Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Btphelps (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 25 March 2024 (→User: btphelps with regard to Béla H. Bánáthy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Chronotype
    Talk:Circadian rhythm
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Gene–environment correlation
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Grammarly
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Night owl
    Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Sophia Genetics
    Talk:Mitchell L.R. Walker

    I found a page on the website of a paid editing agency, which lists the following articles as created by them:

    The pages should be checked for policy violations. It should also be checked whether authors have declared being paid. Janhrach (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vishen Lakhiani: Created by Taniasafuan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account, unsuccessfully nominated for AfD, suspected sock: Princesstowarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Janhrach (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are already a known and globally banned entity, see Wikipedia:List_of_paid_editing_companies#Wikibusiness. It's not unusual for such agencies to list articles they did not actually have a hand in creating, none-the-less it is a good idea to check them. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will check them one-by-one. Even if they aren't created by Wikibusines, the circumstances of the creation of this one are very suspicious. I have nominated it for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Andreas Umland: created by Stonepillar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), large edits by Миша историк (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Inkitrinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), COI edits by Andreumland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This article is ambiguous, I am leaving this to other editors. Janhrach (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I Sent Qonto (neobank) and Adjarabet to Afd. scope_creepTalk 13:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Qonto (neobank) was created by Pcheetpcheet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single-purpose account, clearly gamed the system to get the article out of userspace. Janhrach (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has edits to other Wikimedia wikis, I will review this later. Janhrach (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified other wikis of this user. Janhrach (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjarabet was created by Hubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – a single-purpose account, gaming the system. Notable edits by Lemonisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter is unlikely to be paid. The former has edits to Wikidata and kawiki (over 2000!). kawiki should be notified of this. Janhrach (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    kawiki notified of Hubble. Wikidata edits look good-faith, though most are related to interwiki links to kawiki or labels in Georgian, so I am not sure. Janhrach (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Radmila Lolly was created by Darthvader2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), notable contributions by Octopuspresents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is possible that the former one is paid. They have nearly 40,000 contributions to eswiki, but were banned on Commons for sockpuppetry. Needs more investigation. We should, however, AGF of the editor until it is proven otherwise. Janhrach (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, I don't see any other evidence of Darthvader2 being paid, which means they probably aren't. The article itself is okay and shouldn't be deleted. Janhrach (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a previous, deleted version of Radmila Lolly, which was substantially different from the current one. This means that the current one was probably not created by Wikibusines. Janhrach (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lege Kale – probable COI edits by Malikkeith96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Legekale1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Edits by User858985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be noted. Janhrach (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maineywhiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also appears to have a COI. Janhrach (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Udokan Copper: created by several IPs. Nominating for PROD based on logs. Janhrach (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Depositphotos: notable edits by Миша историк (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created by Mallboro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From the edits of the latter, it is evident that they wanted to promote the company. The article itself is okay. Janhrach (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Candy Crush Saga: history full of vandalism, investigating paid edits is not worth it. Janhrach (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Luxair – I didn't find anything suspicious, except minor edits by a user named Gregori-luxair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot, there were many anonymous edits. Of course, I didn't check them all. Janhrach (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Derrick Rossi – important edits by Josephine1915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Magnovvig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 109.255.90.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). From the first look, none of these seem to be from Wikibusines. Who I am more concerned about is the creator of the article, Granolalover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edits should be checked. Janhrach (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: Two links were added to the Wikibusines website: Nuvei and Cabify. Janhrach (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuvei was created by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is extremely unlikely to be a paid editor. Notable contributions by LinesAlongACoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single-purpose account. Unusually high number of editors blocked for sockpuppetry have made edits to the article. Janhrach (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabify was created by a single purpose account S5J57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fonsify (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited this article and disclosed COI. The former has been active cross-wiki and followed the same pattern as many accounts listed above. Janhrach (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked Миша историк (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as a Bodiadub sock. Confirmed Wikibusines articles: Depositphotos and Oleksandra Masiuk (deleted G5). MER-C 18:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MER-C: This is very surprising, considering the age of the account and its edit count. Is there further evidence? How did you come to know about the latter article being created by Wikibusines? Why isn't the account globally locked? Janhrach (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a specific historical behavioral indication on both of those articles I linked. MER-C 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MER-C: Thanks. I was also suspicious when I saw this user, who has just over 1000 edits, two times in the history of the above articles, but I let that be, because the creators (or substatial contributors) of the other articles listed above disappeared after creating their first article, unlike this user. I tried to assume good faith and (falsely) convinced myself they aren't paid.
    Sorry for asking again, but my question still hasn't been answered. Should a global lock be requested, as the user has many contributions to other Wikipedias? Or was a global lock declined? Janhrach (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found it's harder to get an account locked blocking without an SPI. You're free to request one. MER-C 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and wikibusiness are known for the attempts to buy accounts. so Миша историк account could be not theirs from the start but we prob never know for sure Anntinomy (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of clients differs for the site version in Ukrainian. Adding English versions of those articles for closer look

    --Anntinomy (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anntinomy: Thanks! I will check them later, I didn't have much time recently and I won't have in the close future. Have you notified ukwiki? Janhrach (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If to speak about this list, topics are notable, with contributions from many editors, promotional edits in ukwiki were mostly reverted. Generally, Ukrainian community is aware about WB. It seems they've been oriented to work more in non-Ukrainian wikis in recent years. Anntinomy (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alina Pash – nothing suspicious. Janhrach (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chernobyl (miniseries) has a large number of revisions (over 1500), I am not going to check this unless the other articles show a high level of paid editing. Janhrach (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Glovo – like an ad, almost certainly created in COI, edited by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g. Mapevi21cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lesterpremnoronha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Silpo – nothing suspicious. Janhrach (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – too many edits to be checked, and too visible for paid edits to survive, in my opinion. I am skipping this article. Janhrach (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bolt (company) – highly likely edited for pay, edited by a known WB sock. Other unbanned editors I suspect include anons and Dariastaverska, Ijustwanttoeditwiki and Whatwherehow. Janhrach (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nova Poshta – edits by known WB socks: PatokaT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (W)rid(t)ing High (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Recent spamming by 109.86.177.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Janhrach (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gulliver (building) – nothing suspicious. Janhrach (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zhan Beleniuk – nothing particularly suspicious. Minor edits by two blocked editors engaged in sockpuppetry: Miha2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AyodeleA1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The former is known to be paid. Janhrach (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin help needed

    Logs indicate that Radmila Lolly was deleted previously. Please check if the current article isn't a re-creation of the deleted one. Thank you. Janhrach (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have restored the deleted revisions. The old version and the new version look pretty different to me. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Janhrach (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Big Sur, California area touristy contents

    Resolved
     – At best very premature. CoI not demonstrated with substantive evidence, nor has there been an effort on the talk page; cultivating pet articles is not only normal behavior, but even encouraged by special awards. Our CoI policy exists to stop paid or self-related abuse, not to suppress editors' personal interests. Discussion looks pretty stale, so dismiss without prejudice.

    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The user Btphelps created the article Ventana Wilderness Alliance. After I checked insource:https://www.ventanawild.org/, there are 22 articles sourced to it. I have not checked all 22, but they mostly appear to have been linked to by Btphelps. I've removed tourism guide like contents added by same user fom numerous Big Sur, California adjacent articles that were sourced to traveling resource sites. They've also used https:///plaskett.family source in numerous articles. I've since removed them, but no other users have added that link. I am seeing possible COI of promoting tourism activity in the area. Graywalls (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At the top of this page is "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...." Where did that happen? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While you have a valid point, I posted this here as "This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI)" is one of the things editors can consult here for. Graywalls (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Graywalls, you have not raised a COI issue on my talk page, merely disputed a source I used. You've invented a red herring when you suggest my contributions about Big Sur are a conflict of interest. That would assume I would somehow benefit from the articles I've written about the region, perhaps because I own a business there or as a member of an organization that would somehow benefit from mention on WP. Do you have ANY such evidence? Or are you just stirring up unnecessary trouble for me and admins? Please provide immediate concrete evidence of a COI. Otherwise this discussion should be immediately closed.
    As far as the source you are referring to, the content was written by a member of a pioneer family who settled the Big Sur region in the late 1800s. These stories were written by Mabel Plaskett in a series of articles published in the King City Rustler in November of 1962 titled "History of Coast Schools" and reproduced on the website. If you weren't in such a rush to be the hero in removing content sourced from what you regard as a "blog", you might find some merit in the content. Her first person accounts of life there are analogous to a WWII soldier's stories about combat. Only the subject is much less studied. Her recollections are considered a reliable history of that area by California scholars.
    FYI, her death notice describes Mabel as a "well-known county journalist." Mrs plaskett, Journalist, Poet, Dies in King City
    I am meanwhile attempting to locate the newspaper and other sources. Please refrain from further preemptive, rogue edits and cease your attempts to smear my character, my many years of reliable contributions to WO, and attacks on my reputation. This unnecessary report of a COI and unfounded attack on me along with your rash deletion of content without discussion are in part why so many good editors leave WP. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Btphelps:, I acknowledge. I should have engaged you on your talk page first. Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I accept that I didn't communicate to you as I should have, I would like to add that in addition to Plaskett.family link you added, the various resort and business links you've added and tourism advocacy type contents you've placed is a reasonable cause of concern for promotional or COI editing. Graywalls (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @RadioactiveBoulevardier:, could you reopen it? Addition concerns were just found, involving UPE. Please see White Stag Leadership Development Program Graywalls (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Firewall

    This editor has admitted on Wikipedia that they are Robert C. Michelson, a leading American engineer. They have an extensive history of creating and editing articles with which they have a personal/financial COI with. They have subsequently ignored requests to tag either their userpage or the article talk pages per WP:DISCLOSE. The articles are as follows:

    What are the next steps? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The lack of user-page disclosure here is disturbing to me, after creating (and nursing to GA) an article about himself, then more recently creating a blatantly resume-like article about his son, just for starters. Pinging @Materialscientist: who passed the GA on his autobiography back in 2009 and has more expertise in this subject area to see if they have any comment. Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IcemanCalvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be connected to William Stuart Michelson, which is now at AfD; they have admitted a connection with the article and yet are still attempting to add promotional content to the page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that. I was think of opening an SPI. The other editor turned up minutes after I left the message at Editor Firewall talk page, to !vote in the Afd. They are definitely connected. They seems to be upstanding academics who want want to support their mate. scope_creepTalk 18:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Faltu Katha (possible upe)

    It appears that the user Faltu Katha may be an undisclosed paid editor. Initially, they created Sarsagun Patrika and subsequently attempted to remove the AfD tag multiple times. Moreover, they moved Draft:PetPair to the main namespace. Considering that Draft:PetPair was originally created by a user with a conflict of interest, it raises suspicion that user Faltu Katha might have been hired after the submission was declined. A paid warning was left on their user talk page; however, instead of responding, they removed all content from their talk page. Given their lack of response to warnings, it is necessary to address this issue here. Pinging @Wikishovel:, if they want to add anything. GSS 💬 16:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I had the same concerns when I saw the move to main space of the draft, as well as the editor's abrupt blanking of GSS' polite requests for clarification at user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller blocked Faltu Katha (talk · contribs) on 12 March for undisclosed paid editing. Since then, three sockpuppet investigations have been submitted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faltu Katha for Wikilovery (talk · contribs), who I have just blocked for being an improperly recruited account of Faltu Katha that has engaged in undisclosed paid editing and permission gaming. — Newslinger talk 05:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    StandardAero

    Likely the same user as both have had identical copyright violations revdel'd. While both have been COI warned by multiple editors, 174.67.126.98 continues to edit StandardAero even after implicitly admitting COI. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gavin Fields

    New editor User:Gradock has explained here at Talk:Gavin Fields their rationale for creating this biography of Gavin Fields, along with a film article connected with Fields. Gradock has created both in apparent good faith, and is attempting to abide by WP:COI guidelines, but there are at least two outstanding problems: the first is that both articles should have been created in draft and submitted through WP:AFC; the second is that copyright permission for the photos mentioned in that talk page discussion above must be sorted out as outlined in WP:IOWN. I'd like to fix these problems in a non-WP:BITE-y way, as the new editor is clearly keen to do things correctly. Could I get some help with this please? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ciner Group

    You say you do not have a conflict of interest but you have mainly edited articles about companies, and sometimes people such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turgay_Ciner&diff=1168434614&oldid=1142808892 about the owner of the company. Also you removed without explaining why info I had added about the company greenhouse gas emissions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chidgk1 You will see I make many edits to articles relating to dozens of companies, all over the world - in various industry sectors. If you're saying: "mainly edited articles about companies", is the proof for your baseless allegation, then before you proceed with this, I would politely ask you provide this discussion with clear and incontrovertible evidence of a CoI on my part. Thank you. Natural justice EastThermopolis (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know anything about you outside of Wikipedia and I have not looked into your edits on other company articles, but the comment for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ciner_Group&diff=1165795779&oldid=1165014025 merely mentioned adding info but removed a fact (being on the Global Coal Exit List) which might reflect badly on the company Chidgk1 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For background info - there was a discussion about another article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Farkhad_Akhmedov Chidgk1 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @EastThermopolis: Your edits to this article added press release material. I can see from your user talk page that multiple editors have questioned your apparent conflicts of interest. We do not have to present proof of your conflict, rather you are legally obligated to tell is of your conflicts of interest. The matter has been brought to this noticeboard to crowdsource investigation as you've been opaque on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris troutman I look forward to putting a robust defence against your baseless CoI allegations / hunches. Thanks for pointing out my legal "obligations". I'm sure therefore, you will want to adhere to the principles of Natural justice, when investigating this matter. Thank you. EastThermopolis (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick question for you…
    On how many different articles have your major edits resulted in other editors raising issues such as, say, adding apparently promotional material, adding material sourced to the subject, removing properly sourced material, etc.? Axad12 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Okay, I'll answer my own question.)
    I make it 6.
    The 3 articles mentioned above...
    Plus a further 2 articles (both created by the user) discussed on the user’s talk page: ACF Investment Bank (since deleted, described as “unambiguous advertising”) and Digitalbox (draft rejected for, amongst other reasons, “reads […] like an advertisement”).
    Plus Zenus Bank where half of the article the user created was later removed to ‘tone down promotional material’.
    The user’s main activity on Wikipedia has been 100s of formulaic small edits about company acquisitions and 100s of individuals added (one by one) to lists of ‘Notable People from […]. If you look beyond that, however, the problematic edits on the 6 articles above represent a significant proportion of the editor’s more sizable edits. They cover a period from Sept 2021 onwards, but despite feedback from other editors the issues seem to persist. Axad12 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a recurring pattern to the user’s contribution history which other editors/admins may wish to have a look at.
    The background noise of small edits on company acquisitions etc tends to turn on and off and to ramp up at certain points. There are lengthy periods with very few edits, followed by a large edit (or a series of large edits) which other editors later find problematic for promo reasons. The large edit is then closely followed by a large number of small uncontroversial edits on a wide range of articles (usually restricted to a single broad subject area). For example:
    • Jan-mid Sept 2021 - 7 edits in 8.5 months,
    • later Sept-Dec 2021 – a series of large edits (later described by user Snooganssnoogans (currently Thenightaway) in March 22 as ‘I'm struggling to understand why a non-WP:COI account would make these edits’.[1])
    • first half of Dec 2021 - suddenly 100+ edits (Mostly formulaically presented world news items, consisting of ‘On [date X], [one sentence], [link]’.)
    Or…
    • Jun-Sept 2022 - 5 edits in 4 months,
    • Oct 2022 - new page created for Zenus Bank (half of which was later removed in Jan 24 by user Mean as custard to ‘tone down promotional material’.[2])
    • first half of Nov 2022 - suddenly 200+ edits (Mostly individuals being added one by one to lists of ‘Notable people from [place X]’.)
    Or…
    • Mar-mid July 2023 - 3 edits in 4.5 months,
    • mid July-very early August 2023 – the large edits on Ciner Group and Turgay Ciner recently flagged above by Chidgk1 (some of the edit to the former of those articles was deleted within an hour of being made for ‘puffery’ and tagged as reading like an advertisement[3] .
    • August 23 - suddenly 100+ edits. (Mostly formulaic items on company acquisitions consisting of ‘In [month/year], it was announced that [company X] had acquired the [city Y]-based [company Z] for [$amount], [link]’.)
    A similar cycle may have commenced recently after a quiet period from Nov 23 to Feb 24. A new article was created in early March 24, followed by the recommencement of formulaic acquisition-related edits.
    As I say, the situation would probably benefit from others having a look at the contribution history to see what they think. Axad12 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence of conflict of interest. There are occasional problematic edits but these should be dealt with on their own merits rather than trying to suggest a pattern of conspiracy. . .Mean as custard (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All that the user has offered in their defence (here or previously) is denials that they have a COI, plus requests for proof of COI, and a general refusal to accept that material that appears to be promotional is in any way problematic.
    However, edits that appear promotional are a problem even in the absence of a demonstrable COI.
    There needs to be some acknowledgement from the user that a number of their larger edits have been significantly outside of policy. E.g. they could undertake not to make any further breaches of WP:NOTPROMO (or similar) and not to make any further removals of properly sourced material.
    If the user has no COI then what possible objection could they have to such a request? Axad12 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Sullivan (journalist)

    Both Kevin Sullivan (journalist) and Mary Jordan (journalist) were created by a SPA, Lindsey M Anderson, back in 2011. That account never edited again. Since that time, a series of SPAs only edit these two articles and only to add blatantly promotional material.

    Today was the most recent instance when Kennelis made edits to each article. When I reverted them and gave a COI warning, Lisakennedyy was created and duplicated the same edits (compare this and this.)

    I created a sockpuppet investigation but I could really use some extra eyes to see what needs to be removed from these two articles. Much of it is completely unsourced. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After reporting this, Lisakennedyy returned to blank the COI tags on both articles. [4] [5] with an edit summary of "Resolved issues" even though they have done nothing of the kind. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it time to make WP:COI a policy?

    Just a straw poll at this stage, but it's apparent that the community is becoming increasingly irked by abuse of editing privileges in ways which run counter to the guidance in WP:COI. A recurrent "defense" is that WP:COI is "only" a guideline and this in turn wastes further time in lawyering. Is it time to upgrade to policy? To be clear: this means that abiding by WP:COI will become something the community expects from editors, not just something they "should attempt to follow". Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My worry with it being policy is that I feel it is still worded as optional. Wouldn't the same issues arise with an optional policy as arises with an optional guideline? I can still see editors simply saying that it doesn't say that they must disclose, and it says that they are only strongly discouraged from editing affected articles. Perhaps this needs to be in two steps: lock down the requirements and the consequences, and then make it a policy to enforce them? But I suspect that getting consensus on either or both will be a challenge. - Bilby (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People are regularly blocked/desysopped/etc for editing with conflicts of interest that go beyond the bounds of propriety, and it seems kind of dumb for WP:COI to be a guideline in light of that. On the other hand, stuff like WP:GNG (which you also are not able to ignore) is also a guideline. But I think the message sent by making COI a policy is a good and important one. I would support it if it came up. jp×g🗯️ 05:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support that. Hopefully it would improve enforceability/compliance, with it as a "mere" guideline it doesn't get much respect... See this recent response from a paid editor to concerns raised about disregarding major parts of COI "Also, if something is "strongly discouraged," it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule."[6] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. I've see similar comments before. The guideline is completely ignored by the vast majority of coi editors. It is toothless. You do get the occasional coi editor turning up at The Teahouse, for example, I saw one recently, the editor was in earnest, but its mostly ignored. It seems more and more reports are being made to the board every year. That isn't even taking into consideration the ones that not discovered, e.g. recently there an editor who had working on the same article for 13 years. Its a problem thats getting bigger and leaving a legacy of damaged articles whose long term value is doubtful. Certainly there is now not enough editors working to address the problem, it needs to be tightened in a way that reduces the problem. scope_creepTalk 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That speaks more to the unwillingness of admins to block CoI editors than it is of how the guideline is written. Would admins be more active in enforcement if it was a policy? WP:N is likewise a guideline. IAR is a policy. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect so as they have a duty of care to uphold policy. In previous years, recently, there has been periods were there no admin presence on the board, sometimes quite long, running into months and months. I think it would make a difference. More work for the admin corps certainly, which would be unfortunate. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I love blocking spammers and undisclosed paid editors, but it is sometimes quite difficult to get rid of the feces they smear around beforehand; oftentimes people will demand a spam article be taken to AfD and evaluated purely on the merits. It's also unclear whether, say, noting that someone's username is the same as a 'Wikipedia consultant' on some other website is a blockable/desysopable/etc WP:OUTING offense, so it's often hard to even mention the reason you know something to be spam.
    When our actions, in practice, are that you're just allowed to make an endless series of burner accounts to spam your dogshit company, and then one of the few hundred active administrators has to spend hours and burn social capital to maybe-kinda get the article deleted, it's no wonder people keep paying for spammers rather than disclosed paid editors. As an example of what I'm talking about, there's been an edit request unanswered at Talk:Character.ai for a week, doing it the right way, versus Perplexity.ai, which was almost certainly written by a UPE (a new user whose first edits were all to write promotional spam articles about startups and entrepreneurs, and padded it out with some gnoming edits... to articles about content marketing companies and content farms) -- they got what they paid for the same day and it's been allowed to stay ever since, and even survived an AfD. One has to wonder why, if we hate spam, we reward people for doing it and punish them for following the rules. jp×g🗯️ 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The current definition of WP:COI is so broad that it would be unworkable and it massively dilutes the credibility of the current guideline. We'd need a more targeted definition of COI to make the current guideline more credible much less promote it to a policy. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Our current definition of COI is much less broad than my employer's (and I assume most of our employer's), what we have is actually very targeted and fitted to our purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The COI definition is so broad that under it nearly everybody could be interpreted as having a COI. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand, do you mean that everyone has a COI with every subject or everyone has at least one COI with one subject? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the guideline needs to be tightened up before trying to promote it to a policy. As we are witnessing, "strongly discouraged" is problematic but at the same time, I think we can do a better job making it clear editors do not need to reveal their identity or the exact nature of their COI (excluding PAID). If an editor is not sure whether they have COI, we need to provide a private outlet where they ask. I don't think there is a need to declare potential COIs. If they are not editing the article or participating in discussions about it, we should not care. S0091 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Guideline" doesn't mean that a rule less important, just that it should be applied with discretion. There have long been difficulties in creating and consistently enforcing conflicts of interest rules in journalism, law, academica etc. I don't think we'll be able to figure a strict policy out. Mach61 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Madame Tussauds COI

    @PedroOReal, WP:COI declared at [7], has been editing several articles in this manner:[8]. Problems include WP:PROPORTION, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PROMO and in some cases [9] WP:ABOUTSELF. Latest edit was about a week ago after they talked with @Diannaa, but their edits [10] are several and should be looked at.

    Mentioning a Madame Tussauds figure is not necessarily unreasonable, especially with decent secondary sources, but IMO PedroOReal is overdoing it. And you know, COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to the concerns raised by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I want to clearly state that my edits across Wikipedia have always been guided by a commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. My intention has never been to engage in puffery, promotion, or any behavior that goes against Wikipedia's principles, such as WP:PROPORTION, WP:PUFFERY, and WP:PROMO.
    Regarding the specific instance involving @Diannaa, I have taken the feedback seriously and made corrections to ensure that my contributions are in line with Wikipedia's standards. The initial response on my part was driven by a sense of being unfairly targeted, which may have led to a defensive stance. However, I recognize the importance of constructive dialogue and have made efforts to rectify any issues in my contributions accordingly and the information I provided.
    The mention of a Madame Tussauds figure in my edits was based on the belief that it was relevant and supported by reliable secondary sources, aiming to enhance the articles' quality and informational value. I understand that the perception of overemphasis might arise, but please rest assured that my goal has been to contribute positively and informatively to Wikipedia.
    It is disheartening to experience what feels like an unwarranted critique of my efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. I believe that the community's energy would be better spent fostering a supportive environment where contributors feel encouraged to add value and knowledge to this shared resource. Constructive feedback is always welcome, and I am open to discussions that can help improve the quality of my contributions. However, I also believe in the importance of focusing on collaboration and mutual respect among Wikipedia contributors to maintain the platform's integrity and usefulness. PedroOReal (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your entire editing history has been devoted to adding essentially the same content to multiple articles, all of which is clearly and unambiguously promoting Madame Tussauds, rather than adding to understanding of the article subject. Biographies are about people, not waxworks models. That isn't "in line with Wikipedia's standards". It is entirely contrary to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PedroOReal: You seem to be promoting Madame Tussauds at the expense of Wikipedia Terms of Use, which explicity disallows any promotional advertising on this site. You have admited you have WP:coi and your promoting your company. Administration will be along to have chat with you no doubt. Your a net negative to Wikipedia and costing us time and energy to fix it. It doesn't sit well with us. scope_creepTalk 10:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is disheartening to experience those glib AI-created clichés from PedroOReal above, and I see the same on Diannaa's page. Failure to speak in your own words is disrespectful in itself. I note that the promotion is currently on pause; if it resumes, I will block. Bishonen | tålk 10:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Hello @AndyTheGrump, @Scope creep, and @Bishonen,
    I’ve taken the time to review your comments and the concerns raised regarding my edits on Wikipedia. First, let me be clear: my intent has never been to undermine Wikipedia’s values or to engage in promotional activities. The interpretation that my contributions were solely for the benefit of Madame Tussauds or any other entity is a misunderstanding of my intentions. However, I recognize that perception is as impactful as intention, and for that, I am prepared to reassess my approach to editing.
    To the point of my editing history focusing on content related to Madame Tussauds: My interest in these topics was driven by a genuine fascination with cultural landmarks and their influence on public perceptions of notable figures, not by any affiliation or compensation from Madame Tussauds or any other entity. That said, I understand the critical importance of maintaining Wikipedia's neutrality and the high standards expected of contributions to the platform.
    Regarding accusations of employing "glib AI-created clichés" or failing to communicate in my own words, I want to clarify that my use of AI tools is solely to enhance my text, leveraging it as the valuable resource it is. My intention has always been to contribute high-quality content to Wikipedia, and incorporating technology is part of modernizing and enriching our shared knowledge base. If this approach has led to misunderstandings about the authenticity of my contributions, I offer my sincere apologies.
    It's disheartening to witness the dynamics where individuals seem to rally together to harass or provoke others under the guise of safeguarding the integrity of Wikipedia. While having an IRC channel or any platform for communication can indeed foster camaraderie and facilitate important discussions among contributors, it's crucial that these spaces do not devolve into echo chambers for organizing targeted actions against individuals based on misunderstandings or disagreements. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration, diverse perspectives, and the mutual respect of its contributors. It's essential that we maintain a community spirit that is welcoming, constructive, and focused on the collective goal of enriching this invaluable resource, rather than allowing it to be marred by divisiveness.
    Moving forward, I commit to a thorough review and adjustment of my contributions to ensure they align more closely with Wikipedia's standards and expectations. I will also engage more constructively in discussions on talk pages before making edits that could be perceived as contentious.
    I appreciate your dedication to preserving the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia.
    I hope we can move past this with a mutual understanding and a shared goal of contributing positively to this invaluable resource. Let’s direct our energies towards enhancing Wikipedia together, rather than dwelling on past misunderstandings.
    Thank you for your time and consideration. PedroOReal (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop using the fucking chatbot. Or fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [11] shows this is definitely AI. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I 've shown them the door. The problems outlined above, plus if someone's responses are always AI generated we have cannot be sure they understand them. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I just put the users edit on Bad Bunny through the AI checker after removing the wiki formatting - 94% likely to have been created by AI Lyndaship (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Makes me nostalgic for this guy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership

    Paid editor is adding back promotional content [12] has been asked to suggest edits on talk page but there are WP:CIR issues. Article reads like marketing for the organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not correct - the content was there since 2016 and included facts about the organisation. This editor completely deleted the section which I wanted to suggest edits to on the talk page, so I restored it in order to be able to suggest the edits. Erinstewart-REEEP (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added citations all over the page, deleted old text that was no longer correct and have suggested edits to the text to make it more neutral. This editor is now questioning my competence and is ignoring the comments I am leaving him and escalating it elsewhere. This is a case of bullying. Erinstewart-REEEP (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate and Uncivil Response in Discussion by User:@AndyTheGrump

    I am writing to report an incident involving uncivil and inappropriate behavior by User @AndyTheGrump during a discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. On 12 March 2024, in response to a detailed and constructive message I posted addressing concerns about my edits and my use of AI to enhance contributions to Wikipedia, AndyTheGrump replied with the following message:

    "Stop using the fucking chatbot. Or fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)"

    This response was not only uncivil but also violated Wikipedia's policies on respectful communication and harassment. My original message aimed to clarify my intentions, respond to feedback, and express a willingness to align my contributions more closely with Wikipedia's standards. It was disheartening to receive such a response, which does not contribute to a constructive or welcoming community environment.

    I believe that all community members should strive to maintain a respectful and collaborative atmosphere, even in disagreements. Therefore, I kindly request that this incident be reviewed by administrators, and appropriate actions be taken according to Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and harassment. My hope is to ensure that Wikipedia remains a space where all contributors feel respected and valued, fostering positive dialogue and cooperation.

    Thank you for your time and consideration in addressing this matter. PedroOReal (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuck off. Bishonen | tålk 11:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Michael Rubin (businessman) ‎

    RebeccaSchoenbrun has only edited Michael Rubin (businessman). Clear COI but warnings ignored and they have not disclosed yet continue to edit the article adding overkill amounts of references like this and puffery about the value of his company. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ThaddeusSholto, it seems quite likely that RebeccaSchoenbrun isn't aware of her own talkpage. I've blocked her from article space with an informative note and a link in the block log, which will hopefully enable her to find her page and reply on it. Bishonen | tålk 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    The Latymer School

    Username is the same as that given in the article for the school's chair of governors. Diffs:

    Editor has not responded to CoI template or follow-up on their Talk page, and has continued to edit the article. Tacyarg (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As Chair of Governors I have an interst in making sure the page is accurate. I have given citations where available. Stephen Way (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've stated on your talk page that you don't believe you have a conflict of interest, apparently on the basis that you're not an employee. Note, however, that WP:COI makes it clear that non-paid editors can still have a COI. As chair of governors you do have a COI (or at least a potential COI), which is why the matter has been reported here. Therefore please start abiding by the rules for COI editors, starting by formally declaring the COI on your user page. Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly have a conflict of interest as the chair of the governors. It's not appropriate for you to edit the school's page. Secretlondon (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stephen Way: If you continue editing that article you will be taken up to WP:ANI and I will recommend you get blocked for disruptive editing. You have a conflict of interest, plain as day. From now on, please use the Edit Request mechanism to request updates to the article. It involves making a request in the talk page and uninvolved editor will come-by, examine them for balance/structure/reliable sourcing and if found to be good, then will go into the article. scope_creepTalk 14:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - I wasn't aware of this mechanism. I will do this in the future. I do not have a user page to add a COI declaration. Stephen Way (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stephen Way: Then add one. scope_creepTalk 07:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stephen Way: See Wikipedia:User pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is resolved - user is now active on the article's Talk page rather than editing the article directly, and has recorded his involvement with the school on his user page. Thanks for people's help. Tacyarg (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    International Churches of Christ

    International Churches of Christ is again the subject of COI editing. JamieBrown2011's COI has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 203#International Churches of Christ. Meta Voyager is part of "a congregation that operates independently, but has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ", as described here. JamieBrown2011 has today removed material critical of the church from the article and added mention of the testimony of a witness saying that church isn't a cult, the inclusion of which was previously discussed at Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case and lacked consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "cult" is a really useless term, it just provides condemnation. Secretlondon (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are reliable sources describing it as such, but ultimately that's an article content debate, whereas the issue here is editors associated with the church editing the article to portray it in a more positive light. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SecretLondon. A simple google search of the word “cult” provides hundreds if not thousands of references describing multiple different church groups as “cults”. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree with CordlessLarry, there has been lots of discussion, over a period of multiple days, if not weeks, on the Talk page and consensus was clear over the changes that that needed to be made.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nothing to do with google. Academic writing in religion would/should never use the word cult. However, for Wikipedia. if a reliable source called it a cult we could use that, but some newspapers are not great on these issues. Secretlondon (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cordless Larry, a Wikipedia administrator, has mischaracterized my involvement in a minor edit as a Conflict of Interest. In support of my request that his actions be reversed, I offer the following additional information. I simply repositioned for readability purposes a reliably sourced single sentence about an expert witness that had already been written and published by another editor in a paragraph authored by a third editor, Nowa. Prior to any editing of the subject paragraph, Nowa consented to edits being proposed to that effect. That’s it – I made a minor edit to improve the article by cutting and pasting an already published sentence. Cordless Larry references my response to a welcome letter I received from another administrator that included a suggestion that I disclose any conflicts of interest. In relevant part, here's a more complete description of my disclosure: (1) I disclosed my membership in a congregation that has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ, (2) I stated that I have never been compensated as an employee or consultant to the church, (3) I shared that I have a general interest in Restoration Churches in the USA, (4) I informed that I have legal training and experience and am familiar with conflicts of interest, (5) I expressed my view that advocacy on a topic that you care about does not constitute a conflict of interest and (6) I have confined my comments to the Talk page of the International Churches of Christ article until a consensus for change has been reached. I’m confident that a review of my comments on the Talk page will show that I have researched and reported only on Wikipedia policies with an intent to improve the article. I respectfully request that Cordless Larry remove his posting about conflicts of interest as they pertain to me. Meta Voyager (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having received no response to my request to remove the posting about me from this COI Noticeboard, I have reached out on this topic directly to Cordless Larry on his Talk page in accordance with WP:ADMIN. Meta Voyager (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added Psmidi, an SPA with a COI who showed up on the article talk page today, several years after their last edit. It wouldn't surprise me if off-Wikipedia co-ordination between ICOC members was going on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are multiple issues with Ainty Painty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), including the AI-generated crap articles they regularly publish, but this one is related to the link-building of the website they operate and likely own. As of 14 March 2024, they have linked their website to at least 72 articles. Someone has to clean-up this spam and check with the spambot if there are more.

    Also, "about us" of the website reveals: "Pakistan Tourism Portal founded by Wisal Ahmad." This leads us to a sockpuppet farm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisal Ahmad. It is obvious that they have previously operated sockpuppets and are currently technically blocked from editing this wiki. More eyes on them please. Thanks, 101.100.146.151 (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They have submitted drafts such as Draft:QQPlayer and Draft:K2 Airways in the past. 101.100.146.151 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Garry John Martin

    Pchis created this article in 2016 and continued to edit it until 2019. The user's edit summary in 2016 suggests they have a conflict of interest: Why have my images of Garry Martin been removed? They are all the author's work, taken by his wife, Sue Lewis-Blake ... . The text they added was sometimes overtly promotional, such as this 2019 addition: G.J.Martin’s magnum opus, his ‘Orcadian Trilogy’ was launched in the Orkney Library and Archive in Kirkwall in June 2019. The result of ten years research and six years writing ...

    This month, Pchis1 started to edit the article. This looks as if it is a sock of Pchis. I have not reported as a sock as I didn't want to cause potential confusion by reporting in two places. Their first edit added forthcoming books, without sourcing. Their second edit added a paragraph which read promotional, ... Martin offered readings of ‘The Truants’ in English to a packed audience in an independent bookshop in Lüneburg, recognising the growing interest in Germany of literary novels written in English. I reverted this as unsourced, and their third edit added it again. I reverted this and asked them about conflict of interest, and they replied, not logged in: No, I do not have a conflict of interest. This text is provided by Garry John Martin for me to update his entry. I responded that this is a conflict of interest. Following this, an IP editor has added the same text again. Tacyarg (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks more like a forgotten password issue than socking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Devlin (filmmaker)

    After acknowledging being paid by the article's subject, continuing to edit here [13], [14]. Topic block may be in order. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    James Chico Hernandez

    Although their user page says "I have made many contributions to many articles over the last few years", this is not true. This is a WP:SPA focused on the article James Chico Hernandez, which they created as their first edit. I can see that COI/closeness to the subject has been brought up several times on their talk page and on the article talk page, as far back as 2006 and 2008. I posted a COI template on their page last month - none of those comments have been acknowledged by the user. The template I posted on the article was deleted by the user with the reasoning "Issue resolved" - it's not. The article itself is clearly WP:PROMOTION and not in-line with WP:BLP standards.

    This is the first time I've done this so hopefully I've added the necessary details. Spagooder (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Spagooder: We can't know that "I have made many contributions to many articles over the last few years" is not true, because the user may have been editing without logging in, or using a previous account. That said, from what you say, everything you have done seems to be by the book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, fair point. Now, how about everything else – how does this get addressed? Spagooder (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kashi Laining International Airport

    User has declared in talk page posts that they are an employee of the Civil Aviation Administration of China, the controlling entity for China's airports, and has been notified at least twice of potential COI when editing pages associated with the CAAC. This user has not denied a COI, but rather continues to state that they feel as though they do not need to declare a COI since they source their edits. Most of the user's activity is good-faith, non-controversial edits, save for a few key incidents, such as the movement of the page listed here. nf utvol (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Barton1234

    This user is a SPA who created and has exclusively edited the Wikipedia article about Professor Ebright for over a decade. They pretty obviously have a COI and a close relation to the subject, but have refused to respond to any questions about having a conflict of interest (see the various notifications at User talk:Barton1234 and the previous COIN thread from 2022 Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_193#Richard_H._Ebright) and has continued to edit the article directly as recently as today. I would support permanently partially blocking them from the article and only allowing them to make talkpage requests. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears a shorter block had no effect, I'll place an indef partial block. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Consuelo H. Wilkins

    A recent content dispute has led me down a rabbit hole. Disclosing that for transparency btw. A series of IPV6 addresses resolving to Nashville, TN have been reverting my edits. Then an IPV4 account from Nashville started a conversation on the talk page. That IPV4 user has made significant contributions to the article for Consuelo H. Wilkins, a professor at Vanderbilt, in Nashville. The IP belongs to AS7212 Vanderbilt. The Consuelo H. Wilkins page also has significant edits from users directly affiliated with Vanderbilt University and it's associated organizations. (see above users)

    It appears as though multiple individuals are creating and editing Wikipedia articles directly related to Vanderbilt whilst using Vanderbilt networks.

    Update 3/21 - User PickleFish123 has admitted they were the above IP user here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_issues_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates&oldid=1214788096

    skarz (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    please get a life outside of wikipedia man this is honestly kinda sad. how have you been putting this much energy into wikipedia for 10+ years. Im honestly done with this whole stupid climate change argument because Im not going to waste any more of my life arguing with you PickleFish123 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the merits of the two posts above, does the comment re: the possible identity of user Bakerja not constitute WP:OUTING, a prohibited practice? Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Axad12. While PickleFish123 is being extremely childish and appears to be a borderline disruptive editor, that does not excuse the apparent WP:OUTING that has happened here by skarz. I'm sympathetic to Skarz's point, and they are likely correct on the COI here, but the outing is fairly clear here. Should have been taken up via email instead of posted publicly, per the rules above. nf utvol (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this considered outing? The person's username is literally their real name. Searching their username with Vanderbilt shows exactly who they are and the conflict of interest. Further the link I posted does not contain any identifiable information other than what's already included in their username. skarz (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The outing comments in the two posts above relate to Bakerja, not Mattschorr.
    Bakerja is not 'literally their real name'.
    How can you possibly claim that the link that you posted re: Bakerja 'does not contain any identifiable information other than what's included in their username'? As well as their name, it also included a photo of the individual and their place of work.
    Just read the start of WP:OUTING (a form of WP:HARRASSMENT): 'Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, profiles on external sites, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not.'
    In what sense has what you have done not breached that? Axad12 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was, searching 'bakerja vanderbilt university' has multiple publicly available results linked to the name and profession of the person. It did not occur to me that a person could be doxxed and certainly not "harassed" by talking about publicly available information linked directly to their username and edit history. There was nothing malicious about what I did and if it was not in line with Wikipedia policy then I apologize. But I dispute the notion that what I did was in any way similar to saying "Hey guys, I figured out that catlover123 is actually Jimbo from Ontario! Here's his email and phone number!!" I have been in good standing on Wikipedia for 17 years and I doubt you will find anything in my edit history that comes even remotely close to that level of conduct. skarz (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so ten years ago a user called Bakerja made some edits to a page, and you felt you would just casually look for any current employee with surname 'Baker' and first name starting 'Ja[...]'? Did it not occur to you that there was bound to be at least someone fitting that description in any large organisation, and that making allegations against that person re: something that happened 10 years ago and linking to their personal details was, at best, disingenuous? Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your continued claim that all you did was link to 'publicly available information linked directly to' the username Bakerja is clearly BS of the first order. Axad12 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing disingenuous about highlighting an ongoing situation where employees of an organization are actively creating and editing articles related to themselves / their employer. I'm sorry you feel that way but at this point it seems like you are being unnecessarily hostile towards me and falls under WP:AOHA leading to WP:PA. This conversation has moved beyond "you broke the rules" to "how could you have possibly not known you were breaking the rules". If you are not an administrator I am asking you to please stop responding to me in this thread because I don't appreciate your tone, hostility, or accusations towards me. I already apologized for breaking the rules and removed the offending information. As an experienced editor I'm sure you already reported me to ArbCom and contacted the oversight committee to have the information scrubbed from Wikipedia. skarz (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that in any large organisation it is disingenuous to believe that an employee from 10 years ago with such a common name as 'Ja[...] Baker' might be the same person as a current employee who had a similar name, especially if they had not edited in the interim.
    I did not say 'how could you possibly not have known you were breaking the rules' or anything vaguely resembling that. What I said was that you were wrong above when you denied (after I had linked to the relevant policy) that what you had done was outing.
    Re: the fact that you were 'highlighting an ongoing [COI] situation', that could easily have been done without naming names (for evidence of which see the other threads on this noticeboard).
    If I've caused you any difficulties then I, of course, apologise. I'm happy to have no further communication with you, no problem. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaspa (cryptocurrency)

    User submitted draft for review. Draft was declined, with a message inquiring about conflict of interest, asking to have question answered before draft was resubmitted. Draft was resubmitted without answering question about conflict of interest. User is a single-purpose account whose only edits are this draft. The draft is about a cryptocurrency, which is a topic area that is subject to community sanctions because it is commonly subject to promotion.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see anyone asking me about a conflict of interest. I'm a community volunteer and noticed that there was not information regarding Kaspa on Wikipedia. It's fairly old news at this point.
    If you deem it a conflict of interest, so be it. I was just trying to help get post-relevant cryptography information out. BubblegumLightning (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see anyone asking me about a conflict of interest.
    See your talk page, specifically, User talk:BubblegumLightning#Your submission at Articles for creation: Kaspa (cryptocurrency) (March 20)
    -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Introducing User:Johnbod at ILAE

    User:Johnbod at ILAE is an alternative account for User:Johnbod. I will be using this account for edits connected with epilepsy, as I will be working over roughly the next year with the Wikipedia:ILAE Wikipedia Project, which has been running since 2020, aiming to improve the coverage of epilepsy-related articles on Wikipedia and is overseen by the International League Against Epilepsy. It is a paid position, budgeted for c. 400 hours over the next year.

    I will be working together with ILAE medical specialists to improve the articles. Please let me know any questions. Johnbod at ILAE (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saishna96

    Based on off-wiki evidence, it is confirmed that user Saishna96 is affiliated with a PR agency that provides digital marketing services, and the aforementioned subjects are some of their clients. Despite my request for disclosure of conflicts of interest, they denied receiving payment, although evidence suggests otherwise. Therefore, out of respect for their privacy, I'm willing to share the rest of the details privately. Additionally, there is a possibility that Saishna96 is linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tha D.f4c3r/Archive. GSS 💬 04:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    some more details suggest that user Shiva20202020, whose draft was submitted submitted for a review by user Saishna96, also works for the same company, raising suspicions of meatpuppetry. User Shiva was previously blocked for disruptive edits by user Deb. GSS 💬 05:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saishna96 continues to disregard COI policies and proceeded to remove the upe tag placed on UV Creations, a company they are associated with. GSS 💬 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt disregard, I told to place the tag when the case is closed! Saishna96 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The tag was placed based on off-wiki evidence of your conflict of interest, and as someone with COI, you can't simply remove the tag without addressing the concerns. Additionally, you need to disclose your connection with user Shiva20202020, who also works for the same PR agency. GSS 💬 17:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have any connections with user Shiva20202020, If you suspect any connection between me and user Shiva20202020, please initiate an investigation into the matter. Saishna96 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned earlier, user Shiva20202020 has also created/edited articles related to the same PR company as you and appears to be their staff. There is indeed a connection, and I'm willing to share details with an admin privately. GSS 💬 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, please do that! Saishna96 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harton Academy

    I think that Jonmckenziex may have a conflict of interest regarding Harton Academy. Almost all this user's edits have been to that article. He has several times added text which does not conform to the manual of style - bolding, people's titles, capitalisation - and added the school's inspection judgement to the lead. See this set of changes, again here, and here. He has also removed referenced information about the school's history. I posted on his Talk page about a possible CoI here and here. The editor then posted on my Talk page I am available to answer any questions or queries that you have. Encouraged by this, I asked him again about conflict of interest. He hasn't replied to this, but has posted on the article's Talk page: It is very important that parents at Harton Academy can gain vital access to appropriate information about the organisation. ... Key points surrounding Headteacher appointments should also remain visible to visitors of the Harton Academy wiki page. Members of the community should be able to gain access into who was appointed and when. ... The main body page of the Harton wiki has always contained relevant, accurate and informative information. This w always be the case. The tone of this, and the concern for information for parents and the community, read to me as if this editor may have a CoI. Tacyarg (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I agree. The editor has now stated on their talkpage that they have no conflict of interest - but it's not so long ago that we had a chair of governors at another school make a similar statement. Maybe worth asking them to disclose the nature of their relationship to the school?
    Not sure that I understand the apparent importance placed on the timing of headmaster appointments. Or why Wikipedia would be seen as playing a key role in making sure the local community could access info on who the headmaster was?
    Maybe this isn't someone operating from within the school. Axad12 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have asked a follow-up question on the editor's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably there's some link to user Timlockwood1, who seemed to fulfil the same WP:SPA purpose from Oct-Dec 23 (including this [16] headmaster appointment related edit, occurring on the same day as the announcement on the school's own website).
    Then the jonmckenziex account seems to have taken on those (rotating?) duties from Jan-Mar 24.
    I see that the user has again said they have no COI on their talk page. The SPA nature of the editing (and apparent community concern) suggests otherwise, however. Given the various relationships they have confirmed do not exist, what does that leave? Axad12 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the editor has firmly and comprehensively said they have no CoI. I think we have to WP:AGF and take up the manual of style issues and content on the article's Talk page. At the moment the style issues have been reverted by another editor. I'd like to put some of the history info back, but will discuss on Talk page. It's a school with a long and complicated history- should be possible to do a decent article on it, if we can find sources. Tacyarg (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: btphelps with regard to Béla H. Bánáthy

    Initially, I sensed something was off when I noticed they were inserting self published primary source references into may articles, such as plaskett.family and adding tourism guide like contents. COI was suspected, because they were single handedly responsible for the insertion of the overwhelming majority of that self published personal website blog reference. They've created the article White Stag Leadership Development Program and when I searched articles containing sourcing to Whitestag.org and ran a Wikiblame check for insertion of whitestag.org (such as this example and this 2022 example out of many) I found that btphelps was responsible for most of them. Further research found strong evidence of long term advocacy editing and likely undisclosed paid editing. I've given them a chance to explain, but after a few days, no response. Per Wikipedia policy on outing, I can not name the evidence here, however per the protocol, private evidence has been emailed to Wikipedia functionaries. Graywalls (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    btphelps has overlapping interests. This is not a COI. This is simply throwing mud and seeing what sticks.--evrik (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Evrik:, there's sufficient evidence that contradicts that.
    Functionary users: Please refer to March 11, 2024 email titled "Off-wiki evidence on user:btphelps for suspected UPE" addressed to
    paid-en-wp. Graywalls (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Evrik:, Please see WP:PE and WP:COI for the meaning of conflict of interest on Wikipedia. You are quick to claim there's no COI, but have you done any checking on your own? While Wikipedia privacy policies doesn't allow the discussion of the specific evidence, anyone who does a bit of their own research on this should easily find the blatant COI between White Stag and the user in question. Graywalls (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, so I can now say btphelps is a co-director of White Stag, per their self reveal as they have not had it redacted/oversighted. White stag was founded by Béla H. Bánáthy. Extensively writing about their own organization as well as those closely associated with it and inserting links to contents to the organization they direct as references to numerous related articles is a COI behavior. Graywalls (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls, you act like you smell blood in the water and I can see you are enjoying circling in for the anticipated kill. Exactly which subject do you accuse me of having a COI? You initially accused me of a COI about the Big Sur related articles. I challenged you to prove that and you could not. Because it does not exist. Failing at that and apparently provoked by my refusal to succumb to your attacks, you dug deep and now accuse me of a COI having to do with Bela Banathy and tenuously his founding of the White Stag organization in 1958, which he left to others to run after about 1965. Exactly how did I financially benefit 50+ years later from writing about Bela Banathy? Or the White Stag program?
    I first wrote that I was co-director of White Stag in 2008 on WP here. That position lasted for two years. The content on my WP user page that you cite lasted much longer than my volunteer position. I was never employed by that non-profit. It did not then and does not now have any employees. The idea that I might somehow benefit financially from it is laughable. When I was an active volunteer with that organization from 1968-1984 (long before WP existed) and 2008-2009, I paid out thousands of dollars in personal expenses to serve as a adult volunteer and paid hundreds of dollars yearly in fees for the opportunity to serve.
    I wish I got paid for writing on WP. It might make up for having to deal with nincompoops like you. Adversarial, demeaning, patronizing, confrontational editors like you are the reason editors like me with nearly 40,000 edits since 2004 quit.
    BTW, when you proposed deleting the White Stag Leadership Development article, did you apply any of the WP concepts of courtesy and strive to notify anybody in the Scouting portal who might have had input over the validity of that article? I certainly didn't have a chance to respond, as I am no longer a regular contributor, due in part to fellow editors like yourself.
    Maybe you didn't notice but when I began making contributions to the Bela Banathy article in 2008, he'd been dead for five years. Please, please, I beg you, explain your train of thought that I somehow financially benefitted from writing about Banathy. Who paid me? What proof do you have other than mere suspicion? The weight is in you to prove that UPE exists. This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. Otherwise you are merely wasting everyone's time. I'm holding my breath in anticipation. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 01:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging User:Evrik, User:Z1720, User:BusterD, seeking your input.

    Forrest Galante - repeated promotion & removal of criticisms

    The Forrest Galante article has a history of promotionalism and white-washing by Galante's publicity team who contacted me recently.

    The article had a Conflict of Interest template that was removed by one of many accounts that only edit Wikipedia to add Galante's work and remove criticism from scientists. Well-established editors like User:Sawitontwitter, User:MarkH21, and User:Dmoore5556 have worked to restore neutrality and remove promotionalism.

    Another account has come back to remove criticism of Galante from Wikipedia with impassioned claims that criticism of Galante from Undark Magazine, Salon.com, and scientist writings is "fanatically opinionated". Please take a look at the new removals and conflicts of interest. Thanks. 221.240.76.114 (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As the user whose repairs to the Galante article you're disputing, I can unequivocally say I am not associated with Forrest Galante or his team in any way, shape, or form. The edits I've made are in accordance with Wikipedia's own policies on the biographies of living persons, redressing some edits by others which are, yes, fanatically opinionated.
    If Galante's team is reaching out to Wikipedia editors, their feedback should be disregarded entirely unless they're able to provide absolute airtight proof of misinformation within the article. And even then, the edit should be made by an independent editor and not them, to avoid conflicts of interest. If they're interfering with this article, that is a major problem. Please provide documentation of their outreach to you, because as it stands now your accusations should be taken very seriously. I am just as opposed to unfairly positive depictions of Galante as I am to unfairly negative ones, doubly so if his own team is behind them.
    All that being said...the sources you just listed are self-professed opinion sites. The pieces they wrote on Galante which have been cited are self-professed opinion pieces. The conclusions made in them are opinion, with the authors making no attempt to conceal it (read the opening lines to Salon.com's article and tell my again you don't think it's opinionated). Therefore, they are definitively and wholly inappropriate citations for Wikipedia biographies. The best example being previous edits claiming Galante IS a parachute scientist, when this is an informal moniker based only out of criticism. It's appropriate to say he's been accused of being one, that's factual. It is not factual to say he IS one. The Criticism section should be populated by critiques made by those at least as credentialed as Galante himself as well as any direct response by Galante, though since you've falsely stripped him of virtually all his credentials already I can see how you may believe these sources already meet that standard.
    Let's examine a quote from the edit you cited here: "Though a self proclaimed wildlife biologist, and despite asserting a degree in "high-risk wildlife biology" (a made up major which does not exist), Galante is not a professional wildlife biologist since he does not work as one, nor has he put forth any academic research papers for peer review."
    To be entirely frank, can you really read that and say with sincerity that it's suited for Wikipedia? It's outwardly hostile ("a made up major" is entirely inconsistent even with passages on dishonest persons), it asserts a definition of wildlife biology which is not cited and appears to be based only on your interpretation ("Galante is not a professional wildlife biologist since he does not work as one, nor has he put forth any academic research papers for peer review"), and it at one point outright lies ("primarily for taking credit for the work of local researchers within their respective fields"), given Galante has credited the aforementioned local researcher as described in the current iteration of the Criticism section.
    Furthermore, saying that the users have "worked to restore neutrality and remove promotionalism" is entirely dishonest, and a transparent attempt to justify libelous opinion-based vandalism by yourself and the users you've mentioned. If you're frustrated that the edits of yourself and of these users are continuously being reverted back, your frustration is with Wikipedia's own policies against biographies which attempt to insert personal disdain as the definitive accounting of an individual's career. Whether you and the 'well-established editors' you invoked continue to vandalize the Forrest Galante page (yes, it is vandalism), is between you and those who may eventually ban your IP. These edits will be reverted consistently and perennially in accordance with Wikipedia's standards as they have been by myself and other good-faith editors.
    Thank you. Ravenandadove (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenandadove: Can I give you advice. Don't post huge comments like that. It unlikely folk are going to read them. If you make a comment in admin board like this, make it succint and detailed. scope_creepTalk 23:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your advice is duly noted, and I apologize if my prose was taxing for you. Ravenandadove (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenandadove: Are you Forrest Galante? The reason I ask is because you made an edit to support a potential vanity label on Galante, for a person that potentially you shouldn't know as an average editor wouldn't know the person from adam. The fact you have made that statement and left an edit summary in support of it, stating it clearly, indicates some kind of relationship between you and Galante. So what is? scope_creepTalk 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m perplexed by the basis of this question, as removing vandalism with justification isn’t an indicator of personal investment. If it were a ‘vanity title’ your concerns may be founded; however it is a factual job title backed up by multiple sources in the edit.
    To answer your question…I am not Forrest Galante, nor do I have any personal connections with him nor have I interacted with him. I’m aware I’m answering a troll comment but it may be beneficial to get that on the record. You’re not Forrest either, are you? Ravenandadove (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenandadove: another word of advice: comment on content rather than editors. Content disputes are not vandalism no matter what you say, and calling a highly experienced editor asking a valid question a "troll" is not going to get you anywhere here (For some perspective, you have 54 edits on wikipedia, scope creep has 133,960). Melcous (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing an editor of being a celebrity editing their own article is in no way a valid question. It’s obtuse, accusatory, and a rather rude way of insinuating that one’s edits are so biased they resemble what the person might say of themselves.
    Beyond that, repeatedly adding opinion pieces as sources and masquerading it as fact is abominable editing practice…if it’s not vandalism by definition, it’s no better. Ravenandadove (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth your while to take a look at WP:VANDAL, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:GOODFAITH. However, the short version is that content disputes should be resolved by seeking consensus at the talk page of the subject article (which should have been attempted before the IP user brought the matter here).
    Alleging that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith is the exact opposite of trying to build consensus (and is unlikely to attract anyone to your side of the discussion).
    This noticeboard exists purely to investigate allegations of COI (not to resolve content disputes). Your account was raised, rightly or wrongly, at the start of the thread as possibly having a COI. Blunt questions on whether you're the subject of the article (or close to the subject) are therefore par for the course and entirely valid. Axad12 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What it certainly does not exist for is arguing over personal squabbles. I was invoked in a discussion about alleged improper edits; I explained my position at great length. This included absolutely accurate descriptions about damaging edits made to an article. To elevate the discourse to 'blunt questions' about whether I'm the article's subject served to address none of the points in my comment. It brought a conversation about the merits of edits into the realm of personal slights. I'm not offended, but I won't treat it as valid discourse just because a user took the steps to formally allege it.
    Nonetheless, the question was answered: no. Further discussion unrelated to the protection of the Forrest Galante article from opinion-driven edits is pointless. Ravenandadove (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-read my previous comment. The reason that the 'blunt questions [...] served to address none of the points in [your] comment' is that blunt questions about COI are the whole point of the COI noticeboard, whereas lengthy discussions on content disputes do not belong here.
    Having previously made groundless accusations of vandalism and trolling, you are now making an entirely false allegation of a personal attack. Such false allegations are considered to be quite problematic, as is continually failing to assume good faith. I'd seriously suggest that you stop now before you dig yourself into a hole. Axad12 (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, rather than trying to resolve these issues via seeking consensus on the Forrest Galante talk page, the user has instead taken the issue here [17]. Axad12 (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Modine

    WorkhouseNYC (talk · contribs) added unsourced information to Matthew Modine without providing a source.[18][19] After I left them a note about sourcing requirements, they claimed to be a representative for Modine.[20] After I pointed out that they should review WP:COI, and quite possibly WP:PAID,[21], they claimed they had no conflict even while acknowledging Modine is their client.[22]. Shortly afterward, Doniagohole (talk · contribs) (but I'm sure the name is coincidental) edited the same article in exactly the same manner.[23] DonIago (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1215422990"