtp=false&currentPage=1 ...)". The excessively long url was a mistake, for which I apologise.

King.parker3 removed those tags, I restored them with the addition of a COI tag. King.parker3 blanked the page, Firefly unblanked it, King.parker3 again removed the tags. Now I read here: "Some serious accusations were posted by user Justlettersandnumbers. I attempted to remove these but Justlettersandnumbers immediately reposted them". Are those tags inappropriate? Or is actually it the article in question that is inappropriate? I'm thinking of taking it to AfD, but thought I'd sound opinion here before doing so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your hunch that this is a promotional autobiography. There was a stunning amount of original research and essay-like statements. Example: " To summarize. the point of all this work by so many involved professionals, is to locate and help people before they enter the criminal justice system and not after. Presently many large cities also have established a Mental health court system to help reduce the population of our prisons and increase patient health but this requires mental health trained judges, lawyers, and counselors so that the cost is beyond the means of most counties in the United States." I have cut it down significantly. Possibly (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: The article is at AfD. On the article talk page, King.parker3 admits to being in direct contact with Ensminger. Possibly (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Advanced Technology College Mekelle

I am like 75% confident that this user runs the facebook page for Advanced Technology College Mekelle given their posting this link which notably ends in ?modal=admin_todo_tour. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that is a dead giveaway: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-this-term-modal-admin_todo_tour-This-is-on-my-new-Facebook-business-page-in-the-browser-bar-on-my-username QRep2020 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
So it exists. There's no indication of importance. The page shouldn't have been created. Graywalls (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Graywalls that based on the information provided this page does not merit an article and should be deleted.Go4thProsper (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire

This set of articles was all created nearly simultaneously and seem to have an intent to promote a cause. One version was previously rejected at AFC. MB 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am the creator of these articles. In no way have I got an intent to promote the cause. Actually, I made an edit to Long Buckby railway station to promote that the Weedon Station Proposal also does worse to Long Buckby station, which proves that I am not just trying to promote the positives, but also the negatives of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumveeHardhat (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The comment the creator left in AfD suggests they have a connection with at least one of those subjects. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Burr Graywalls (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Wolk

Long term dedication to Mr. Wolk and his related endeavors, often with promotional content. Are separate articles necessary for Wolk Transfer Company and Gorgeous Entertainment? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Hello, thank you for your message. I make a lot of edits related to the entertainment industry, and I focus on specific companies or people when I have knowledge of those entities via reliable sources. I will gladly remove myself from this discussion and accept whatever resolution the other editors deem appropriate, since I imagine that's the fairest way to clear up an issue of this nature. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amateurmetheus (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Amateurmetheus, you're an experienced contributor. If you're not already familiar with the WP:COI guidelines, this is a good time to read them, especially with regard to divulging any conflict and/or compensation for edits. Of course, compensation isn't necessary for conflict to exist. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Amateurmetheus: you need to clearly state whether or not you are connected in any way to Wolk Transfer Company or Gorgeous Entertainment. Possibly (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: I was not paid by either company to make the articles in question. And given the context, I feel I should also confirm that I am not Michael Wolk. As for whether I'm connected to the companies in any way, I interact with the entertainment industry in general, and as such I have some peripheral connection. It was my understanding that a limited connection does not absolutely prohibit people from editing articles on that subject, if they limit their changes to uncontroversial edits. I only ever made edits on these topics when I had an independent cause to do so. For example, I originally made the Gorgeous Entertainment article in 2015 because I saw red links for Michael Wolk in the preexisting article for the film Innocent Blood and I saw him referenced again in You Think You Really Know Me: The Gary Wilson Story with Gorgeous Entertainment as a distributor. Then I saw another reference to Gorgeous Entertainment when I was reading the preexisting article for Amon Miyamoto. So I inferred from preexisting articles that Wikipedia would be served in creating a Gorgeous Entertainment page. It was never my intention to shoehorn inappropriate or controversial content where it didn't belong. If you feel that I was inadvertently too close to the subject matter, or that I got too enthusiastic in expanding upon it, then I understand if you believe a remedial action is appropriate. I'm not here to cause trouble.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amateurmetheus (talk • contribs)
@Amateurmetheus: You haven't answered the question of whether or not you know Michael Wolk personally, or have business with the companies listed above. I interact with the entertainment industry in general, and as such I have some peripheral connection is too vague. Possibly (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: I do not have business with the companies listed above. I do not know Michael Wolk personally. I apologize for being vague: This is the first time that I have had to discuss my personal life here, and I want to disclose as little as possible due to privacy concerns. Thank you.
Ok, thank you. On the face of it, your articles above looked like what we see from COI/promotional editors. However I will take your word for it that you are not connected. Possibly (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly:Thank you. This is my first COI flag in all my years of editing, and I'm not trying to cause a ruckus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amateurmetheus (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Thanks for your honesty. Perhaps check WP:N and WP:NCORP before making future pages, as that is the problem with the above pages. Coverage also has to be directly about the subject, not about the shows they produced. Possibly (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

user: Guestmare

Articles related:

User:

Other links


User Guestmare was inserting the same citation (with an archive link via copy/paste) into many different artist articles on Wikipedia. The cited website is titled, "The Estate of LG Williams". We had a discussion on their talk page about WP:RS, WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:BLP, WP:BLPREMOVE but they insist it was okay to use, based on their own invalidation of the existing article citations.

Upon closer look at the LG Williams citation, this website appears to be connected to the user Guestmare, they have a Wikipedia sandbox draft article started for LG Williams the artist that is displayed on the "The Estate of LG Williams" website under the menu item "wiki". I attempted to reach out for clarification and got a simple "no" with no explanations. It appears there is a clear intent to promote a person (LG Williams / Lawrence Graham Williams III) and/or event (2021 art exhibition titled "It’s Better To Be Mediocre"). Jooojay (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there used to be an article called "LG Williams" that was deleted in 2012, 2014, 2015 and a history of sock puppet issues - perhaps this is on the wrong board for discussion? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Archive_15#LG_Williams_2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party Down Scandal (LG Williams) Jooojay (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
There are severe long-term COI issues with LG Williams, as you seem to have discovered. Search turned up an old talk page archive, which I CSD'd, but it is also archived here]. Luckily the article is salted, so it's just the COI declaration, SELFCITE and using WP as a webhost that are left. Possibly (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The sandbox has been deleted, and strangely, so is the "wiki" link on Williams' website. This means that Williams knew the page was deleted and removed the link within hours. How do you think he found out? 49.144.195.51 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's yesterday's cached version of the page, where it is linked. Possibly (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
With the history of sockpuppets writing for LG Williams / Lawrence Graham Williams III, I don't find it surprising the website link was deleted – they are most likely still active here on Wikipedia. It looks like Internet Archive also took down the history for this LG Williams website recently. Jooojay (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Struckdheart

BLOCKED
Indefinitely blocked by Mz7 for disruptive editing. (non-admin closure) Sdrqaz (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (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.

Struckdheart created an article without a COI disclosure and is now edit warring to include overtly promotional content at Bishnah. They said we will try to get it approved by some Verified user as i am associated with Sony pictures television. So i am managing the edits and will get it done by the channel media partners. but are not abiding by good COI/PAID practice, including a proper disclosure missing from their userpage. — Bilorv (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

They also just deleted the above post, which I have restored. Possibly (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
They have removed this post three times now, and also posted aspersions without evidence here twice. A block is in order, I think. Possibly (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Make that four times. See page history. Possibly (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Who Am I? (Pale Waves album)

The subject draft was submitted to AFC repeatedly before its release, and declined each time with instructions to resubmit when released. On 11 February, the draft was resubmitted (prior to release) yet again, with the record of AFC comments and declines removed. The AFC templates state that they should not be removed. The record of declines was restored, and the draft was rejected.

The submitter was then asked on their user talk page whether they have a conflict of interest. The record of the previous AFC submissions has been removed again and the draft has been resubmitted again (appearing to be a new draft), without answering the question about conflict of interest.

The album has now been released as of 12 February 2021, and so may satisfy musical notability, but the question about conflict of interest has not been answered. Neutral point of view is still the second pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is appalling that an editor who is clearly inexperienced with submitting drafts and is passionate enough to write extensively about a topic gets accused of having a COI. I have approved this draft for the editor Srodgers1701, who has written about a variety of topics in their four years here. I think I speak confidently enough for them when I say there is no COI here. This is a draft reviewer going overboard in accusations because they're annoyed that a clearly notable topic got submitted multiple times as a draft. Pale Waves' album has received reviews throughout the British and European press, and the album is guaranteed to debut within the top five of the UK Albums Chart in several days' time. It looks like having threats levelled at you and investigations opened on you is what you get when you go through the AfC process to make an article. This is shameful. Ss112 18:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The article has been approved by User:Ss112 as a neutral editor and is in article space, where it belongs. I have no intention of apologizing and have no regrets about my handling of the article. This was not an editor who was inexperienced in submitting drafts, but an editor who had sufficient knowledge of how drafts work to game the system by stripping the record of declines that says not to remove it. Such conduct, in an editor who has been around for several years and has edited intermittently, is often associated with paid editing. That does not mean that there was paid editing in this case. It also does not mean that there was not paid editing, and Ss112 is being very naive in thinking that we should not have asked about paid editing. This was a case of an editor, User:Srodgers17, who knew enough to know that they were breaking the rules on purpose. The question of whether there has been paid editing has not been resolved and is not likely to be resolved. I acted correctly, and the question of COI is unresolved. The article will be left alone, at least by me. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's positively Schrödinger's cat all over again. We can't know if there was paid editing or no paid editing. It's really not that complicated. You acted stubbornly, you assumed a large amount of bad faith on the part of a user who even said on my talk page they have not even submitted or worked on many drafts. Why would you assume somebody who's been around since 2017 should know how to submit drafts? Editors who've been here for longer may have never needed to go through AfC, and seeing things like this, I can't say I'd blame them for avoiding it. This looks like inexperience, not gaming the system—at least, that would be the good faith assumption. You're being naive in thinking an editor who has 1700 edits and has worked on plenty of topics, not just on music articles all issued by one record label, would somehow be being paid by, what? Countless record label marketing teams to edit for four years like Srodgers1701 is some editor-for-hire all the record labels know they can count on for a good write-up of their hot new act's latest album! Get real. It's entirely shameful for Wikipedia at large this is the kind of standard of editor who reviews AfC drafts—threats and COi investigations on you if you dare to write about a topic. Ss112 05:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ken Kurson

SOCK
Blocked by Materialscientist for block evasion. (non-admin closure) Sdrqaz (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2021 (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.

Newly created SPA JakeRubin7 has added original research , sourced to a press release that did not support the added material, and blanked text in lead despite the two occupations they removed (journalist, musician) being the subject of a NY Times profile. Ken Kurson has been a target of substantial SPA editing in the past. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

JakeRubin7 looks like a sock of Jake7rubin, who was blocked by Materialscientist in October. Possibly (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I knew that looked familiar. I'll start an SPI. Or better still I'll just notify MaterialScientist, as this is a DUCK if ever there was one. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Account blocked thanks to Possibly's vigilance. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seth Abramson

The user Telmo6T almost focus exclusively on editing this page and has had numerous incidences where they have removed edits claiming for the edits to be vandalism when it is not vandalism. his edits only seem to occur when it is people trying to post journalistic or public criticism of Seth who is the subject of the article. In addition continued whitewashing has taken place over the 2020 and 2021 calendar years in the user edits. it's very suspicious and in addition the user added to their talk page that they are a long time user of Wikipedia in their own words as if that adds credibility. Edee66323 (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Edee66323, I've given them a templated COI warning and further explained the issues with their editing. Fences&Windows 16:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (organizations)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1006791718 shows user with, apparently, a large roster of corporate clients changing the rules around including prices in, for example, pharmaceutical articles, where big pharma generally doesn't want them to be. I'm going to revert this edit, but also posting here as this should be a policy violation, and because I'd like to use COIN for what it's for.50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ORGNOT is an essay created by CorporateM and mostly edited by them. As WP:ESSAY says, "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight." They are not changing policy by editing their essay. They also have a notice at the top of the essay that explains it is not a policy of guideline, and has not been vetted by the community. Z1720 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
As Z1720 and my user page states, that is an essay almost exclusively created and edited by me. I might have been more careful if I realized anyone else was actually using it though.
Regarding the substance of the complaint, WP:ORGNOT does not mention pharmaceutical topics, but it does discourage listing product prices that have not been the subject of substantial analysis in reliable sources. This is based on WP:NOTCATALOG #5, which says that including pricing information requires a justified reason and more than a passing mention in strong sources.
It would be useful for the OP to clarify whether they feel ORGNOT is more inclusive or exclusive of pricing information than NOTCATALOG #5 on the corresponding Talk page. ORGNOT doesn't mirror NOTCATALOG #5 exactly, because it's intended to be simpler and more plain english than the policies it summarizes, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The credibility/acceptance of essays aren't clearly defined. If they edited the essay (I am not sure what they edited, I haven't had a look), it is worth seeing if any actual guideline or policy pages refer people to the essay for further reading and if so, comment on that policy's talk page to aware them of change to contents on essays that is suggested so it can be discussed if it's still within the policy's consensus accepted view to leave a link to that essay within the policy. Graywalls (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This kind of drama is why I retired my volunteer hat. I made copyedits and trims to an essay I wrote that is used almost exclusively by me, and almost instantly I was accused of a conspiracy to manipulate Wikipedia. Folks are supposed to be trading disclosure for an assumption of good faith, but the reverse is more common. There are no policies or guidelines that link to that essay; I don't think anyone besides me even uses it. In any case, I did not mean to emerge from retirement. Please proceed however you wish without me. CorporateM (Talk) 16:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
(EDIT: I submitted this comment before I saw CorporateM's reply above. I will be adding more in a moment.) Although I understand CorporateM's justification for changing the info on pricing, I think more detail needs to be included in their edit about including a product's price use in an article. I agree with Coretheapple that essays are often conflated with policy. The notice at the top of the page might not be enough to inform/remind editors of this fact. CorporateM I have listed some recommendations below. You don't have to follow them, but they will help alleviate my concerns and hopefully other editor's concerns:
  1. Assume other users are using and citing ORGNOT.
  2. Cite policy and guidelines in ORGNOT to show readers what you are basing your recommendations on.
  3. Have editors experienced with assessing COI edits "vet" or assess the article.
  4. Cite relevant policy and guidelines, instead of ORGNOT, whenever possible.
  5. If citing ORGNOT, mention that it is an essay that you wrote. For example, you might write, "I wrote an essay on this at WP:ORGNOT that helps explain my concerns."
Question to other editors: should the community assume responsibility for this page? For example, we can have lots of editors update information with best practices for COI editing, and maybe upgrade a future version of this page to "guideline" status. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
In the midst of typing my response above, CorporateM wrote a response that change whether my comments are applicable. I hope CorporateM comes back to continue to make productive edits. In the meantime, I still would like to consider whether the community should assume responsibility for ORGNOT. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
"Comes back to contribute"? CorporateM never left. Look at his user contributions. All of the comments concerning ORGNOT above are perfectly appropriate. "Conspiracy to manipulate Wikipedia"? Come on. Knock it off.
As long as we're focusing on it One aspect of this essay that we may want to consider is whether its title is too much like WP:NOT, which is policy. Essay header on top notwithstanding, I think it needs to be made crystal clear that this is not policy. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree, and I think that WP:COI needs to address essay-writing by paid editors, A blanket discouragement sounds like a good idea, and CorporateM's most recent response points in that direction. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I also think essays written by COIs should be on user pages and only moved to mainspace after a review and approval from the community. I think users will be less confused to the validity of an essay if it's on a userpage. Z1720 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, good point, that is what I was referring to, essays in mainspace. Coretheapple (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It should be on a user page. The main problem with it, as Core pointed out, is the similarity to WP:NOT. That gives the impression of strong support, despite the essay tag. SarahSV (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Since CorporateM has washed his hands of the matter (Please proceed however you wish without me.) I suggest that it be moved to his user space as a sub page. I would do so but I don't quite know how. Coretheapple (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
There have been discussions on the talk page (in 2014) that suggest there might be some controversy in making this move. I started a Requested move discussion here to achieve consensus on the move (and the new page title). Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I think changing the title is important and should be done immediately as a preliminary first step. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sholam Weiss

The article on Sholam Weiss, recently the subject of a presidential pardon, is a mess. It appears to be subject to extensive COI editing and the lengthy list of maintenance tags, added by another editor, speaks for itself. It requires experienced eyes. Note that it is tagged for paid editing, though I did not place that tag and am unclear as to its basis. I have commenced a discussion on the Talk page about starting over from scratch. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I did a pass at the article and removed a lot of offtopic and COI information. I moved lots of information from the lede to the body of the article. I could not access the New York Times articles today so I was hesitant to assess that information. I hope others will take a look at this to help improve the article, especially because the "Best Review" magazine article has some business jargon that I struggled to understand. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Z1720 Yes that helped a great deal, and your editing encouraged me to dive in and deal with other issues. But now, as you know, the article is under attack by IPs and SPAs intent on whitewashing the subject matter. Previous COI editing has beset this article in the past and rendered it a disgrace. I have requested semiprotection at WP:RPP. I hatted my discussion on stubbing the article as it no longer seems necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Yossischlussel:, if you have concerns about something in the article, please discuss it on the talk page. This helps other editors assess if the information should be kept or added to the article. Also, please do not engage in personal attacks. Instead, focus on the content that is the problem, not analysing the bias of an editor. Z1720 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Yossischlussel: If there is "false information" you need to specify just what is "false" about it, not sling mud about "false information" and "slander." Whether you are a "journalist" or not and whether or not you have "studied" Weiss is immaterial. If you had perused Wikipedia's rules as I recommended previously, you would have seen that original research is not permitted. Edits such as this do not remove "false information." They remove properly sourced text, from The New York Times and Washington Post, that is unflattering to the subject. Of course it is unflattering. He was convicted of multiple felonies and sentenced to 845 years in prison, which was imposed as he fled the country and galivanted through Europe and South America. Your edits have the effect and the obvious intent of whitewashing the article subject.
I note that in the edit linked above[6] you changed text to mischaracterize what is stated in the source (The New York Times), changing "Weiss and others" to "its owners." If you have a complaint with The New York Times, take it up with the New York Times. Such editing is unacceptable and must cease. The article has a long history of that. I note that a few weeks ago the article was tagged for "paid editing" by one of a previous cohort of editors who were coping with rampant POV editing in this article. So please spare us the lectures and insults and desist from your tendentious editing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd certainly say that this edit by @Yossischlussel: is totally biased, to the point of just denying reality. Semi-protecting the article would help. Letting the Weiss propaganda machine know that denying reality is not acceptable and will be dealt with swiftly and vigorously would be even better. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I did another pass at the article. Some sections were biased for Weiss, others were biased against. I tried cleaning up the language to avoid labels and reduce the amount of direct quotes from the articles. I also tried presenting the language in a disinterested tone as recommended in WP:WIKIVOICE. Can another, uninvolved editor, take a look at the article and see if we can remove the tags at the top? Also, I agree with Smallbones above a semi-protection of this article might be warranted but I think there's some biased language happening both for and against Weiss. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The "paid editing" tag was placed there by an editor some time back because of overt POV editing in this article that was clearly on behalf of the Weiss propaganda campaign. I became involved in this article all of five days ago. The tag was removed by me after the article was cleaned up, and was just reinserted by an IP with the following edit summary: Undid revision 1003178681 by Coretheapple (talk) Coretheapple appears to be a paid contributor from Mr. Weiss's enemies. He should be banned from this page. His edits are libel and vandalism against a living person. The same IP attacked me on my talk page a few days ago. [7] Let's be fair but not wear blinders. Coretheapple (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Coretheapple: I am sorry if my comments implied that you are a paid editor. It was not my intention but that's on me; it's my responsibility to ensure I'm clear in my comments. I saw @74.65.205.121:'s edit summary on my watchlist earlier today and was going to send a warning to but felt like that might inflame the situation. I am still concerned that the article is still not NPOV and would still like a non-involved editor to read through the prose again, and think the article needs to be protected to cool down the rampant POV-pushing that's happening. In the meantime, perhaps we can replace the paid tag with a POV tag? Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: Yes, that was the implication. I appreciate your apology, but I did not appreciate that and your ignoring of the edit summary and of the behavior of the IPs and SPA on this page. In addition to my concern over that edit summary, I have to say with all frankness that I don't think you improved the article. The version that you rewrote can be found here. You removed a cogent explanation of the fraud that was quoted from the Times, and we really should be discussing that on the talk page and not here, as the content of the article is beyond the scope of the COI notice board. Also your suggestion, which you put on the talk page, to remove a hunk of text favorable to Weiss makes no sense at all to be honest. Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the tags as the edit summary indicates they were placed there in bad faith. Tags placed in an article for disruptive purposes are removed, full stop. Also I have reinstated the previous explanation of the fraud as I think as rewritten it is dramatically less useful to the reader and also contains an inaccuracy at the top. Let's go to the talk page to discuss this. If you feel there are remaining POV issues, that is the place to make the case, not here. Coretheapple (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I honestly have no particular horse in the oage, but considering the length of time COI editing has been taking place on that article (dating back to 2009 if the talk page is to be believed), this might honestly be worth an ECE protection. The user who I was dealing with was happy to edit war me and 2 other people. When blocked, they revived a bunch of socks so if anything, it's clear there are some individuals who are really invested in making sure they own the article. I don't have the time frankly to babysit that page, and IDK if anyone else does either... BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx))) 17:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sholam Weiss has been semiprotrected for two months. However, I see that National Heritage Life Insurance Company, the article on the company that Weiss looted, is in much the same state as Sholam Weiss a week ago due to determined COI editing, and unfortunately requires a top-to-bottom rewrite, for which I note it has already been tagged. I concur with BrxBrx that these kinds of extreme COI situations pose an unfair burden on editors. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Note that User:HershyMarton, an account purporting to be the nephew of the subject. has admitted to carrying out IP editing in this article. See [8]. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Coretheapple My efforts had nothing to do with IP editing, I have discussed your bias and vandalism against my uncle on social media and on chat rooms. If anyone did anything against wiki rules, it has nothing to do with me. HershyMarton (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)— HershyMarton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You must really have your hands full when it comes to "bias and vandalism." Did you catch the American Greed episode that ran last week on CNBC? Coretheapple (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The american greed show is not journalism and is a very poor production. yes, its filled with bias, slander and defamation. I cannot run around all day correcting defamation. HershyMarton (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@HershyMarton: Please see WP:MEAT regarding seeking assistance outside of Wikipedia to whitewash the article, and please note the following in that policy: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Ian Nicholas

Mona1975's very first edits back in 2009 declared,in the edit summary, that she is Thomas Ian Nicholas' mother. Since then they have contributed 45 edits to Thomas Ian Nicholas (10% of the total edits made to the page).

They obviously keenly understand WP:COI, since when Melcous warned them for COI, they said "I ended up watching (themovie) Adverse and I am obsessed with finding out more information about the creative team behind it. In doing research I noticed some things that needed updating on the wiki site. Anyway, liking someones work makes me research them and then want others to know the info that I have found by updating the wiki page. I don't think that it means there is a COI. Please help me get better at this wiki site. It's so very confusing."

They've also made a dozen or so edits to DJ Colette, the spouse of Thomas Ian Nicholas.

So, to sum up: article subject's mother needs WP:PBLOCK on Thomas Ian Nicholas and DJ Colette. Possibly (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Mona1975 lied about the underlying reason for her interest in those articles, but the actual editing that she is doing isn't so bad as to deserve a block. And she seems eager to learn how to be a better editor, talking with me about the issue at my talk page: User talk:Binksternet#Thomas Ian Nicholas.
I have been looking at her edits, and the great majority are neutral enough to let them pass. There was one where she added Nicholas to a film entry even though he had a smaller supporting role in the film, not worthy of having his name listed along with the stars. I fixed that, of course, and I'm looking through the rest.
I think we can work with Mona1975 to get her up to speed on what is non-neutral. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of getting her up to speed on WP:NPOV, I would suggest the editor needs to be encouraged to be honest and properly disclose her conflict of interest, and agree to use talk pages rather than directly editing them. Melcous (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

OneCoin

At [9] he denies having WP:COI. However, his first edit is suspect of COI: [10]. I.e. he tried to pull the wool over our eyes about the true nature of OneCoin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sisense

This is a promotional article about a software company. I added an "advert" tag (the lead especially is full of buzz-words). The editor removed the tag. I restored it and added a COI notice on their TP. There has been no response, but an IP removed the tag again. MB 16:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@MB: which user are you referring to? Don't forget to notify them per the process at the top of this page. Possibly (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I did notify them. What I didn't do was put the name here. Now fixed. MB 01:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a UPE coming in and removing it. I've left some warnings. scope_creepTalk 00:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Alphonso David

This user has repeatedly added copyrighted photos from the Associated Press and other websites to the article without evidence of permission and made other edits to the BLP. I strongly suspect this user is William Whitmire, a Communications Coordinator for the Human Rights Campaign. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Article tagged for UPE, and warned about UPE on talk page. Possibly (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile, over on Commons: "I am using pictures that I have gotten express permission from the author to use... (signed) William Whitmire." Possibly (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
He has now put the Paid user template on his user page. 49.144.195.51 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco

I noticed signs of corporate advocacy/public relations editing on the article Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco and there were signs suggesting it was paid editing, so per the template documentation, I tagged it as UPE. Signs include a single purpose account User:Jay94103 adding huge amount of information, then leaving after they've done this. The article's creator objected and suggested the matter be reported here, so here it is. The creator did voluntarily disclose in the talk page that they were an employee of the organization at the time they created the article. I've also noticed they created pages on organizations closely related to this organization, so listed those as well. The article creator noted in the talk page they've voluntarily contacted the subject organization's executive director and says they were told the ED wasn't aware of "employees" editing. But suppose it was edited by a public relations firm and they still technically wouldn't be an employee. I am not sure what to make of the SPA account Jay94103, so I'll seek input here. Graywalls (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I recommended on Pathawi's talk page that they put a COI declaration on their userpage. Jay94103 hasn't edited since August 2019 so I didn't post a request on their page, and I don't suggest further action with them right now. I'll do a copyedit of Coalition on Homelessness for PROMO/UNDUE language of the and nominate it for AfD if I think it's not notable. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Finished my copyedit of Coalition, but would like a second opinion before removing the tags at the top. There's a discussion on Talk:Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco about its notability and if it should be nominated for AfD. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I also removed more self-serving claims, like how they established shelter grievance policy. There's no unaffiliated reliable sources crediting them to suggesting talking about it on this particular article and giving them creds is a due inclusion. Per WP:ABOUTSELF article contents can't be based primarily on their own contents. Paul Boden's book published on Freedom Voices(seemingly vanity) or Street Sheets wouldn't be considered secondary independent. I think enough has been trimmed off to justify UPE tag, however the notability is still up in the air. Graywalls (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The article's creator is now saying on the article's page that while they were an employee, they created an article, but they weren't created as "as an employee" and the "weren't paid" to create the article. While there is WP:AGF, if this was to be accepted as catch all phrase, every editor suspected of paid editing would say it to get the tag removed. They're objecting to the connected contributor (paid) banner. Supposing this is the case, I can't make sense why they were so concerned about the now removed (Undisclosed paid editor) tag in the actual article itself that they (said) they actually emailed the executive director of the organization. If they weren't paid to edit the article, then the article got tagged paid, does it sense that they'd email the article subject's company and ask if other "employees" were paid to edit? To me, all the hassle behind it suggests it's a bit more complicated than some employee working there that just chose to create the page of boredom entirely on their own term. I think I bounce it off of other editors for input Graywalls (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm the article's creator. The above summary is essentially accurate on factual matters: I created the page in 2007 when I was an employee of the Coalition on Homelessness. I have not edited it since 2010. I have commented twice on the talk page in the past 24 hours & in both comments have mentioned my prior employment status. These two comments are my only contributions to the talk page. I last worked at the Coalition on Homelessness in 2016. All of this information is on the article's talk page, where I posted it explicitly as a matter of disclosure because I think that openness about conflicts of interest matters: I was not accused of having a conflict of interest until I disclosed this information, nor was I asked.
As mentioned, I created the article while an employee, but creating the article was not part of my job (nor, later, was editing). I do not believe that any other employee, volunteer, or member of the board had knowledge of my Wikipedia editing before I e-mailed the executive director today—fourteen years after the fact. On the talk page—where the banner in question appears—my only contributions come five years after I was last paid by the organisation. I object to the Connected contributor (paid) banner in question because: 1) I think that it is inaccurate; 2) I think that it makes an organisation I care about look bad. Those are my motivations, & there's not really anything more complicated than that going on. You, of course, only have to care about the former concern:
The template for the Connected contributor (paid) banner states that it is to be used 'with users who are being paid to contribute to Wikipedia', while the Connected contributor template is to be used in other cases 'including financial conflict of interest that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia'. WP:FCOI makes it clear that this sort of financial conflict of interest includes employment. The Connected contributor banner seems to me accurate: While I haven't been involved with the Coalition on Homelessness in half a decade, I do have a long history of involvement. I think it's a good organisation that does good work, & I am proud of the work that I did there. I am clearly not a disinterested party. But neither am I, nor was I ever, a paid editor.
I don't think that Graywalls or anyone else needs to "make sense" of my motivations in order to edit appropriately. The only evidence of my conflict of interest is my disclosure that I have a conflict of interest. I don't think that my involvement is all that complicated: People engage articles in which they have interests for reasons other than money. I am fine with being characterised as an interested party where I'm an interested party. I am objecting to the allegation that the Coalition on Homelessness pays people to edit Wikipedia when I believe that that is not true. My request is that Graywalls (or any other editor) remove the banner which states that I am a paid contributor. I have no objection to the general Connected contributor banner.
One final small clarification seems important to me because of the time frame involved: At the time that I created the article, the Conflict of Interest Guideline did not give clear instruction to declare a COI, but instead listed the pros & cons of so doing. If I were to create such an article in 2021, I would declare a conflict of interest at the outset. I suspect it did not even cross my mind in 2007, but I don't honestly recall. In any case, I do not think that I behaved inappropriately by that time's standards. (I do think, on the other hand, that what I wrote fourteen years ago was a poorly written stub.) Pathawi (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls: It's possible that, while Pathawi was not paid to create or edit the article, they still feel an attachment and connection to the topic. That would explain why they created the article several years ago and why they don't want the article to have a paid-contributor tag. Considering that Pathawi is trying to fix the situation, instead of adding PROMO content like other paid-contributors try to do, I don't have any reason to think they are/were a paid contributor. I'm OK with Pathawi changing their ((Connected contributor (paid))) to ((Connected contributor)) on the talk page, as they clearly have a COI with this topic.
As for the paid tag, I've seen editors remove that tag after an article has been "fixed up" by non-COI editors by removing PROMO and trivial material. Since both of us fixed up the article last night (and thank you for doing that) I don't think the tag is appropriate for this article. In a different article, if an editor says, "I do have a COI but I wasn't paid to edit Wikipedia" then editors can evaluate that editor's contributions and change the tag to a COI tag, if appropriate. It's not an exact science, and I would assess it on a case-by-case basis. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720:, If you feel that it's appropriate to remove it, please do so. Please do keep in mind though, since salaried people are not paid by the hour or by specific item completion, this opens up a can of worms in the future for public relations and corporate dvocacy people to say "I wasn't paid TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA", because they were not paid specific task item payment for editing Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls: I don't think you need to worry about this. The policy is pretty clear. It would be good to read WP:PAID before over-applying this banner: People who are working in PR or corporate advocacy will always be covered, whether or not they received a specific directive to edit Wikipedia. If you think a different policy makes sense, then the available course is to attempt to change the policy. Pathawi (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

St. Cloud State University

Since 2009, Xylem22 has made over 500 edits and almost every one has been to St. Cloud State University with the other edits being closely related to that one subject. However, he or she has never edited a Talk page or responded to any questions, warnings, or other messages left on his or her Talk page. His or recent edits have been blatant violations of established policy and practice - adding external links to the body of the article - but he or she has persisted in reinserting those links with no regard for other editors or the policies and practices that do not allow them. ElKevbo (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Xylem22 repeatedly added WP:PROMO material on Feb. 18, including [11] [12] [13]. ElKevbo reverted their edits, [14] and Xylem tried to readd the info without discussion or a COI declaration [15]. Xylem hasn't edited since Feb. 18. I suggest Xylem be given a WP:TBAN against St. Cloud until the COI is addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I did a copyedit of the article and removed WP:PROMO material and mentions of non-notable coaches. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

AnatoliaOfficial

This account seems to be related to Anatolia College in an official capacity, or exists solely to promote the school via its WP page. It has only edited the Anatolia College page, and has been warned previously about WP policies relating to promotion of causes, companies, etc. Michail (blah) 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Reported to WP:UFAA and subsequently blocked. Possibly (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Perry A. Stambaugh

At what point should a COI template be removed? I trimmed everything from the article but the bare fact of his being a member of the state House of Representatives, and I'm being told the COI template has to remain. I've looked at the template documentation and the help page on maintenance templates and it looks like the COI should be removed now. Am I incorrect? Thanks for any help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The point of the COI and PAID tags is to ask editors to examine the article and fix any issues. Now that you have done that, the COI box can be removed. I've removed it. Possibly (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Klöckner & Co SE

Following this discussion [German] (Permalink to current version) I have blocked user:Rjsnf for undeclared paid editing on dewiki. It seems that the enwiki article was mostly written by them as well and still contains some marketing lingo, which is why I am raising this issue here. The undisclosed paid editing was subject of an online article in a German newsletter. Someone from a verified account belonging to Klöckner admitted that they contracted an agency to work on the article supposedly not knowing that they would violate the terms. Count Count (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Count Count, thanks for letting us know. I've blocked Rjsnf and tagged the article as undisclosed-paid. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Randall Miller

New to this process, but an admin suggested I submit this here. I noticed this user's edits were very close inline with previous personal efforts by the subject Randall Miller, who previous edited under Special:Contributions/138.229.220.3, to scrub relevant information about involvement in an industry accident. In this edit the former IP address makes the claim in the changelog that they are infact Randall Miller.

Although that IP stopped editing in March 2019, its last edit are virtually identical to the latest edits of this account (removing cited material, or adding family references), and the others bare similarity. Further, both IP addresses are within the same Charter Spectrum block and nearly adjacent 138.229.220 - 138.229.231, and both geolocate to Pasadena, CA, the subjects listed home city.

Lately, this user has blanked sections repeatedly, but it's worth noting that after the last revert they have made a couple cited additions. Strangerpete (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Strangerpete: Not a lot can be done about IP editors. They have to be pretty abusive to get blocked, and this one has only made a half dozen edits in the past six months. Possibly (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. It's pretty clear that they are WP:NOTHERE and only interested in removing negative and adding positive information about Miller to the article. I'd say a block is entirely appropriate considering that this pattern of editing has been going on for > 6 years and would enact it if I wasn't involved. SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I've pblocked the (rather static) IP from Randall Miller for a year for whitewashing and suspected COI. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tao Lin

User has been persistently reverting others to get the article to read the way they want. The edit pattern seems to show they're likely the subject himself or his agent. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

He is the best essayist of his generation apparently, so friends to kings, emperors, and presidents. I've not read any of his books, but I plan to. scope_creepTalk 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Lambcorn, your response here would be appreciated. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

James A. Lee

Appearance of autobiographical interest, creating both James A. Lee and Southern Reformed College and Seminary, and a tendency to add James A. Lee to related articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8804:65CA:7CE3:366C (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gave the editor a stern warning. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Angela Stanton-King

This article has been fairly quiet since the elections ended, with the occasional disruptive edit to remove the QAnon language. The past few days, an IP that geolocates to GA began removing large swaths of reliably sourced text that were negative of Stanton-King, while added some unsubstantiated and promotional-sounding language.[16][17] Today, a newly-registered user with a potentially relevant username reverted back to the IP's preferred version,[18] and then claimed on Peregrine Fisher's talkpage that they are, in fact, the article subject.[19] The claims about defamation, slander, and vandalism are fairly obvious cover for trying to whitewash the page, and I dropped a general COI notice and a DE warning about blanking RS material on their talkpage, but this user and the article may require some additional eyes. Grandpallama (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

pblocked the IP, wellknown-blocked the user. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing about a long-deceased relative

I've been contacted by an editor who wishes to write an article about a notable relative who died nearly 50 years ago. They've written a draft article, which is in good shape, and which I am happy to review and move to mainspace. My query here is whether they need to note a conflict of interest or the article talkpage given the relative is long-deceased. Cheers, Number 57 22:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Would they be writing the article if they weren't related? Cabayi (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: My 2¢ is that I don' think it matters how long someone has been deceased. I can remember two editors who were brought here for creating articles on relatives stretching back to the 19th century. Disclosure on the article talk page would be important, as without it that editor might be able to edit the mainspace article without disclosure some time in the future; it also points out a family interest in a presumably neutral article. It's not going to hurt anyone to include what you said above, along with the connected contributor template on the talk page. Possibly (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask them to add a note on the talk page. Cheers, Number 57 23:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This one wasn't for Tirey L. Ford Jr. was it..? Graywalls (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Luke Hughes and Company Limited

Suspected public relations, undisclosed for-consideration editing. The editing pattern on the editor on numerous pages appear to be promotional. They created the page on Luke's company and contributed the bulk of contents on Luke Hughes page. A handful of single purpose accounts were used on Luke Hughes page. A different editor also raised COI/UPE concerns on this editor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marielle_Legair Graywalls (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a straight up advertising/brochure article. I've reduced it somewhat as it is full of WP:PUFF and fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. There is no doubt there is some kind of COI or possibly a UPE here. The advertising in the lede is an indication, which is a new thing I've started to see in the last few months. It is not sufficient to just have the article now, the needed content must be in the lede, so it is prominently displayed by Google. I've seen it several times now. scope_creepTalk 13:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It certainly looks like the editor had a coi or was more likely paid. The editor was largely working, left in March 2017 then came back in May 2019 to start updating first the company and then in May 2020 the BLP. In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marielle Legair it stated that he knew the GPA of the person, which wasn't visible in the sources. scope_creepTalk 14:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I haven't done any pre-AfD research yet, but it's quite likely that they're not notable enough to warrant an article on the company, and the person and should be merged at the very least. Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've checked the first half a dozen online references, I use the term reference in the loosest possible terms, they don't address the claims made in the preceding text, they're tangential to the actual claim that needs verifying. If the offline sources are as ropey as the few online one's I've checked... So far this article looks like a bad case of reference stuffing. - X201 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Which one exactly? I think I will need to take it to Afd. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the company article. (Failure to properly reference the correct item must be catching) :) - 17:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've posted it to the Afd queue. I had a look at the first block of references, this morning. It didn't inspire confidence. The BLP is definitely notable. scope_creepTalk 17:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Graywalls I can categorically state all my edits are done off my own back with nothing untoward (such as payments - both direct or indirect) as you continue to suggest. You've already been chided by another editor for you over-zealous behaviour so suggest that you calm down and cease the campaign against me. Bamberini8 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bamberini: apologies if you have already answered this, but do you have any kind of business or personal relationship with Luke Hughes or the Luke Hughes company? It's a fair question because you uploaded a quite high resolution image of Hughes' studio and called it your own work, along with a portrait of Hughes. There's also this 2.5MB image of Hughes climbing a cliff, and this 2,8MB image of Hughes traversing a crevasse. There is also this 17.1MB (!) image of Hughes climbing that you uploaded. You called all these images your own work. I'm just trying to understand how you got these high-resolution images?Possibly (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
comment so I asked a question about threshold of when it's proper to tag an article UPE, because the template's instructions say "appears to be" is the threshold and I'm trying to clarify just how concrete "appears to be" needs to be. Rather than continuing to repeatedly revert the tag back-on, I brought the matter here. The editor, which I believe to be COI is alleging that This character is deleting pretty much all of my profiles and engaging other Wikipedia bullies to do so. Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Standard_of_evidence_needed_to_tag_article_for_suspected_UPE Graywalls (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
There's enough evidence to block for UPE in this thread, and I have done so. MER-C 19:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@MER-C: Good work!! scope_creepTalk 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:John Yeong

The title of the draft and the username of the user are clearly the same with little bit difference. The draft was created today. The editor seems to be closely related to the article. I suspect if the editor uses Wikipedia for promotion or advertising.–Kamilalibhat ⟨talk⟩ 16:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I asked Thejohnyeong about a possible COI on their talk page. The draft is currently at AfC for review. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Z1720, Thejohnyeong haven't yet answered. –Kamilalibhat ⟨talk⟩ 09:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kamilalibhat: Thejohnyeong has not edited since Feb 24. If they return, please post here and we will follow up. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

XOXO (festival)

The issue came to my attention after seeing his user page. He, and his business partner (disclosure made by the COI/U on their own user page) hosts XOXO festival together. I am concerned that he's created and authored significant chunk of his business partner's Wikipedia biography page and that he has been maintaining their business page, XOXO festival in more of a webmaster/curator type role for some length of time. The kind of extensive direct editing that is discouraged even if disclosed. The latest major addition is essentially uncited, and even if properly cited, the encyclopedic value is questionable and my opinion is that the page is serving more as just another social media platform for the festival/conference that chronicles their event/show biz activity than a genuine encyclopedia entry. Additionally, he edited his own biography to change the picture of himself to the version he prefers. I am posting it here for outside opinion on the situation, and to make necessary corrections to ensure they're encyclopedic rather than social media platform on which the article subject exerts considerable control. Graywalls (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Xtools says Waxpancake is responsible for 58% of the content on the 30kb XOXO festival page, so obviously that has got to stop. He has made a COI but not a PAID disclosure on his user page. Possibly (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The page he created on his XOXO business partner is also a significant issue. 90% authorship of the partner's biography is written by Waxpancake Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
And on the Wikipedia page of himself Andy Baio, I thought it was improper that the subject himself chose a photo of himself he liked better. Someone else reverted me saying more recent, higher quality, but still, the picture ends up being the one the subject selected. From COI point of view, I think it's best to keep the photo that was put in there by someone that's not the subject. Thoughts? The subject himself also moved his own page from Andy Baio (blogger) to Andy Baio, a self-curation that's rather inappropriate. Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I did some major trims to the festival page and to Andy McMillan. There might be a notability question for Andy McMillan (designer). The promotional text added by Waxpancake generally related to the festival on both of these pages, and was very clearly designed to paint a pretty picture. Possibly (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah and I think the change of his own picture appears to have been an attempt to present himself more flattering. Since another editor reverted my revert, I'm a bit hesitant to revert back to pre self-editing photo. Do you think the other editor's justification trumps the avoiding COI by using a picture not chosen by the subject himself? Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
the photo sounds like a discussion for the talk page. Possibly (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
More