Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"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:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Grammarly
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Sophia Genetics
    Talk:Mitchell L.R. Walker

    User:Smatprt (undisclosed paid editing, long term PR editing)

    [edit]
    Possible covert promo edit
    and related suspicious edits such as this
    and this peculiar Special:Diff/916975478 by WP:SPA

    I became suspicious and checked the contribution history after I learned they were responsible for a lot of advertorial puff contents inserted into Carmel-by-the-Sea over a decade ago. I realized the account has been resurrected from sleeper status and making edits in the same subject area. Private evidence of positive COI and UPE submitted to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org already about COI with Theatre of the Golden Bough's owner institution. Graywalls (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC) @Star Mississippi and Drmies:, I think they might be collaborating with you know who... or a slight chance of socking.. could you check? Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a CU and unfortunately do not have the bandwidth to dig right now, but endorse @Drmies' suggestion of an SPI. Let me know how I can help though. Also, ugh (issue, not you @Graywalls) Star Mississippi 16:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SMATPRT here. Happy to answer any questions. As you can see from my history, I am only one person, and I am not a puppet for anyone else. As you can also see, I used to edit a variety of articles, mostly theatre related, or on the history of Carmel-by-the-Sea. After the great and ugly Wikipedia Shakespeare Wars, I soured on editing and have only continued on non-Sheakespeare articles infrequently. I was recently alerted that two significant Carmel History articles had been absorbed into a related article and then deleted and/or redirected, which is what I restored, since as I recall from Wiki policies, deleting unique pages and incorporating summery versions into a related article is not the Wiki way. Kinda the opposite, right? But it's been a while...
    Anyhow - thanks for letting me respond. 50.213.42.61 (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To ensure the authenticity of the response, please always correspond while signed-in rather replying later and saying it was you from your account. Graywalls (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Signing in so you know it's me :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smatprt:, Although I don't want to make baseless accusations, the combination of your editing pattern, specifically the articles you edit and the evidence available off Wiki is strongly indicating you're doing paid editing. Paid editing does not mean there has to be a line item payment "for editing Wikipedia". I can not reveal the exact evidence, because policy strictly prohibits me from doing so publicly, but the relevant evidence has been emailed to the contact designated by Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Smatprt, thank you for your contributions. Could you please tell us if you have a Conflict of Interest with any of these articles, Pacific Repertory Theatre, Golden Bough Playhouse, Theatre of the Golden Bough, Forest Theater, Stephen Moorer? You have mentioned that you don't have a financial stake in the topics you edit,[1] but I am wondering if you have any other type of COI connection to the subjects of these articles? Netherzone (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I would be curious to see the evidence of paid editing because in looking at Smatprt's editing history I am not at all convinced that this is a paid editing account. What I see is an editor who is a Shakespeare buff with a particular interest in the Shakespeare authorship question. This is a natural pairing with an interest in the Carmel Shakespeare Festival and the Pacific Repertory Theatre (PRC) which runs the Carmel festival which has drawn national attention in the press and in academic journals related to American theatre and Shakespeare. The PRC has participated in scholarship in the Shakespeare authorship area; enough so that its director (Stephen Moorer) was given an award for his work by an academic society at Concordia University (a respected Canadian university) and the Shakespeare Oxford Society (an academic society that largely publishes on Shakespeare authorship issues) held its annual national convention in Carmel one year to correspond with the festival's unique programming. Anybody who is into Shakespeare scholarship as a passion could reasonably have the editing history that I am seeing from Smatprt. And if the editor happens to live in California they could be just taking an interest in a notable topic area in their local area. There's nothing wrong with that. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In fairness, I think I'd rather hear it from the user themselves. They were asked upthread whether or not they have a conflict of interest (on 24/10 and 31/10, and also on their talk page). The responses provided thus far seem evasive.
      The question that needs to be resolved is as follows, as per the request at the talkpage, here [2]
      Please indicate the nature of personal/professional relationship with the organizations/buildings/facilities in Carmel-by-the-Sea you have been editing on off and on for over a decade.
      The off-wiki evidence is perfectly clear in relation to the nature of the user's quite blatant conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment. Like 4meter4, I would like to see the evidence. Is this a case of an editor's COI/paid editing, or is this a misguided vendetta against that editor? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It cannot be provided here without WP:OUTING, however it is easily located. Axad12 (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ssilvers and 4meter4, just a brief courtesy note to ask if you were able to satisfy yourselves as to the nature of the CoI under discussion here and to determine that this thread is very much not part of a misguided vendetta against the editor (who is not simply a Shakespeare buff with a particular interest in the Shakespeare authorship question)? Axad12 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I have no idea where to look. Moreover, even if it was COI or paid editing, I don't understand why good content that is properly referenced should be deleted. This appears to be some kind of hysteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding where to look, why not have a try?
      Regarding deletion, I think you are conflating two entirely separate issues.
      You seem to have made a number of bad faith allegations recently, e.g. here [3], and the comment re: misguided vendetta above and now the allegation of some kind of hysteria.
      Could these comments and your apparent disinclination to consider the possibility of CoI be at all related to the fact that you're the largest single contributor to the article on Stephen Moorer (where you've made no fewer than 71 edits)? Axad12 (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, whatever is going on here [4]?
      And here [5] with further accusations of a vendetta and of threatening and badgering Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, why is 4meter4 claiming at the Pacific Repertory Theatre article that the coi issues have been appropriately dealt with and solved? It doesn't seem very clear how a reasonable editor could have read this thread and arrived at that conclusion. Axad12 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Axad12 I said that after adding more than 50 new references to the article, and checking the citations to the sources currently in the article. I spent many many hours sifting through sources in JSTOR, PROQUEST, EBSCOE, etc. I think after having read the literature and adding content and checking for verifiability, I could make an assessment on the state of the article. As it is, I am stepping away from it and have removed the article from my watchlist. This is too contentious of a topic area for my mental health. Please leave me out of this going forward.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When I asked you to provide WP:THREESOURCES, it was simply a request for cooperation, which you're not required to honor, but it certainly frustrates others when doing so would help others realize notability and move along. Please also see the essay WP:AMOUNT. If what's needed is a 4 carat center stone diamond, five hundred 0.01 carat pieces won't be an acceptable substitute. You talk about how many sources, but not really about the DEPTH of coverage. It's extremely time consuming for other editors to have to sift through all those sources. When put together with your unwillingness to name the few sources that anchors down the notability, it can be seen as stalling the process. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Graywalls You are now bringing this up again at a noticeboard discussion at which I am not the focus. This is now feeling like WP:HOUNDING; particularly after I already expressed my need to withdraw over experiencing mental distress due to conflict at the PRT article in my comment here and on the PRT talkpage. I already requested that you allow me to depart from dialoguing with you further on this issue multiple times. Please leave me alone.4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not think I have acted in bad faith. As I have said before, if the content and sources regarding these arts organizations and related people are good, they should not be deleted. As for Stephen Moorer, I have had an interest in Shakespeare and regional theatre since joining Wikipedia in 2006, and so I have come across his WP article several times. I tried to improve it whenever I did (mostly in 2009). I see that someone recently deleted much of the content from the article, even though some of it is referenced acceptably. As for searching, I did do a search for "Smatprt" but did not see anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ssilvers If we're talking about the Stephen Moorer Wikipedia article, can you confirm that you participated in the original deletion discussion concerning that article?
      And while I get where you're coming from - smatprt has certainy experienced some harassment from socks in the past - this is not a deletion discussion. This discussion is purely about determining whether or not Smatprt has a COI and whether they are likely to have engaged in undisclosed paid editing. Let's not get distracted by other issues here. This appears to be some kind of hysteria is not a very productive statement. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      GreenLipstickLesbian, I do not remember. I am getting the feeling that this had something to do with the old Shakespeare Authorship Question war, but frankly I don't remember. If all this is about is whether he had a COI, I did misunderstand and apologize. I thought this had to do with all the deletions and AfDs people are making to all the articles he worked on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ssilvers, you are not being truthful nor are you AGF of those who disagree with you. You have stated that those who disagree with you all the deletions and AfDs people are making to all the articles he [Smatprt] worked on? Are you sure you mean all? You made a similar accusations to an admin, like this: They are on a vendetta to delete everything the COI person wrote and this they are threatening to delete or merge out three certainly notable arts organizations[6] to an admin when neither of these statements are true, there is no vendetta to delete everything, nor have there been threats to delete. Why did you make that accusation? You have also implied some sort of conspiratorial accusation on this very thread is this a misguided vendetta against that editor?. You have lied about me and assumed bad faith Netherzone is obviously very invested in deleting any and all material connected with Carmel [7] when I have done no such thing as trying to delete all material connected with Carmel, California. You are completely out of line. Please calm down, stop exaggerating and making things up and take a breather. Netherzone (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question @Smatprt:, I have two questions for you. In 2016, you added that Stephen Moorer has two sisters: "Jacqui Hope Moorer" and "Catherine Hudson". You also added where they lived. You did not provide a source. I've looked for one, and the only place I can find this information is the Stephen Moorer Wikipedia page/mirrors of the Wikipedia page. What was your source for this information?
    Similarly, in 2009, you uploaded this image. Could you please explain how you happen to possess the copyright for it? You said in the author field that I (Smatprt (talk)) created this work entirely by myself. Could you explain how exactly you created it?
    That being said, even the now-off en-Wiki evidence is compelling. Couldn't you have just used edit requests? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In an effort to bring this thread back on track, I note that on 24th October Smatprt said that they are Happy to answer any questions [8].
    That being the case, can I suggest that all outstanding issues in this thread will be resolved by a straightforward answer from Smatprt on the issue of what degree of association there is between, on the one hand, user Smatprt and, on the other hand, Stephen Moorer and the Pacific Repertory Theatre.
    If the user is unprepared to answer that question then it seems to me that some form of admin action needs to be taken based on the easily accessible off-wiki evidence confirming the nature of the relationship.
    In the meantime I wonder if many of the recent additions to the thread (e.g. from here [9] to here [10]) might be collapsed, as the two users involved seem to have inadvertently derailed the thread into a content discussion which has no bearing on the central issue. Axad12 (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of this have started brewing over at Talk:Forest_Theater#COI. @GreenC:, perhaps you wouldn't mind discussing the matter here regarding Smatprt. Graywalls (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    --> Well some here say it's obvious, but I have no idea how to look. From the context of the above discussion, I can make a reasonable guess. I would be more concerned about professional sock farms. COI and UPE exists all over Wikipedia it's a question of triage, how serious is it. The serious problems are dark money politics, PR firms, ideology think tanks, etc.. a small arts organizations is low hanging fruit mostly harmless and IMO a waste of time. I feel the same about Henderson for the most part: the harm level was very low, the removal of some article topics and content was unnecessarily damaging, and the time sink is/was high.
    --> To give an example, I found a Republican political think tank had subtly molded the public perception of a Democratic think tank Media Matters for America that for over a decade cause massive harm to this organization after their biased description got picked up by international media echoed 100s of times around the world. I had to RfC change because some operatives were watching and blocking attempts.
    --> Another example, Graywalls knows about, is that priest who used Wikipedia for self-promotion for over a decade, and to influence the media and clerks at the Supreme Court (USA) by injecting leading and false information into the news cycle.
    --> When this forum gets involved in serious social problems let me know, happy to help, but it's hard to get outraged about a small arts community writing a theater history mostly concerning dead people, it's largely a harmless distraction from the limited resources available ie. the expert attention of people who care. -- GreenC 17:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COI is a serious problem wherever it is found. Low hanging fruit does not get a free pass and identifying such users is not a waste of time. If you have no interest though, feel free not to participate. Axad12 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like "not to participate" any further in this discussion. Please, everyone, stop pinging me. I feel llke Dorothy, realizing that I can just click my heels together. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC:, You chose to engage in the article talk page questioning the COI tag and supporting evidence behind it. There's no leeway reserved allowing "small arts community may engage un undisclosed paid editing or public relations editing". Procedurally, COI/N is the proper place for such things to be discussed in details. I guess I don't understand why you get involved and question the tag if it's not that important to you. Graywalls (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forest Theater was already on my watchlist, because you and some others had previously brought it to my attention, on that deeply obscure category talk page, whose stated intention was to form a group of editors to delete all the Henderson articles. I exposed it as unambiguous canvassing, after which everyone left to carry on in places unknown. -- GreenC 19:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that treating COI as triage vs comprehensive is that when it does come time to deal with major violators countless editors will point to our lack of action on the ones you say don't matter as proof that the community condones this sort of thing in general. Once you start making exceptions for the groups you don't think are a real threat it makes room for other people to make exceptions for groups they don't think are a real threat but you think are. I think that these sorts of things are in fact a real threat, even when its a small arts group and not a megacorp. Honestly especially when its a small arts group and not a megacorp because its more likely to avoid scrutiny due to the nature of the topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like a choice of triage vs comprehensive, the COI problem is so endemic anything you do is at best triage. -- GreenC 19:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate on the analogy then? I don't see how a triage approach results in us not treating this particular case of malignant cancer (there are no gunshot patients or anything like that, look around you... This noticeboard is the OR). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about not treating. But is it cancer? Using the triage analogy, this noticeboard is the ER where patients show up (as new talk page sections). The participants here are nurses and doctors, some more expert and committed than others. There is investigations into what the source of the problem is, immediate actions (banner tags), longer term treatments like editing articles. My point is he patients are not equally important. Some have COVID and risk infecting the community. Some have a bruised knee. Most COI is banal and not very significant and easily fixed without major surgery. I'd like to see this forum respect the WP:PRESERVE policy more and be conscious of the natural human trait to exact revenge/punishment on the perps by way of deletion. Because it's self-defeating to remove good content that might be addressed with a lighter less invasive touch. -- GreenC 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is not a thread about article content. Please take content discussion to the relevant article talk page. It is also not a location for shooting the breeze on how you think COI should be dealt with and whether or not you think COI is a serious problem. Axad12 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly about article content, we're discussing this particular case and you can't discuss COI without discussing specific content (how would such a discussion even work?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we keep philosophical conversations about the purpose of COI/N to the talk pages? Thank you so much.
    And @GreenC - if you want to discuss content, may I advise the article talk pages? And if you'd like evidence- smatprt has self-disclosed their real life name and identity on enWikipedia in the past. They have a conflict of interest. They clearly don't want their irl identity to be tied to their username onWiki, so out of respect for a fellow human being, I'm not linking it. But they have a very obvious financial incentive to edit certain pages in a positive light, and the way they are hiding that, refusing to disclose in the modern day, and not use things such as edit requests, is alarming and dragging this out a lot longer than it needs to. Other editor's insistence of trying to relive old CTOPs and turn this into a deletion discussion are also not helping. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is before us doesn't appear banal, not very significant, and easily fixed without major surgery. It appears to be the most pressing case facing us at the moment unless you know of others and are keeping them secret for some reason. There is no higher priority on the table. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC:, I guess I don't see why you turn a blind eye on obvious undisclosed paid editing or organization controlled accounts and don't flinch one bit, but become upset about hat note. Why does the hat note bother you? Organizations controlling page is an existential threat to the very purpose of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    UPE and COI Promo, whatever the scale, is contrary to two of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, WP:5P1: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents although some fellow Wikimedia projects are. And, it is often the case that COI/UPE goes against WP:5P2; which can be observed with some regularity at NPP or AfC: We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. Netherzone (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And when PR editing distorts the backbone of the article, whatever that builds upon it is inherently crooked. Public relations editing of Wikipedia is an existential threat to the encyclopaedia Graywalls (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greeting everyone. SMATPRT here. Thanks all for the clarifications as to what is defined as paid editing. Although I am not paid to edit or even monitor Wikipedia, I do work for Pacific Repertory Theatre. And while it was always my understanding that COI editing is discouraged, it is not disallowed. I have always tried to live up to Wikipedia policies and over the last 20 years of editing (the last 10 being few and far between) have hardly seen any of my edits seriously questioned. If someone sees "puffery" feel free to bring it up on the talk page. However, I don't see how providing a photograph of a long-closed production falls under that category.
    Regarding Photographs. I take theatre photos and have for decades. A while back there was an active push to add photos and graphics, and I was asked if my photos were available for use, and if so, to add them to various articles (mostly Shakespeare related) in order to enhance their visual appeal. I am an amateur photographer, and do not sell or market my photos. I do not copy-write any of them, and allow their use without attribution.
    Regarding these pages:
    This is the company I work for, so have a COI.
    This is correct, so have a COI.
    This is incorrect. The Theatre of the Golden Bough was a world famous theatre in Carmel, never owned by PacRep, and burned down in 1935. I don't see how there can be any COI here.
    This is correct,, so have a COI.
    This is correct, I am definitely related to PacRep, so have a COI.
    This is correct, however I made edits to the entire article, as I am a amateur historian on Carmel and lecture on the subject (non-paid), its bohemian influence, and the Carmel arts scene. Edits regarding PacRep would be COI.
    Bottom line, I am happy to add whatever disclosures or tags that you all feel are appropriate. And happy to discuss any other accusations. My apologies for not understanding that "paid editing" also means that if you are in any way employed by an organization, and you edit Wikipedia as a volunteer on your off hours, then you are a paid editor. Do I have that right?
    I am not collaborating with anyone and have no idea who "you know who" is. You all seem to have some inner knowledge of some editor you are on the lookout for, but I have no idea who that is or what you are talking about.
    It does look like some kind of vendetta is going on here - perhaps because you thought I was "you know who"? I can't see how any of these articles are worthy of deletion, nor are any of the photographs. I would love to hear an explanation on all these deletions attempts. Every single subject has been covered by state, national and/or worldwide press and is notable on their own accord. The significant people directly involved with them also makes them notable, if I recall correctly, as well as other notable attributes.Smatprt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smatprt: Getting back to you about Although I am not paid to edit or even monitor Wikipedia, I do work for Pacific Repertory Theatre. And while it was always my understanding that COI editing is discouraged, it is not disallowed. That's like saying a salaried field sales is not getting paid to talk to their client over dinner and saying they're just chatting with a friend. That's considered a "work related engagement" in common sense even though salaried people are not paid on task-by-task or hourly basis. So, failing to disclose COI and editing on articles on which you have a COI is prohibited. As for disclosed COI editing, it's not prohibited but strongly discouraged. I'd place it in the same category as infidelity in California. It shouldn't be done, but it is not prohibited by criminal law in that state. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've had a chance to review the various articles and I am astounded at the deletion spree. First, it appears that you all thought I was a puppet for someone known to some of you (but not to me). That not being the case, the deletion spree continued and has now grown to include a number of photographs both new and historic (either fair use or public domain). I have been on the receiving end of a vendetta before and this bears all the signs. It's the main reason I cut back on 95% of my editing. Graywalls - do we know each other? Did I run over your dog or something? Not content at deleting sourced information, but you are also deleting photographs? Both historic public domain or fair use shots, as well as more recent production shots, all of long closed, though notable, productions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smatprt:, what is the nature of your relationship to PRT? I have a pretty good idea, but it has not been directly stated by you. You indicated, finally, after two weeks you work for them. Someone who works at Walmart stocking shelves editing Walmart doesn't amount to COI if they edit Walmart.. but if they work in the corporate office as the director of public relations, then absolutely. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls: There is no need to pursue this case so vigorously. I can see that discovering that Smatprt has a connection with Pacific Repertory Theatre would have looked suspicious. Combining that with WP:ARBSAQ could make it seem a crisis. However, checking edits shows that there is nothing in the last few years that is a problem. Smatprt has made it clear above (search for "so have a COI") that there is a connection but this is an enthusiast with an interest in Shakespeare and theatrical productions—it's not someone selling widgets or promoting wellness scams. It would be better to focus on article content—a few things I have looked at do not show a problem. Does anyone have a recent diff of an edit that warrants the attention shown here? Some edits from others have removed material considered to be WP:UNDUE, but what I saw was not puffery or excessive—it seems reasonable that an article on a theater company would list significant productions. I don't have any COI here and was on the opposite side from Smatprt in WP:ARBSAQ. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq:, what set it off was their decision (as someone with very strong COI) to Special:Diff/1246762718 the re-direct on something they have a strong COI with that was deemed not-notable by another editor. All without disclosing their COI. They've been editing in a way promotional of PRT for a long time. That's no insignificant change. Graywalls (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At 20:06, 25 August 2024, Netherzone redirected Golden Bough Playhouse to Theatre of the Golden Bough. Then at 23:56, 25 August 2024 Netherzone redirected Theatre of the Golden Bough to Edward G. Kuster. A minor edit war then broke out. For anyone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, redirecting an article is a big step and trying to edit war to keep the change is very unwise—you are supposed to start a discussion on article talk and, if unsatisfied, use WP:AFD. The article talk pages seem to show people only discussing COI and User:Greghenderson2006. Indignation should be reserved for harmful cases. If some enthusiasts have used undue material, it should patiently be removed but people are losing sight of the big picture: COI editing is opposed because it is generally harmful, not because it is morally repugnant. If there is a problem, someone should add some diffs here showing recent edits that are actually a problem. Reverting a bold redirect is standard procedure and the solution is AfD, not COIN. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing you're misunderstanding is that the purpose of this is to not to overrule the change that happened. That's what lead to the development of suspicion of long term COI. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When will someone produce a diff of a recent bad edit? Sure, investigate, but stuff from before 2024, or a revert of a deletion-by-redirection, are not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, can I just check that when you wrote above that this is an enthusiast with an interest in Shakespeare and theatrical productions you had Googled to look at the easily accessible evidence of the exact nature of this user's COI with the Pacific Repertory Theatre, which the user still has not fully divulged.
    The Shakespeare stuff is irrelevant to this thread and the user is far more than an enthusiast with an interest in [...] theatrical productions.
    The user demonstrably has a very profound COI and should not be making edits to the relevant articles at all. They should be using the COI edit request process like any other COI user in a comparable role at an organisation (or indeed the degree of association that they have with Stephen Moorer).
    The user has been a significant contributor on at least two articles of a promotional nature where they have a very strong COI and that is a serious problem which has to stop. That has been the opinion expressed by pretty much every editor who has contributed to this discussion, except for those who incorrectly put this all down to a hysterical reaction based on Shakespeare authorship issues with no relevance to COI.
    It doesn't seem to be at all reasonable for the user to say that COI editing is discouraged, it is not disallowed, where the issue here is a long history of clear promo and public relations editing, which is specifically disallowed and which is an issue that was first raised in relation to this user back in 2009 (both at COIN and on the relevant article talk pages). Axad12 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: I knew Smatprt's identity before WP:ARBSAQ started in January 2011 due to my minor involvement in the topic. I understand that some COI regulars think they have cracked a huge case because a tiny amount of digging shows that Smatprt has an enormous COI. My point is that a single revert of someone changing an article into a redirect appears to be their only sin in the last several years. For the fourth time, does anyone have a recent diff of a bad edit? If that is too much trouble, how about quoting some text of a "promotional nature" which is still in one of the articles concerned. Is this COIN report about a theoretical problem or an actual problem? Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While Smatprt has not edited any of the articles in a number of years, there are still unresolved issues re: a small group of apparently connected users effectively curating the articles during that period, currently reverting/opposing deletion of material and throwing around a lot of quite ridiculous bad faith allegations to try to prevent scrutiny. At least one of those users has been riding shotgun for Smatprt since at least 2009 (and has continued to do so in this very thread). It seems that there are credible concerns re: meatpuppetry, off-wiki co-ordination and general COI here and - yes - I think that is very much an actual problem.
    There are a significant number of users who have raised COI concerns in this thread and/or in the relevant talk page discussions and I think it is worrying to see you repeatedly attempt to downplay those concerns.
    This thread is not a question of some COI regulars think they have cracked a huge case, it is a question of several articles being manipulated over a very long period of time in a promotional fashion which very closely resembles COI/UPE. It is an established fact that a very senior individual at one of the theatres involved has been part of that activity, and under such circumstances it does not seem unreasonable to expect some form of admin action to be taken. Axad12 (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the issue at stake is not about whether any promotional material remains in any of the articles concerned. It is a problem that it was put there in the first place and maintained there over a very long period of time by regular contributors. It is thus quite unreasonable to effectively say "all bad material gone, nothing further to see here, please now move along". This thread is not about the clean up effort, it is about the underlying COI. Axad12 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not surprising that Wikipedia has editors who oppose deletion of content in arts articles. The people you think are "connected users" are just editors with similar interests in high-quality encyclopedic content. I encountered many of them during the infobox wars—they are generally excellent editors. Discussions should focus on actionable outcomes. Instead of being horrified, please just identify some bad article content. I have looked at some of the related articles and cannot see a problem warranting all this fuss. You have not located a nest of scammers. This is just a bunch of good editors interested in theater! Putting them in the village stocks is not an achievable or helpful outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you about the "apparently connected users", and I'm not the only user to have expressed that opinion.
    With regard to the promotional material that was previously in the articles, you only have to look for the large scale removals of material that can be easily located in the edit histories. The relevant edit summaries and talk page discussions demonstrate the views of a significant number of editors who saw the material as promotional, undue, etc.
    I'm not horrified by any of this, and nor do I find it morally repugnant, but your comments to that effect seems to be in the poor taste tradition of similar comments aimed at other users in this saga, re: misguided vendetta and some kind of hysteria etc, both in this thread and elsewhere.
    In reality, what is going on here is none of those things, it is just editors who take COI seriously attempting to bring the articles into line with the relevant policies and guidelines - and (as usual) being subjected to various aspersions and personal attacks for their troubles. Axad12 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are levels of delusion—believing, for example, that SchroCat is a "connected user" with Smatprt would be at the high end. They are just two editors with an interest in high-quality encyclopedic content. COIN plays a vital role in protecting the encyclopedia, and Smatprt (as acknowledged above) has a COI. But no one can show any recent bad edits! It's nonsense to put this much energy into an historical issue. Everything at Wikipedia should be about article content and it is very unsatisfactory to just regurgitate debating points without at least identifying some bad article content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already indicated where you can easily locate the (already deleted) bad content. I never suggested that SchroCat was one of the connected users (and I don't believe that anyone else has either), although I do believe that their comments [11] [12] about someone being bullied off the [Pacific Repertory Theatre talk] page (either by Maineartists or anybody else) were exceptionally ill-advised groundless personal attacks. Similar allegations have been made by at least two other users - and if you want to see delusion then look no further than all of those comments.
    Ditto for repeated allegations (I count 6 of them so far, from at least 3 users) of a shadowy multi-user vendetta against Smatprt relating to years old Shakespeare authorship arguments and a barrage of allegations of bad faith conduct at the Pacific Repertory Theatre talk page.
    Personally I've played no part in the discussions there, but it seems perfectly clear that those working to improve the content of the article have been acting in nothing but obvious good faith and those working to prevent that are routinely making groundless allegations (including. laughably, a claim that the behaviour was worthy of a trip to ANI). Axad12 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don’t be silly. There’s no personal attack in what I have written. Three people have identified inappropriate behaviour directed towards 4meter4 across a range of pages: that’s not a personal attack, nor is it groundless. Either way, this is tangential to the topic. Maybe you could try and keep the thread running along the lines of the page, rather than trying to besmirch anyone’s name who is working on the article? - SchroCat (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, the discussions at PRT and elsewhere involving 4meter4 seemed like reasonable and within bounds policy discussions to me. 4meter4 didn't want to participate any more, which is their choice, but the idea that they were bullied off the talk page(s) doesn't seem to me to be borne out by the contents of the discussions. If there are specific diffs demonstrating bullying then I'd be glad to see them. If they stand up I'll happily scratch my comment re: exceptionally ill-advised groundless personal attacks. If such diffs don't exist then I'd suggest you scratch your comments re: bullied off the page. Hopefully this is deemed a fair and reasonable response. Axad12 (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not going to start building up a bunch of diffs over multiple pages just to get involved in a pointless timesink for the ANI peanut gallery, and I’m not going to strike my comment either. What you need to do is stop dragging this already overlong thread off on another pointless tangent. I don’t care whether you strike your comment or not: it’s silly and pointless, and I’ve already pointed that out to you. I’m going to step away from this as it wasn’t constructive in the first place, and you’re pushing it even further away from anything even vaguely useful. - SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, bullying is quite a serious issue and discussing it is neither silly or pointless (albeit, as you say, it is tangential to this thread). If you genuinely believe that there has been an incident of on-wiki bullying then I strongly encourage you to report it via the appropriate channels rather than making throwaway comments to that effect. Happy to conclude matters here if you are... Axad12 (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smatprt:,
    1.) I don't know you.
    2.) I've only initiated deletion on two photos on Commons specifically related to Golden Bough. Well, uploading improperly licensed photos is not allowed. If it slips through and they get deleted when they're caught noticed, you've got nobody else to blame. You uploaded photos from 1935 and 1949 and tried to trick the system into thinking it's public domain by but tagging them as "published pre 1929". Then, there's another picture of fire which apparently came from a blog somewhere. Thorough explanation is provided in deletion nomination on that one. I have no part in whatever production shots you're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about by "fair use" though, because there's no such thing as "fair use" on Commons.. In August 2024, someone editing from a California IP was rambling about "fair use" picture getting lost following Golden Bough Playhouse re-direct here though. Interesting coincidence. Graywalls (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again, everyone. SMATPRT here. This thread demonstrates the very reason I left as an active volunteer editor with thousands of non-controversial edits. I'm amazed that a small group of arts articles has generated such ill will, accusations, and negativity. Those demanding I disclose my precise relationship are really demanding I OUT myself. Is that what you desire? (By the way, I was outed during the SAQ wars, and the outers faced no punishment at all, not even a reprimand. So if you want to wade through those records, feel free.)
    If someone will provide a link (or better yet, the actual code) to place a COI announcement, I am perfectly willing to do so. It's definitely my bad that I did not know that was a requirement. But as you all have seen, I stepped away over a decade age, and no one brought it up then, although other editors, I believe, knew I has involved in the Carmel art scene.
    I have also been chastised on this thread for taking 8 days to respond. Sorry, but I have a demanding job and I'm here as a volunteer. And with the accusatory tone coming from several of you, I am in no hurry to play these childish games with you.
    And just above, Graywalls accused me of trying to "trick the system". What happened to Assume Good Faith?? It seems instead, some of you are loaded for bear. As I explained previously, I was encouraged to upload photos by numerous long-standing editors, and at the time, I believe there was a fair use or public interest criteria that the historical photos you reference fell under. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about? Regardless, there was no bad faith, no trickery, and no one was "caught" doing something wrong. Please stop with the accusations. Please. It's everything that's wrong with Wikipedia.
    I am deeply saddened at the wholesale deletions of relevant (and mostly sourced) material, especially without any discussion about specific edits. As a way to avoid losing this material, and actually discussing offending edits on the talk page, this is what I propose: Restore all these articles to before the deletion spree, and allow everyone to start with a clear head. Let's discuss specific edits, deletions, or corrections, achieve some consensus, and then make the edits. I'm happy to help provide sources, which are easily available. And any puffery (not that I believe there is much) can be easily re-written without deleting the relevant facts. Thoughts on this, everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smatprt:, I've struck out what was perhaps not warranted. You did though, accuse me of doing something to recent production photo, which I didn't interact with at all. Going forward, I think it would be best if you do not directly edit anything PRT related, broadly construed, but use the talk page and submit the request via edit request and clearly state you're requesting edit as someone from PRT. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Graywalls Apologies about the production photo. After you all started this, another use is now going around deleting photos. Sorry for that. I do think you are going overboard on the historic photo, though. If it's on blog somewhere, then they likely got it from us, or someone else that got it from us. Obviously, they didn't take the shot 75 years ago. BTW - Are you an administrator? user:smatprt 50.213.42.61 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming actually really are @Smatprt:, why do you repeatedly disregard a request as simple as logging into your account before interacting, but instead choose to say "hi, I'm Smatprt" while logged out, and from an IP? It's disruptive, because it makes it difficult to keep track of who actually interacted. Please log-in and perhaps you could use "stay logged in" feature. Graywalls (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I haven't really edited it for years and I'm really rusty. I'm also super busy and edit on the fly from my iPhone while running around. Sorry if that offends you. But I think saying it's disruptive is just you being overreactive again. I don't know why you persist in belittling me, talking down to me, and acting like everything I do is such a big deal. Question for you, are YOU an administrator?
    On another topic, here is the source for the Golden Bough fire of 1949. They are from the Carmel Spectator, May 26, 1949. I just found it pretty quickly using reverse Image Search. Fire pictures are on the front page and then a collage of them a few pages in. On these pages, you will find all the Golden Bough pictures I uploaded.
    https://archive.org/details/ccarm_007596
    user: smatprt Smatprt (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smatprt: I disagree with your suggestion above. The discussions taking place at the relevant talk pages are admittedly somewhat strained but they seem to be bringing about beneficial changes in some areas.
    I do agree with you, however, that it would be useful if there were to be some de-escalation. To that end I wonder if you (and others) would consider refraining from referring to those discussions as part of a 'vendetta' against you, as you have done above [13] [14] (twice in text, once in an edit summary, as well as several other comments suggesting similar motivation). The standard definition of the word 'vendetta' is presumably something along the lines of "a campaign intended to do serious harm to an individual, based on personal animosity in relation to past events". In reality, the individuals that you are referring to are regularly engaged in addressing COI issues - the PRT etc articles are just what happened to appear on their radar in recent weeks. Axad12 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you disagree. I would like to hear from others, of course, to see if there is any consensus possible. Wholesale deletion of thousands of characters was unwarranted and should be restored. Are we to believe that every bit of these mass deletions was warranted? They weren't edits or clean-up or corrections, they were wholesale deletions of large sections. user:smatprt 50.213.42.61 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a long running debate taking place at the Pacific Repertory Theatre talkpage where multiple editors are already working towards arriving at some sort of consensus on how the article should look. There is clearly no prospect of a consensus developing in that discussion towards reinstating the article content as it was a few weeks ago (as per your suggestion above). Even if that were to happen it would only lead to an immediate repeat of all the lines of argument that have been aired at the relevant talkpage over the last few weeks.
    Furthermore, even those arguing there in favour of retaining certain types of information in the article seem to have accepted that there were issues of tone and promotionalism that had crept in due to many years of undisclosed COI editing. I really can't see how it could be productive for that material to be reinstated.
    It cannot be a good idea for an editor with a very extreme COI re: the article subject to land here attempting to over-ride the natural progress of such a discussion.
    I would strongly suggest that you allow the various non-conflicted editors to continue their discussion at the relevant talkpage without any intervention from a user with a vested interest in the outcome. Axad12 (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your willingness to work within the rules going forward heartening and I'm sorry that you've felt discouraged, I believe that this link WP:DISCLOSE should suffice but feel free to give me a ping if that doesn't answer any lingering questions you may have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have disclosed my status across all the involved pages. Can you do a quick check and see if I did it properly and to everyone's satisfaction?
    Also, if you check the archives of my talk page you will see that the COI was raised years ago and I did not challenge it. As I always understood it, and I believe it is still the case now, COI editing is not prohibited, one just has to be careful, stay neutral, cite sources, and keep an encyclopedic tone, which I felt I always did. At the time, no one instructed me to add a tag, no one else added a tag, and I'm not sure if those tags even existed back then (2009). Do you know? Smatprt (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Wylie (literary agent)

    [edit]

    I can't specify any specific account in particular, but given what I've trimmed and the rather unnatural edit history pattern of the article, further analysis of contribution pattern and interactions between various accounts are likely warranted. This appears to be part of an editing farm. Graywalls (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not really sure this is really worthy of a COIN as you haven't identified edits nor an account that requires specific attention. As a reminder COIN is "is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest". The most recent edits [15] don't seem very COI in nature to me, and have been done by a rather prolific user. And since there hasn't effectively been any other edits for almost a year, it would seem that simply some BOLD copyediting is all that is needed. TiggerJay (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    wikicreation.co.uk

    [edit]
    • Wiki Creation UK
    • https://www.wikicreation.co.uk (also listed as WikiCreations.co.uk in ads, incorrectly)
    • https://www.businessplangym.com/ (various domains are listed in a press release for some reason, and the plurality of the spelled-out company name doesn't match one of the domains)
    • https://www.openpr.com/news/3724468/become-an-expert-in-wikipedia-page-design-with press release, blacklisted site

    I don't see this outfit listed at PAIDLIST. Press release dated 11-08-2024 located at openpr.com. Openpr is blacklisted so I can't link it here wrapped it with nowiki. It looks like a garden variety paid editing firm with no hint of disclosures: Your Path to Wikipedia Stardom Begins Here... Kicking-off and Maintaining - after the approval, your Wikipedia profile will be launched, and the public will be able to access it. However, that is not all - the agency continues to offer its unwavering support even after going live. They monitor and update your page to ensure your effective digital presence and relevancy. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • assignmentace.co.uk
    • assignmentmaster.co.uk
    • bookillustration.co.uk
    • bookwritingservice.co.uk
    • britishblogwriters.co.uk
    • britishproofreaders.co.uk
    • ebookwriter.uk
    • essaymills.co.uk
    • pgceassignments.com
    • shareyourlifestory.co.uk

    Other entities using the same London UK phone number (as wikicreation.co.uk) in online materials are listed above.

    • 7dollaressay.com
    • americanbookwriter.com
    • capstoneprojectwritingservices.com
    • capstoneprojectwriter.com
    • cheapessaywriter.com
    • dissertationace.com
    • ebookwritings.com
    • genieresumes.com
    • mbaessaywriter.com
    • resumesnewjersey.com

    Other entities using the same NYC phone number (as businessplangym.com) are listed above, as well as a smattering of patches embroidery fronts, some of which also have pluralization issues. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite their claim of 20 years experience, the URL was only registered on the 8th July this year; honestly seems more like a scam than a legitimate paid editing site to me, especially looking at things like their "reviews" page. CoconutOctopus talk 11:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bri: You can give the URL of a blacklisted site by wrapping it in <Nowiki>...</Nowiki> tags, or by omitting the http:// or https:// protcol prefix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good workaround, thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Josephine Teo

    [edit]

    These users have been adding promotional material to the mentioned article. Some examples are [16] by Cpaghetti, [17] by DariusMarc removing or softening criticism about the subject and this edit by Yehenarashi. Yehenarashi has edited the article since 2023 and was warned back then, while I have also informed DariusMarc and Cpaghetti on their talk pages recently. However, they have continued to edit the article after my message; the edits by DariusMarc after seems fine but these edits by Yehenarashi places undue weight to events not widely covered by reliable source, in my opinion. The timing of their edits in close proximity also makes me believe they are working together or socks. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 10:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    With the Next Singaporean general election to be held in slightly more than a year (latest to be held by 25 November 2025) time, such edits are going to be inevitable and more frequent. Appreciate if appropriate actions to be taken against COI editors. Thanks. ~ JASWE (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darylgolden: You raised the issue on Cpaghetti's talk page on 30 October. However, they have not edited since 25 October. In their case, your "they have continued to edit the article after my message" appears to be false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeo Wan Ling

    [edit]

    All three users have attempted to copy the subject's official Singapore Parliament biography into the article; they were reverted all three times for copyvio. Additionally, here Ppang82 admitted to working on behalf of the subject, so these users are likely socks or meatpuppets. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Alezsm, we will appreciate if you can declare whether do you have any COI with Yeo? Thanks. ~ JASWE (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darylgolden: A note at the top of this page says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...". This does not appear to have happened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    DariusJersey and RichardColgate

    [edit]

    DariusJersey created this page, and RichardColgate has heavily edited it. I believe due to the similarity in name the first is the subject. There was a Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DariusJersey which never went anywhere but I believe that RichardColgate at least knows the subject of the article based on activity on other wiki platforms such as commons. I can't say more under policy. There is currently an on-going Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius J. Pearce at which both are participating. Additionally, see comments at Talk:Darius J. Pearce. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your concerns however that would be very difficult given that the subject of the article is currently imprisoned. DariusJersey (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case you are in breach of WP:MISLEADNAME and WP:IMPERSONATE, i.e: Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. Axad12 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blablubbs Thank you for doing a check user. On a side note, Drm310 tried to leave some appropriate Template:Sock vote (I'm guessing on the template?) notes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius J. Pearce. Unfortunately they are all linking to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DariusJersey which never happened instead of this COI report. Is there anyway to leave a note a different way so it links to the correct discussion? Thanks for any help.4meter4 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Evadeluge

    [edit]
    Blocked for sockpuppetry, Harassment and disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    A user with the likely name of User:Evadeluge has been editing Joe Flood (policy analyst), Dorothy Hewett (married Les Flood), Bobbin Up (novel by Dorothy H), etc., adding tons of unsourced personal-knowledge cruft, being abusive on my talk page (and insisting there is no COI) when I tried to rein some of this cruft back on the Joe Flood article, and reverting my edits twice now.

    Note also that Joe Flood and Marilla North appear to have been the editors of Dorothy Hewett's works, and see also long-username-blocked User:Marillajoe. Per an earlier discussion in 2022 on User talk:Evadeluge (where Deluge also blew off clear evidence that they were in COI) Evadeluge is one of the two editors who controlled Marillajoe before it was blocked as a joint account.

    Anyway, more attention to the articles on Flood, Hewett, and related topics, especially from editors with experience dealing with COIs, would be helpful. I will notify Deluge; there's no point in notifying the blocked username. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PS pinging FiddleFaddle as a participant in the 2022 discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular subject of COI was dealt with in April 2022 and is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Hewett. It appears the current dispute over a single article is not about content at all, but user David_Eppstein's unexplained wish to revive a long-resolved misunderstanding from my first few days of joining Wiki, concerning dual membership: which is possible in Wikimedia but not Wikipedia.
    This is none of Epstein's business, but in the first few weeks of my membership here, at the request of moderators two completely separate accounts were created, my own (named for my mother) which deals with matters of literature and biography, and a second account for the other editor, which deals with matters of mathematics and urban policy. Yes I do know a great deal about Dorothy Hewett, Miles Franklin, Dymphna Cusack and other postcolonial female authors, as well as biography, Australian drama and literature. Since then I have done about 1000 edits on these topics.
    Epstein should stop trying to create trouble relating to matters that were finalised years ago and move on. If he has something useful to say about the content of the article he wishes to edit, this can be dealt with on its merits. Evadeluge (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor had a difficult start and found it difficult to talk to other editors with true civility when things appeared not to be going their way. They seem to have collaborated with "Dr Flood" and have a large undeclared COI in Tom Flood
    Ad hominem attacks against the reporting editor's character are distinctly unhelpful, and hark back to the prior incivility. They reek of "I will get my way whatever it takes" when I read them. YMMV.
    While there is nothing inherently disallowed with two knowledgeable editors working on a tropic whether they know each other in real life or not, that, together with renewed non collegial attitude, suggests that their edits merit serious scrutiny where each edits in the same topic, and where that topic is well known to each of them.
    "This is none of Epstein's business" Yes it is. It is anybody's and everybody's business. This is Wikipedia.
    "in the first few weeks of my membership here, at the request of moderators two completely separate accounts were created, my own (named for my mother) which deals with matters of literature and biography, and a second account for the other editor, which deals with matters of mathematics and urban policy." Who controls each account? The statement is unclear. If one editor uses both accounts to edit this is both against our policies, and Evadeluge is being economical with the truth.
    That the edits may have been valuable, useful, well referenced edits is not relevant in this discussion.
    Turning to "David_Eppstein's unexplained wish to revive a long-resolved misunderstanding" it seems that what is stated as a long-resolved misunderstanding" is not resolved. Two accounts may have been generated, but:
    • "and a second account for the other editor". Since the joint account is blocked, what is the name of this other account?
    • Who is using each, is Evadeluge using only their own or using both?
    • Why has COI not been declared by each account?
    • Why is a COI editor pushing ahead and editing mainspace articles rather than requesting edits?
    It is clear to me that Evadeluge had no intention of heeding our conversation(s) on their user talk page, starting with my welcome to them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to the other articles mentioned by David Eppstein, they have had substantial edits by Evadeluge, again without declaration of COI. I am in process of tagging each of them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this discussion it will be helpful to refer interested parties to Talk:Dorothy Hewett#Merging from Draft:Dorothy Hewett in particular and to that talk page in general. While not strictly relevant to the COIN discussion, inspecting the edit history for redaction of copyright violations inserted by Evadeuge is a recurrent theme. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also User talk:Marillajoe almost all of which is relevant. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief note..
    The coincidence of an interest in Dymphna Cusack and a highly opinionated apparent COI user reminded me of the following COIN thread from March 2024 [18].
    Other similarities:
    (1) Evadeluge states that Yes I do know a great deal about [...] Dymphna Cusack, whereas the problematic editor back in March 2024 had published an autobiography of Cusack.
    (2) Evadeluge states they have done about 1000 edits on these topics (i.e including Cusack) but has never edited the Cusack article.
    (3) The March 2024 editor was very strongly suspected of using multiple accounts (to the point of it being perfectly obvious that they were doing so).
    Of course, this may all be entirely coincidental, but I felt it was worth mentioning. Axad12 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also (returning to the COI concerns in this thread) it is worth noting Evadeluge's comment here [19] at WP:BLPN: Several times, I have had to turn down women who are really quite eminent and real trailblazers, who ought to be in Wikipedia, but can't demonstrate notability, sad.
    How is that sentence to be interpreted, other than as an undeclared paid editor admitting that they have turned down commissions from individuals who do not meet GNG? Axad12 (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tim Trent, could you clarify the link between the Marillajoe account and the EvaDeluge account? The Marillajoe account was (as stated here [20] and here [21]) a shared account between individuals named Marilla & Joe. Easily accessible off-wiki evidence makes the nature of the COI of those 2 individuals to Dorothy Hewett and other associated articles very clear indeed.
    If there is any direct connection between Marillajoe and Evadeluge then Evadeluge would appear to have a blatant COI in relation to several Wikipedia articles, including one which appears to be about themselves and which they edited earlier this year. Axad12 (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A linked account here is, I strongly suspect, Redabyss1, which has made edits to Dymphna Cusack, Dorothy Hewett, Joe Flood (policy analyst) and extensive edits to Australian housing related articles (the area in which Joe Flood operates). Also, they are the 98% contributor to another article which they have in common with Evadeluge. Axad12 (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12 I fee an SPI coming on 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12 I think the users of Marillajoe have made it clear that their co-use of the account is inappropriate.
    Linking that with Evadeluge is somewhere im protracted conversations, and IIRC they self linked it. There is a welter of not answering questions here 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12, Why are you deliberately trying to put the worst possible context on my words? What is the matter with you people? I have now contributed a great deal to Wikipedia, absolutely gratis, yet instead of congratulations, all you do is try to find something wrong.
    No. What you say is a gross insult and a disgusting calumny. I point out a serious problem with wikipedia, one Women in Red have discussed, and instead of agreeing and moving towards a solution, you malign and attack me.
    I never said I had contributed to Dymphna Cusack (yet). I have certainly never received any payment. If you look you will see I have never contributed an article on a living woman.
    I can't follow the above sequence but you are behaving like a pack of wild dogs. Evadeluge (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a very clear conflict of interest to several articles. You now have the opportunity to disclose those conflicts of interest. I suggest that you go ahead and do so rather than trying to throw up diversionary smoke. Axad12 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most importantly and once again, I assert there is NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST, none, no matter how hard you try to impute one. None. No COI.
    I do not intend to revive the dreadful situation with Tim Trent in our first week of joining in 2022, where he pursued and hounded me to the extent my health was affected. It looks as if Axad12, whoever he is, wants to go down the same track. Please desist. Evadeluge (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Evadeluge "I do not intend to revive the dreadful situation with Tim Trent in our first week of joining in 2022, where he pursued and hounded me to the extent my health was affected. " is returning to your behaviour of making personal attacks. This must cease immediately. To be clear, I do not care whether you attack me or not, but the Wikipedia community does, and I care about the example you are setting to other editors. Please read WP:NPA and adhere to it.
    I have never pursued nor hounded you. You are where you are by your own actions and I am concerned for you that your health has been affected. If you stop behaving without civility and cease your personal attacks I anticipate that there will be no effect on your health. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned for personal attacks. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, I have not heard from you since April 2022. Why have you now reappeared? Are you suggesting you are here "because of my own actions" rather than because you were summoned by Epstein? Evadeluge (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am here because I was asked to comment. I have commented. There is no reason why you should have heard from me. I have not been monitoring anything that you have been doing in the intervening period, and had no interest in it.
    I think that ameliorating your tone would be helpful. Starting with an ad hominem attack was really not appropriate, whoever you attacked. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And once more I reiterate. Only one person uses each account. This is in accordance with the agreement reached in April 2022, when it was made clear that any divergence would result in consequences.
    As you well know, axad12, I have absolutely no obligation to reveal my name to you, or the name and circumstances of any other account holder, no matter how much you try to bully me. Nor do I intend to. If you can find a genuinely neutral, helpful person such as the one who resolved the timtrent attack in April 2022, I am quite happy to explain the situation to him. Evadeluge (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one here cares about your real name. What we care about it is that you name any Wikipedia accounts here you are collaborating with.
    Also, you have just attacked me again and I have warned you against that behaviour again on your user talk page 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I am not sure that is a legitimate request, but at least it is a sensible one. I will answer.
    In 2022 Joe Flood was renting a room from me (I was his landlady). I am not particularly computer literate but he suggested it could be worthwhile for me to become a wikipedia editor. He joined with me to show me what to do. It was soon pointed out (by you, and not in a friendly or sensitive way) that we could not do that. So I created a new account, this one, named for my mother. It was agreed after some discussion that I did not have a CoI and therefore could edit the article on Dorothy Hewett. This article had many errors and was very substantially improved over the current months, as agreed by the whole wikipedia community.
    If he also edited any article I was working on, I was unaware of that, but I am sure any such edits would be very small and were not undertaken in collaboration. Evadeluge (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me as though what has happened here is fairly obvious. The shared Marissajoe account was shut down and the two users set up separate accounts through which they have extensively edited about each other.
    I say "about each other" but that rather assumes that the two accounts did not continue to be shared. Clearly a situation where user A edited about user B and user B edited about user A is rather unlikely, given the previous shared account. Nonetheless, both users have actually edited the articles for both individuals (and other articles where they each have conflicts of interest) so the idea that no COI has existed is nonsense.
    Alternatively it is possible that one end user is responsible for both accounts, but the level of detail added by the accounts suggests that two individuals are involved somewhere along the line.
    Interestingly, Evadeluge states above that they are very knowledgeable on Dymphna Cusack but of the two it is the Redabyss1 account which has edited that article.
    Let's be honest here, even if it was the case that two individuals who previously had a shared account then set up entirely separate accounts and each did not edit about themselves, only about each other, I hardly imagine for a moment that that would resolve all concerns over COI editing here.
    Off wiki evidence indicates that the link between the two users is significantly greater than that one was once the others landlady. Axad12 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That off wiki evidence should be kept off wiki. WP:OUTING deals with matters like that. I can say clearly that I am not privy to it, nor do I wish to be made privy to it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, absolutely correct. However, it is fairly common for the existence of such evidence to be noted on this noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: the similarity between the Evadeluge and Redabyss1 accounts, compare the following comments:
    1) Evadeluge commenting earlier today on difficulties proving notability for certain women [22]: I do think that if the subject of an article makes a substantial real-world contribution, and demonstrably so, this should be included in the text. It is done all the time for pop stars, arts figures, politicians and others, so why not for researchers, managers and others? They suffer from a fairly profound disadvantage at wikipedia and often find it hard even to be notable. Several times, I have had to turn down women who are really quite eminent and real trailblazers, who ought to be in Wikipedia, but can't demonstrate notability, sad.
    2) Redabyss1, referring to the same issue using similar language back in Dec 2023 [23]: I think that there are a lot of women in areas such as management and economics who have made really serious contributions and are trailblazers, but they are underrepresented. One problem is they often don't get the kind of direct media attention that is necessary for wikipedia.
    Similarly, Evadeluge mentions Women in Red earlier in this thread in the same connection. Redabyss1 is a member of WiR (the quote above is taken from a discussion immediately prior to them being signed up), Evadeluge is not.
    Evidently operating two accounts and keeping one's story straight is quite difficult for some users. Axad12 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a clear financial COI here. Joe Flood had a 2013 book published by "Deluge Publishing", which also published a book coauthored by Flood and Marilla North about Dorothy Hewett. The userpage for "User:Marillajoe" describes both "Joe" and "Marilla" as "publishers". User:Evadeluge also says they are a "publisher" on their user page. Deluge Publishing has also published a book by Dorothy Hewett and Merv Lilley, and another by Reese North. I am also concerned by statements such as, "Information about Dr Flood has been obtained from his extensive CV, several resumes, and a short autobiographical piece he submitted on request" (emphasis added) [24]. – notwally (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet investigation here: [25]. Axad12 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notwally I think you will already find a bewildering volume of indignation and dissembling. MayI siggest you present this as additional evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marillajoe where behavioural evidence is being evaluated. Your inout will be most helpful. I agree this is separate from the COI/UPE issue. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful work, gentlemen, unbelievably petty. Instead of arguing about whether content is accurate, notable, and complete, you want to rabbit on about what might be a "close connection". CoI accusations are the last refuge of the scoundrel. Bunch of geniuses. All you have done is lose two valuable editors, who announced a loose "connection" of sorts right back at the beginning. Evadeluge (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethics is the first refuge of the Wikipedian, by design. You can dismiss COI editing all you want, but Wikipedia being a useful project requires taking it seriously, and there's a lot of circumstantial evidence here. And the fact that you say there's none in all capital letters is getting really hard to justify. And we already know now, from SPI, that your account and Redabyss1 are, and I quote "technically indistinguishable." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked back at the original 2012 discussion on the Dorothy Hewett talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorothy_Hewett#c-Timtrent-2022-03-20T16:00:00.000Z-Merging_from_Draft:Dorothy_Hewett
    It runs
    @Laterthanyouthink: I have some concerns. I set this discussion up in the full expectation that the now blocked Marillajoe would split into the two accounts who used that name, and join this discussion. So far I know that one, Evadeluge has registered. I have no knowledge of the other. Special:Contributions/Evadeluge shows no real interest in Dorothy Hewett so far.
    What is says quite clearly is that a ) it was actually Timtrent who insisted that two separate accounts be set up, one for each editor. This was eventually done as per his instruction. b) Timtrent and laterthanyouthink said hurry up, go ahead with the edits as Evadeluge had no COI.
    Absolutely nothing has changed since that time, except that now, years later, Timtrent has added a COI statement to the entry, apparently having changed his mind on something he insisted on.
    This is all a storm in a teacup. I will say it once more. Being the landlady of a son of a long deceased author is not a COI as I understand it. There is no COI. 2001:8003:283C:A900:D5E0:86B6:584E:4A5B (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry that was Evadeluge (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You say there was no COI. So, to be clear, when the Evadeluge and Redabyss1 accounts created and made extensive edits to articles about or related to Joe Flood (policy analyst) and Marilla North there was no conflict of interest, because there is no connection whatsoever between the user(s) behind those two accounts and the real life individuals concerned? Axad12 (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    As exciting and verbose as all this is, the SPI's result by Izno is clear, so there's really only one question: do we believe the story that it's two people with two accounts in the same place? I remember an editor telling a similar story, but he was my friend and I know he was lying. And if we believe that, given the overlap between the accounts and the COI editing, does it matter? Is an article like Dorothy Hewett irredeemably tainted by COI editing? I do believe there's excessive content and some unencyclopedic writing in that article, and I cut some of it. I haven't looked at the other articles, but that there are aspects of COI editing are clear to me; that there's paid editing is supported also by User:Notwally, and while "a piece he submitted on request" may be innocuous (I've also asked people for information, though I've never asked the subject of an article for materials), combined with the rest of the evidence it doesn't look good.
    It seems to me that the COI/UPE issue is real enough, that the SPI certainly supports the idea of socking, and that the tone the editor strikes is also unconducive to collegial editing. What I don't get is why the editor, if they wanted to stick with "we're two people" while taking COI concerns seriously, didn't make sure to prevent any overlap between the accounts. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen this sort of thing before. The main reason is usually because the user is careless and because (as per the WiR related comments above) they thus have difficulty maintaining for several years the impression of 2 entirely independent accounts.
    Other possible reasons:
    User has contempt for the relevant policies (see obvious comments to that effect above and elsewhere) and did not believe they would get caught.
    User did not believe they were under observation and thus they got lazy.
    User did not really believe that the rules applied to them (for which see above), and that in the unlikely event of being caught they would be able to talk their way out of it because everyone else is so stupid (for which also see above).
    The issues here don't really relate to the Dorothy Hewett related articles (although some of those do need some serious work to bring them in line with WP norms). The issues are the works of autobiography, articles about associates/relatives/connected ventures etc. Also the consistent denial of the existence of COI.
    Under the Marillajoe account there are comments that Flood provided the source material and Evadeluge provided the writing ability and editing. There are very recent comments to that effect above and elsewhere. So it is perfectly feasible that both accounts remain shared accounts to this day as per the original Marillajoe account, but that 2 accounts were set up because they were told to do so when Marillajoe was blocked. The Wiki user then attempted to keep those accounts nominally separate to some degree - e.g. it became useful then she created her own autobiography. Axad12 (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12, by the way thankyou for the edit, which was good. As you know, I was unable to change it myself due to CoI. Mind you, this is a hell of a way to get editors to look at an entry.
    However, yet another rant now where you have invented a whole scenario with no basis in truth. Evadeluge (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Demies - did you think the rant by Axad12 above was "collegiate" where he accused me of "paid editing", a complete twisting of my words? Or it was "collegiate" of David Epstein to dump an argument about his own disputed editing here, instead of trying to deal with the content? One should speak nicely to be answered in kind.
    I am a biographer, and biographers *always* seek basic input where possible from the target or their heirs. It does not mean we reproduce this input necessarily, but it does mean we avoid factual errors and disputes.
    I agree with you that having two editors in the one household is not ideal. Mostly because it's too easy to pick up the wrong login on a shared wireless. That has now been fixed with redabyss1's departure. Evadeluge (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be missing the point here. The point is that there are supposedly two end users who are operating two accounts to create and edit article about themselves/each other and about people/organisations/etc to which one or the other of them have a close association.
    That is the entirety of the issue here and it will not be fixed by one of the accounts being abandoned. Axad12 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do what you like Axad12. This is long past the point of rational discussion and wikipedia has lost me as an editor. Well done. As to redabyss1, I believe he has been inactive for a long time, being not so interested since he moved. Evadeluge (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your consistent refusal to address the central issue here, and instead to go off on diversionary tangents and throw around personal attacks, speaks volumes. Axad12 (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might I suggest that an uninvolved admin either closes and blocks as a result of the emerged consensus here (after assessing it), or that we just await the SPI CU block, say a heartfelt goodbye at last to this COI/UPE sock farm and cease to engage with it?
    Some tidying of multiple articles is then required to take out the trash.
    tl;dr - DNFTT Goodbye 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It's hard to guess the exact mix of WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:UPE, and WP:IDHT, but the resulting stew has quite obviously filled up the bowl. I'm definitely in favor of a community-made block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their behavior is becoming more concerning [26] [27]. – notwally (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed. The user had been canvassing other users to intervene on PRODs (which, after failing in those attempts, they removed themselves), has continued their personal attacks and has recently attacked an article about one of the users who has been participating in this thread and in the wider clean up. Axad12 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Evadeluge and Redabyss1 have now been site blocked by ToBeFree. With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wicked_(2024_film)

    [edit]
    No evidence of CoI. User blocked for other matters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Username matches the article they're editing. They claim they're a "Wicked fan" and they're exclusively editing the page of the Wicked movie. Also they were apparently engaged in an edit war as indicated by their talk page.

    Note: I'm not watching this page as it has other discussion not pertaining to this case. So please ping me if there's a reply to me.

    Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tyw7 Better go after @DisneyMetalhead for editing Disney articles and metal articles too! Y'all need to chill. I am making respectful and accurate edits. I was the one who advocated we use the actual theatrical poster, when someone tried to pass the teaser poster off as such! WickedFanAccount (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a fan of a movie isn't really enough to be considered to have a conflict of interest in that movie and I'm only seeing some minor editwarring. Yvan Part (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. It just seem a bit of COI for being a fan of the movie and then editing articles primarily related to Wicked. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So... you're telling me you don't edit articles of things you are a fan of? I doubt that. Sorry I am wearing my heart on my sleeve (username). WickedFanAccount (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you're being quite the hypocrite.
    (Redacted)
    Numerous other examples of @Tyw7 talking about Wicked all over his socials. Hmmmmm..... interesting. If he's to take his own advice, he should stop the editing of the Wicked article. WickedFanAccount (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have no opinion in this matter as addressed, I would like to note that the concerns appear to be more closely aligned with WP:PROMONAME of the site's username policy than a potential conflict of interest (being a fan of something does not necessarily mean this is a WP:SPA which has something to gain from editing around one specific topic. I don't think digging up old social media posts of our editors is a good practice either as it may be a form of WP:OUTING, which is not allowed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well my name doesn't have the word "wicked" in it. And my topics are quite varied. And I agree with @Trailblazer101. This could be found as outing. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with above too. I believe this user just doesn't want to edit WP:CIVILly and that they think all their edits are factual, right and correct, even when they are not, and are instead disregarding policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CON, WP:OWN and WP:EW. Happily888 (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User now blocked. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Art Recognition

    [edit]
    Article creator has been blocked indefinitely since June for copyright violations. No other editors have been alleged to have a COI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    It’s a pure commercial for a company to yield profit. A classical misuse of Wikipedia! Trnkoczy (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does it meet our inclusion criteria? If you don't think it does you can nominate for deletion. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion Secretlondon (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting the inclusion criteria aside a copyvio has survived in it since creation. I have requested revision deletion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pixartprinting

    [edit]

    What to do. The creator is very clearly employed by the company (simply search the username and the company name). लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक: You are requiered to notify anyone you discuss here, Please do so now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a note at the top of this page saying "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...". That should be your first step. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had pre-emptively welcomed/cautioned them with a {{Welcome-COI}} template when I saw the article still their sandbox. Looks like they chose to ignore the message and posted it anyway. They've been inactive for months; I just left them a {{uw-paid1}} notice in case they return. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LoveEditingwiki

    [edit]

    User has been making the same edits in frwiki and ptwiki: see fr:User:LoveEditingwiki and pt:User:LoveEditingwiki. There's also File:D804354.jpg and File:Tomohiro Hatta.jpg on commons. Their only edits and uploads are on Tomohiro Hatta, Musicorba, and Ricardo Vieira. Pretty likely to be UPE by Hatta and Vieira's agent or something like that. User:ApocheirApocheir (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Apocheir: At the top of this page is a note: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...". Where did this occur? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have subsequently dropped them a message outlining the concerns. I also left them a templated message on Portuguese Wikipedia. They've already been alerted on French Wikipedia. They've also been active on Japanese Wikipedia, but I am not going to attempt contacting them there... I have zero familiarity with the Japanese language. I think we've done about everything we can do to get their attention. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eddie Eagle

    [edit]

    This IP made a major edit to this article, which appeared to be blatant propaganda and COI. This was reverted by User:AusLondonder. On closer inspection, this IP is in a range assigned directly to the National Rifle Association of America - so undeclared COI! The Contribution history for this IP seems to consist primarily of COI editing of subjects related to the NRAoA. Does this merit a ban on this IP (or the entire 204.68.128.0/22 assigned to the NRAoA)?

    Given that this range is assigned to the NRAoA, it is reasonable to assume any editing is coming from the Association.

    Is there any mechanism to flag (at least to Admins) when a signed-in user is editing the article from an offending IP? Thanks. Hemmers (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hemmers I'm afraid not. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek Dienner

    [edit]
    Nothing to do here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An actor is requesting someone to pay to write a Wikipedia article about him. [28]. We need to stop the COI paid editing before it actually happens and block anyone who tries to do this outrageous request.

    2603:8080:4300:4912:4557:1484:DA63:9162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not violate policy to offer to pay someone to write about yourself, as long as the paid editor complies with WP:PAID and declares that. If they don't, then action can be taken. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Stano Bubán

    [edit]

    The user has stated they are in communication with the subject of their edits (here) but has declined to declare a conflict of interest, and has even claimed to not know the subject despite communicating with them (see their user talk page). They posted personal information about the subject, claiming it is from them, but has no source other than their statements. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear 331dot., I have been active in the art world in Slovakia all my entire professional life. I have been interested in fine arts since my studies at the University. That is why I created a page about the painter Stano Bubán, whom I do not know personally. So I am not in a conflict of interest. You want to delete my work, because I managed to find out objective information about the painter's family. Information about the families of important personalities is absolutely common on Wikipedia pages. All the creators of these pages about personalities had to get this information about family members somewhere and no one has certainly accused them of a conflict of interest. If the newly created page is deleted, you will probably be happy and satisfied. I look forward to you being happy and satisfied that the page will be deleted. I wish you success in your life. Jozef Heriban (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to "delete" anything. Where have I said that? You can't communicate with someone without knowing them.
    If you know of other articles with unsourced personal information, please tell us what they are so we can take action. Even just one example would be helpful. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear 331 dot, Another bar appeared on the page, which questions the credibility of the information: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I assume that it was added by the editor or admin "Theroadislong". I don't know if you can empathize with the feelings of another person. But I'm no longer interested in this completely irrelevant discussion about trying to provide the most accurate information. Feel free to delete the page.
    I really don't want to search for pages with information about the families of artists for you. Please, look at the pages of almost all major American actors, directors, writers, artists, opera singers... This information about their families and their personal lives is important for understanding their artistic activities. I wish you a nice sunny day...... Jozef Heriban (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't up to me to do the work to support your claims. Yes, there are likely many articles with inappropriately sourced or unsourced content in them, this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriately sourced or unsourced content. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us. You are free to not do so, of course.
    Note that the issue is not merely that you included personal information about someone, but that you did so and claim the only source is the person themselves who told you the information- it isn't published somewhere. If you have properly sourced personal information that can be verified, that is valid content. We take citations of information related to living people very seriously, see the Biographies of Living Persons policy. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok.. I'm ending the discussion on this topic... Thank you for your time... I have to move on... I still have a lot of work to do... I think I won't be trying to create an article on Wikipedia in the near future... Greetings and have a nice day... Jozef Heriban (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merely communicating with a subject is not inherently a COI, and the claim that "You can't communicate with someone without knowing them" is utter nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
    Pigsonthewing How does one communicate with someone without knowing them? I don't mean a deep personal relationship, but one must know the person in some manner.
    Mere communication is not inherently a COI, but that's not what this is- they solicited input about the article from them. If I ask Donald Trump about the article about him and carry out his instructions, is that not a COI? 331dot (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know me? And yet here we are, communicating. I have communicated with many people I have written about on Wikipedia, but do not know - and with whom I have no conceivable CoI - by reaching out to them via the contact page on their website, or on social media, or walking up to them at an event and introducing myself. Our VRT volunteers communicate with article subjects daily. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we have different definitions of "knowing". 331dot (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. 331dot, if you don't have any other evidence of a COI then I suggest you apologize to Jozef and close this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone wants to close this, go ahead; I'm not sure what it is I need to apologize for.......this user solicited input about a subject's article from the subject, essentially acting as their representative. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent)

    You're reading far to much into the words of the article's author, which - according to the diff you cite, which is the only evidence you have offered - were:

    I gathered information about his family from communication with him. Such information about his family (name of mother, sisters, daughters etc. is not available on the internet.

    Sending someone an email saying something like "Please may I ask the name of your parents, siblings and children, for Wikipedia", while it clearly fails WP:V, is not "knowing" that person, is not "acting as their representative", and does not constitute a CoI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Very well, but it wasn't unreasonable for me to pose the question, under WP:APPARENTCOI it says "Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection". Thank you. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Council of Fashion Designers of America / promotional edits

    [edit]
    Sockpuppetery blocked. Solved Graywalls (talk)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Brand new user with zero edits came and made their first edits that consisted of inserting flowery contents into those articles. They were told primary sources are not ok, and to seek consensus, but almost immediately re-added the contents with a different source. They denied COI and said how they're just interested, which is the kind of response I generally expect from COI editors. In the interest of avoiding edit warring with them, I am seeking additional sets of eyes. Even though their re-introduction of this content for the second time was supported with NYT, the initial insertions using the company's own sites, this being their first edit, and their persistent insertions and disregarding request to get consensus suggests connected contributor. Graywalls (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all, I occasionally see gaps or typos on Wikipedia articles and today was finally the day that I was motivated to sign up and try my hand at editing. I was excited to see thanks on my first edits (adding information about the CFDA x Tiffany & Co. Jewelry Designer Award to both the CFDA and Tiffany articles!)
    I don't see any flowery language, as the language is pulled directly from the source material and the goal of the endowment is to uplift exceptional (according to their selection committee) American jewelry designers.
    @Graywalls informed me that citing from CFDA / Tiffany websites was not appropriate, so I pulled from NYT and National Jeweler. I tried to address their reversions in the talk page, but again, new user and navigating Wiki is complex to me.
    I would be shocked to learn that a social impact program doesn't fit under the "Philanthropy" subheading on Tiffany & Co article, or under the "Programs" subheading on CFDA. It is literally a CFDA x Tiffany philanthropic program; I took care to edit using the exact formatting of the other listed CFDA programs. To highlight my contribution as "unencyclopedic" as @Graywalls did is patently incorrect.
    I admit it was my bad citing the company websites in my initial edit, and I changed that when directed by the editor, but it's wild to be publicly chastised over something that so obviously belongs. Crash0ut (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The advertiseyness and fluff of the CFDA article as whole in fact is a concern. Graywalls (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls That has nothing to do with me. Why is this left as a comment on my Conflict of Interest Noticeboard? Which again, I shouldn't be on anyway. Crash0ut (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah true. It doesn't specifically pertain to you. Although flowery content addition to already advert like article raises additional concern, the prior conditions didn't specifically pertain to you. Graywalls (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh uh. So again, why are we here? I added clear, cited information that was obviously notable. You pulled it, and told me my citations were incorrect. I changed the citations and reposted. You pulled it again saying it was unencyclopedic. When I informed you it follows the formatting of the article, and includes updated information about the specific area you claimed I have a COI. When I explained myself here you changed the subject and stated that you don't like the article in general. Again, this has nothing to do with me and seems petty. Crash0ut (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given one of your first edits was this, I think there is reasonable suspicion to include you here. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @OXYLYPSE As explained, noticing the lack of inclusion of this program was the impetus for my creating an account. This is an area that I watch and I wanted to be helpful and add it. Being a new user, I incorrectly cited the information, Graywalls removed it and notified me, I found an impartial citation at NYT and added the information again. I also added the program under the Philanthropy subheading on the Tiffany & Co. article. Its inclusion worthiness was called into question. Why was that only determined after I fixed the citation? I'm trying my best here, and immediately had someone jump down my throat in a way that felt incredibly petty. I don't know the other user, I'm not responsible for what they do. To be clear, Graywall changed the name of this COI Notice, as it was originally fully directed at me. Why?
    Can we just get a consensus on the inclusion of the information and move on? Crash0ut (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of this noticeboard is to come to a consensus whether you and others have a conflict / are engaging in undisclosed paid editing, not whether the information should be included. It seems pretty clear to me what's going on here, but I've been wrong before. OXYLYPSE (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Tell me what's going on then? Because I'm currently texting my friends about the wild Wikipedia conspiratorial drama I'm now randomly involved in. The evidence against me seems to be:
    1. Myself and another user made edits to the CFDA article within the same month
    2. Myself and another user reply to this thread about our edits around the same time as one another
    3. We both used @ tags to respond to users
    Outside of that this conversation really is about whether my edits were inclusion worthy. Graywall moved the goalposts by bringing up promotional language + another user after specifically making this COI Notice about my edit. This evidence is both weak and circumstantial. Crash0ut (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, starting in November 2024, there's been a sudden burst of flowery contents addition related to CFDA from four IPs that have shown no edits outside of CFDA adjacent subjects, including adding things related to CFDA into List of awards and nominations received by Johnny Depp and all four of those IPs have shown no edits outside of CFDA related topics and they're all from Toronto, ON, Canada area. Graywalls (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If my edits were unduly flowery is a matter of being new to editing articles. I used language pulled directly from citations, describing the goal of the endowment program as being to uplift exceptional designers. It's not purely neutral language but it is the stated goal of the program, "exceptional" designers being chosen by a panel of industry professionals. Pretty run of the mill.
    IMO this is straight forward: CFDA introduced a new endowment program focused on jewelry, I added it to their article under subheading PROGRAMS. I followed the formatting of every other entry in that section.
    You corrected my source citation, thank you, but then you called into question whether it even belongs on the article? And now we're in a rabbit hole about Johnny Depp and computers in Canada? Come on man, what are we doing here? Crash0ut (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mean to hassle you @Graywalls. I was kind of just going off of how the article was written in general and didn't realize how much of the language surrounding the program was inherently not neutral. Crash0ut (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls When you click on the my Contributions you can see there was no flowery or promotional contents added, just the factual historical statements from past awards from reliable and prominent sources. There was a lot of missing awards and references so it takes a lot of time to fill. Nothing wrong with researching one topic at a time and editing to fix things as info as added (I also removed unsourced info that was not added by me). Without a lot of time or capacity to spend on wikipedia. -104.195.221.169 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right? I find it amazing that their new program (the CFDA x Tiffany & Co. Jewelry Designer Award) was flagged as not inclusion worthy, on a subheading dedicated to their programs. Crash0ut (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls Also, there were no objections to any of my edits including from yourself. Look again at my actual contributions. I tried to do one year at a time for 1980s to 2000s. There were hardly any references and a lot of missing info for THREE DECADES of awards so it is something that will take up time and space. I am not responsible for the other content in the article outside of my edits. I have been randomly editing wikipedia over the years.
    Nothing added was promotional, inappropriate, or objected to by yourself or anyone from those IPs you posted above. It was all straightforward, well-sourced factual information.
    -104.195.221.169 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, promotional edits go unnoticed for a while. I'm not sure why you listed out all the above IPs, but are you acknowleding they're all you? Graywalls (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like you're intentionally obtuse, the current consensus (ie, 2/3 of the parties in this conversation) is that there isn't excessively flowery or promotional language on that article. If you've noticed something, rather than arguing about it suggest fixes.
    Again, glad you changed the title of this COI notice but now I'm being dragged into a conspiracy with Johnny Depp? Feels like you're spiraling. Crash0ut (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ?? The IP addresses were listed above along with my current IP. I use internet with dynamic IPs which is common. They show your comment "Also, starting in November 2024, there's been a sudden burst of flowery contents addition related to CFDA from four IPs" is false. You can click and see factual and well-sourced content. Nothing you or anyone has objected to or removed in your sudden burst of edits. We can agree that there is a lot of work needed on the article. There was one sentence pertaining to one CFDA award won by Johnny Depp to the list of awards for that actor.
    -104.195.221.169 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like blanket statements are being made conflating different edits and editors because of certain biases about the subjects and unfamiliarity with articles in this area. Let's focus on the specific facts and not distortions. -104.195.221.169 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To that end, it remains my contention that information about the CFDA x Tiffany & Co. Jewelry Designer Award: its goals, its endowment, and its awardees is materially relevant to the article. And was correctly placed in my initial edit under the Programs subheading. Furthermore I would argue the same for its inclusion in the Tiffany & Co. article, under Philanthropy, as the stated goal around the endowment is increasing diversity and access in the jewelry industry. Crash0ut (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m inclined to agree with Graywalls that the editing patterns under discussion here resemble what might be expected from conflict of interest editing / undisclosed paid editing.
    The CFDA article had not seen a great deal of editing activity until relatively recently, and for 2 single purpose users (one registered, one using multiple IPs) to arise in the same month with an apparently related agenda gives cause for concern.
    Also, re: the observation above that the current consensus (ie, 2/3 of the parties in this conversation) is that there isn't excessively flowery or promotional language on that article…
    The registered account and IP account seem to communicate at very similar times, responding quickly to each other’s posts (in a way typical of sockpuppets) and both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation “@Graywalls” at the start of their posts (despite apparently both being inexperienced users). Thus the idea that the comments made by these accounts represents a genuine consensus (rather than WP:LOUTSOCK activity) seems questionable.
    Also, how do unregistered users employing IP addresses receive notification that messages have been left on the relevant IP talk page? The IP address responded [29] within 20 minutes to the message left there by Graywalls, then responded here (despite not having been notified of this discussion) and then user Crash0ut responded to that post within 10 minutes agreeing with the sentiment expressed. It's also worth noting the very close similarity between the exact times when Crash0ut [30] and most recent IP address [31] appear to be online.
    Talking more broadly, IP activity on the CFDA article had ceased on 16th Nov, with the CrashOut account then opening on the 26th. Then within 16 minutes of Graywalls contacting the registered user [32] on their talkpage re: possible conflict of interest editing the IP activity starts again [33].
    Some elements of these events may be explainable but the overall picture suggests that something isn't quite right here. Axad12 (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "arise in the same month with an apparently related agenda gives cause for concern."
    No, I have nothing to do with the other user and their edits are about an entirely different topic on the article. I am edited about awards from 20-40+ years ago, many winners that are deceased, no longer active entities. 104.195.221.169 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The registered account and IP account seem to communicate at very similar times, responding quickly to each other’s posts (in a way typical of sockpuppets) and both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation" The other user just jumped on board suddenly after a recent edit. I went to check my page and saw the note then came here. I don't know how Crash0ut account schedule or how they check their message. I was busy with other things since Nov 16. As you can see I am an occasional editor who also takes time to review and research. I was notified of formatting AllCaps in the reference and went to correct it. There are often follow up edits to do after one edit as you see more information. Yes "something isn't quite right" with these spiraling accusations. Obviously if I am being interacted with, that means I need to check to respond if possible. I don't know what is going on here and why this is continuing. -15:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
    104.195.221.169 (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly this has to be a joke. We are moving so far outside the point. "and both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation “@Graywalls” at the start of their posts (despite apparently both being inexperienced users)" Using @Axad12 tags is common across most social platforms, frankly I just guessed that I would have to tag Graywalls for them to be notified.
    I have no control over the content or timing of anyone else's edits, but two users on the same continent with an interest in different aspects of fashion is hardly suspect. What I find bizarre is that a topic that's clearly inclusion worthy would be called into question (again, my edit was the new endowment program hosted by CFDA and Tiffany) It was well cited with a fact basis and neutral language, added under the Programs subheading of CFDA and Philanthropy subheading of Tiffany. Both of those adds are clear and obvious. And now I'm sitting here being questioned about the timing of other users responses? Or why I knew to @ tag? Crash0ut (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, there was nothing all objectionable in my edits. I began in the 2000s, then 1990s, then 1980s. Just factual information of the winners and the awards, added references, and some events or changes in the awards in the paragraph at the beginning of the sections. These sections are not completed yet. I have looked at the awards up to 1986. This has been over a month and time, then suddenly two other users start editing the page and disagreeing on completing different topic that my edits and I am dragged into these convoluted allegations. I am willing to talk to wikipedia to clear things up with a phone call or whatever. This is completely uncalled for. -104.195.221.169 (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah wow we did respond at very close times. I feel like I'm also being dragged into something convoluted and accusatory. Frankly I don't care about the CFDA nearly as much as I am interested in Tiffany & Co. in a personal sense, it just seemed like a relevant place for the information. This is the first such program that supports jewelers in this capacity and at this level. Crash0ut (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay so I missed some of the Axad12 comments and I guess need to address here as well to speak up for myself but I really don't want to be involved in this. It seems if I reply there I just get accused again of somehow being linked to someone else. From what I recall users get can notifications if you put a page on the watchlist so I am not linked to someone because they respond after me.
    Axad12 comment:
    "both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation “@ Graywalls” at the start of their posts (despite apparently both being inexperienced users)." So no, I saw a message that you had to @ a user for them to be notified and also saw that someone had replied with already. I have used other apps before. Also as stated, I have edited wikipedia over the years, maybe over a decade. I never claimed to not have experience
    Axad12 comment: "then responded here (despite not having been notified of this discussion)" No there was a link somewhere. I got a message box that appeared when I went to my page or you can also see where someone edits when you click on someone's contributions.
    I am not responsible for other people's comments or behavior. I am only speaking for myself. I am NOT involved with any of the claims here. Please STOP! -104.195.221.169 (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think I want to be involved in this either? I literally just added a new CFDA Program to the Programs subheading on the CFDA article. Graywall informed me of needing a different citation, I fixed and replaced, and then was accused of some conspiracy involving you. I agree that this is ridiculous, and it feels petty that that editor called inclusion worthiness into question after resolving the citation issue they noted. This is conspiratorial thinking on their part. If they had a problem with the language on the article, they are an editor—FIX IT, just like I did when they flagged the citation. Instead they're spiraling into an accusatory rabbit hole.
    BTW I check my email constantly, I get email updates on replies, and I try to reply promptly. Crash0ut (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your messages above.
    My concern was simply that there are elements to the overall picture here which resemble a fairly common situation where users employ multiple accounts to manipulate consensus. As I said above, Some elements of these events may be explainable but the overall picture suggests that something isn't quite right.
    That was the rather mild strength of what was suggested.
    Meanwhile, another user above seems to have agreed that there is room for concern, and a further user has started a sockpuppet investigation elsewhere. That investigation will run automated checks to determine if there are any links between the accounts. If what you say is correct then you have nothing to fear from that fairly common process.
    However, this thread is primarily to consider the issue of possible CoI. In that regard I stand by my earlier comment that the editing patterns under discussion here resemble what might be expected from conflict of interest editing / undisclosed paid editing. If that were not the case then this thread wouldn't have been started in the first place.
    A 3rd user has since commented that there are grounds for reasonable suspicion that CoI may be involved here. There is also a 3:2 consensus (3:0 of uninvolved users) that some of the edits might be seen as having been promotional.
    I'm sorry to see that CrashOut views this process as ridiculous, a wild Wikipedia conspiratorial drama and a joke. In reality it is just part of due process in considering the possible existence of CoI. This is a vital part of maintaining the integrity of the encyclopaedia, which hopefully all here will agree is paramount. Axad12 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree whatsoever with any processes in place to maintain the integrity of the platform. If these are in fact common, automatic checks, then I'm fully confident that my edits will check out. I can't speak to the editing patterns overall, I'm a new user and completely ignorant aspects like that. My pushing back on Graywalls initial accusation was because it was specifically levied against me, first the citations (my bad) then the inclusion worthiness of the edit.
    From my POV, as it grew into an investigation that included multiple IPs in a country I don't even reside in, with accusations of collusion with people I've never met, it felt very dramatic. But please, I don't recall calling it a joke. Apologies if I did. Crash0ut (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was here [34], but never mind. Let’s see how things pan out.
    As a general observation, it’s inevitable that occasionally users (especially new users) are brought to this noticeboard because the tone of their edits may have wrongly given the impression of a possible COI. This is especially the case with fans or with users who have closely paraphrased material from a source close to the subject.
    There are no doubt many subsequently excellent editors who benefited from the early experience of being brought here, especially in terms of becoming aware of the importance of policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:COPYVIO etc., and of what sort of edits others may view as problematic.
    On the other hand there are also a large number of bad editors (involved in promoting themselves or others) who have been made aware that Wikipedia is neither an extension of their social media nor a platform for promotion. Those who persist in that activity over an extended period tend to be site blocked.
    All of the above are positive outcomes. Axad12 (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your perspective. My problem is not with the processes. I can admit I definitely paraphrased too closely (new editor) — would you mind helping me understand how to communicate the goals of award-granting institutions (ie, "X Award exists to identify and support exceptional talent in Y industry") in a way that feels neutral. In a way, aren't their objective is inherently not neutral. Are there any example articles that you think are particularly well worded in that regard? Crash0ut (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no problem. I will try to get back to you on this at your talk page later today. Axad12 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Advice given here [35]. Axad12 (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia

    This discussion at RSN may be relevant to the topic of this board. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Srđan Šaper & user:Pcelica Matica

    [edit]

    Pcelica Matica has a long history of promotional edits related to Srđan Šaper. After quite a while Pcelica Matica is now back, clearly working on behalf of Srđan Šaper. With this promotional unsourced edit], he states in the summary Minor change added in Biography about I&F Grupa. I have Srđan s consent to make this change.. In my opinion, this is clear WP:COI- editing, possibly even WP:PAID. The Banner talk 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. And the user's apparent refusal to engage on their talkpage over a number of years does them little credit.
    There seems to be a long history of WP:SPAs editing the article in question here.
    I've just removed some promo, unsourced, self-sourced and inadmissibly sourced (blog/IMDb) material. After doing so I couldn't help but wonder if the real solution here was perhaps AfD. Axad12 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the idea that Saper is noteworthy but uses the article for selfpromo. But have someone at hand to do that for him. First you had user:User talk:Prezbiterijanac (now blocked) and a few months later Pcelica Matica arrived. The Banner talk 17:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also thinking of user:Anja Kosanovic (2010-13), this IP address [36] (2011-15), user:Balkanska ulica (2013-14), another IP address [37] (2014, now blocked, and with links to an extensive Serbian sockfarm [38]), user:Rade Radisa (2016, whose only 2 edits were to remove money laundering allegations from the article and then provide an explanation for doing so), and another IP address [39] (2017-19).
    The article has twice been to AfD, here [40] and here [41].
    The fact that the accounts mentioned throughout this thread are all red linked over a 14 year period tells it's own story. Ditto for the fact that none of them have ever responded to talk page notices throughout that period. Surely it is highly likely that the more recent activity is block evasion from the blocked spam/advertising Prezbeterijanac account. Some of the accounts mentioned above have also edited the article for Saper's father, [42], which perhaps indicates a family link rather than WP:UPE, but who knows?
    (One slight correction to your comment above, user:Pcelica Matica had actually been editing the Srdan Saper article since 2013, so a long time before the Prezbeterijanac block in Apr 2018, but it is true that Pcelica Matica became the main promo account from that time onwards.)
    The very lengthy article about the father, Radomir Saper, is 68% authored by the previously mentioned user:Balkanska ulica and 8.5% by Pcelica Matica, and has the same poor sourcing and poor English, so I doubt if we need Sherlock Holmes to help us work out what has been going on here. Axad12 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mockbul Ali

    [edit]

    The IP has been edit-warring to add promotional fluff to this article for quite a while, and now these brand-new users keep popping up to join in. I gave up on reverting their edits and tagged the page for promo instead, but now they're edit-warring to remove the tags too. This has been going on for several weeks now.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring over the contents of this article has been going on ever since it was set up in 2015. This has previously resulted in multiple blocks for sockpuppetry [43]. There are also plenty of WP:SPAs visible in the article contribution history, more frequently recently by IP addresses who edit the article extensively, e.g. [44], [45].
    Surely it is unthinkable that an ambassador of His Majesty's Government would have been extensively editing his own Wikipedia article using a range of sock puppets over a 9 year period. We will need to look for some alternative explanation... Axad12 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, given that somebody seems to have been curating this article in a promotional way over many years using multiple accounts, it may be worth revisiting the negative material that was being edit warred over back in 2015. The sockpuppets were claiming that it was defamatory, controversial, unsubstantiated, etc., but on the face of it the material would appear to have been sourced to reliable British broadsheet newspapers.
    Whoever the end user was, they appear to have foolishly set up seven(?) different single purpose accounts simply to edit war over that material (so, shades of deja vu with the more recent events).
    The fact that that material ended up being excluded from the article may be more of a reflection of the persistency of the sockpuppetry and edit warring than a reflection on whether the material was factually accurate and worthy of inclusion. Axad12 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It just keeps going. Now they're claiming it's "prejudicial" to not include the promotional material they want. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best way to sort this out would be (a) to launch an SPI to get the blatant sockpuppets all blocked and (b) to then get page protection to prevent further promo vandalism. Axad12 (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way that the user keeps setting up new accounts for every act of edit warring makes it obvious that this is block evasion by the same end user who had multiple socks blocked many years ago. Axad12 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protection now requested at WP:RPPI. I would do the SPI as well but I don't know how to. (In an ideal world an admin would just block the accounts without an SPI, as they are obvious promo only, block evading socks, as per WP:DUCK). Axad12 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SharonJean90. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Socks are all 'technically indistinguishable' (and presumably will be blocked) and article has been protected, so that hopefully ought to resolve matters. Axad12 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1260981811"