Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

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

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:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:Alameda Belt Line Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive) Talk:Scott Bessent Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader) Talk:Cinq Music Group Talk:Clover Health Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Sonalde Desai Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary Talk:Stephan DuCharme Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Darnell Edge Talk:Empire (magazine) Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:Globe Life Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Grayscale Investments Talk:Group-IB Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Hannover Re Talk:Harsco Talk:List of Harvard University people Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Huron Consulting Group Talk:Illa del Rei Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Christian Kälin Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Kennedy Center Honors Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Labcorp Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Leviton Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Moody's Analytics Talk:Moody's Corporation Talk:Moody's Ratings Talk:Netvibes Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:One Energy Talk:Oneok Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Talk:Pallywood Talk:V Pappas Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Research Corporation Talk:Reworld Talk:Rivulis Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Simprints Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Julie Sweet Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:UK Biobank Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Vista Equity Partners Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Martha G. Welch Talk:Wingtech Talk:Xsolla Talk:Zions Bancorporation Talk:Zyn

European Commision IP range

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.

---

• European Commission Representation in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• EIDAS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 158.169.40.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 158.169.40.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 158.169.40.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 158.169.40.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EuroComIreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It looks like several IPs of the European Commission, 158.169.40.*, as well as a user who got blocked, EuroComIreland, have been doing a mix of blatant bureaucratese/attempted SEO, but also quite a few small edits that look quite legitimate. The effect on European Commission Representation in Ireland (prior to the cleanup that I did a few minutes ago) is not really going to bother anyone, apart from just looking silly, but the talk page comments on eIDAS are a lot more serious, since this sort of comment gives the impression that it's objective and could influence the discussion on a topic of high sociopolitical importance.

If someone has the time to investigate further and clean up, that would be useful. I only did a very superficial quick check. Boud (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The only directly related archived discussion I could find is

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Europeana (2011)

Boud (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I seem to remember some templates for putting on IP ranges of bodies like the EC or national parliaments, though for an IP range, there's no point adding that on all the individual IP pages - this would need some technically more efficient solution, which I vaguely seem to remember having seen, along the lines of This IP address belongs to ... and may be in conflict of interest when editing pages related to ... . Boud (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is the prior discussion on their talk pages?

EuroComIreland last edited in 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this case doesn't literally follow the criteria as listed - i.e. it's not a case of failed to resolve the issue. But since it's primarily a range of related IPs (EuroComIreland's user page was deleted as advertising), I thought it would be useful to point out in case someone is interested in investigating (and discussing with the user(s)) more systematically. I don't see a COI-IP-range Noticeboard. If there's a more relevant place to discuss I'd be happy to shift the discussion there.

I found the needed template: {{Shared IP gov|[[European Commission]]}} , so if someone wants to consider this case as not needing any action from COIN, feel free to close it. Boud (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

User VanjaOkay20

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.

---

VanjaOkay20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) didn't declared, that she is working for annabelle.ch (see de:user:VanjaOkay20) - this is agains terms of use ("Paid Contributions Without Disclosure"). She got blocked in dewiki for spamming annabelle.ch into articles and she does it here in enwiki too. --Mary Joanna (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mary Joanna: There is no notice of our CoI policy, nor our paid editing policy, on VanjaOkay20's talk page. Please read and follow the guidance at the head of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now added the relevant notices to the user's talk page and reverted the spam edits. It would seem that the user was blocked 2 days ago on German Wikipedia as a spam only account. Personally I think it would also be desirable if they were also to be blocked from English Wikipedia, as spamming links to articles on their employer's website seems to be their sole activity on either German or English Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

To give some further background, the user had been warned several times on German Wikipedia that continually adding links to articles on their employer's website was problematic, which eventually led to a site block after the warnings were repeatedly ignored. The user's position is probably best summed up by the following comment (translated from the German by Google Translate) which they posted 2 days ago on the German version of this noticeboard:

“unfortunately I don’t understand the problem. My account is verified and I link - transparently identified as an employee of the magazine - with factual additions to neutral journalistic articles from the Swiss magazine Annabelle. To supplement articles with useful, interesting and previously unknown facts. I don't understand what's bad about that - you'd think that's what Wikipedia is for, right?”

Well, they say they don't understand, but they had been repeatedly warned... Axad12 (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked here as well. I'd recommend keeping an eye out for other additions in the event the site they're linking needs to be blacklisted. Star Mississippi 13:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

COI of family biographer?

GustenGast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating articles about individual members of the Lidströmer family. When I inquired regarding a potential conflict of interest, GustenGast stated: I am writing a biography about the family. But I am not paid by them since it is an academic project. I confirm there is no conflict of interest, otherwise I could not be allowed to write this work. Additionally, the editor has access to an unpublished photograph of a living member of the family and has knowledge of when that family member will be publishing and what photograph will be used with that publication. It seems to me that this is a conflict of interest because there is likely communication with members of the family and per the spirit of WP:SELFCITE. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear Voorts, is any communication with the family a COI? Of course I had CONTACT with them as well as experts in the field, but what I mean is that they have not paid me, and neither I or my supervisor are related to them or has received payment. I have to check of course so that I have not have the "biographers bias". This is always a risk. However, the project is finished right now and as promised I shall contact the family directly and the publisher and include my supervisor for transparency and come back with the full record of the history of this photo. Again, of course I have heard about the history and background about the photo from them directly, but I it does not mean that I automatically have a COI. If the facts about the photo are different that I thought/heard, then I will update the facts and if there is an unclear copyright situation I will vote for deletion too. GustenGast (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't about your upload of the photograph, which was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but about your writing of articles on English Wikipedia about the family. Wikipedia has conflict of interest rules that differ from those in an academic setting. I'm not sure if your situation is or is not a conflict of interest, which is why I brought the discussion here for other editors to weigh in. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

GustenGast WP:PAID editing is one specific category of WP:COI editing, but is not the only concern. Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. You have an external relationship here that has the potential to influence your editing. This means (a) you should always declare your conlifct when editing, and (b) you should be putting your articles through the WP:AFC process for review rather than simply moving them into main space yourself. Melcous (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood! I will not edit more here. The Swedish page was edited by people without any such possible COI. When I saw the result and the feedback from you I think I followed the advice and added more sources and amended it. I think it became better. I clearly see what you mean. I welcome further review ad hoc. I will from now only submit "for review" if I find any useful source or so, but will from now not edit any further. Will now focus on other sites! Regarding the photo I shall ask if the somehow the photegrapher themselves can upload it, would simplify. Many thanks your unbiased input. GustenGast (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Beyond the COI angle I worry that you are perhaps delving into WP:OR, there is more than one problem with an editor being in contact with a subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, absolutely, I agree. I leave this for your or others' review. GustenGast (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The original picture was first published here on 25th April 2024:

https://news.ki.se/cloud-based-personal-health-record-with-ai-is-it-safe

I have contacted them and I will ask the photographer to upload their name, rights and the photo themselves directly to Wiki, if they have an account. GustenGast (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The name and the organisation is at least published already on that site too. GustenGast (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Clare Dimyon

• Clare Dimyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oma-Clare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oma-Clare is quite obviously the subject of the article (check her X account) and is continuously making edits to it despite being warned not to. She obviously has good intentions, but overall, just is making the article a mess. Unfortunately, I'm involved, and I'm not even sure how I initially stumbled across this article as I have absolutely no interest in this person. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The opening line, which has now been changed by Oma-Clare as being inaccurate. My intial reaction was to restore it since it was sourced. However, the source doesn't make this claim, either. So, what do we change it to? I have no idea what she's known for. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jauerback: You informed Oma-Clare of our CoI policy after rasing the matter hare. That is the wrong way to do it. Please read the guidance at the top of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I just accidentally placed that message before it. Check the timestamps. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've fixed the ordering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This comment at WP:HELPDESK confirms that Oma-Clare is Clare Dimyon. There's really nothing to discuss here. She confirmed the COI herself. She isn't trying to hide it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that the COI user needs to be suggesting edits on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly, as per recent responses at the helpdesk. To be honest, the helpdesk comment linked above seemed to me to contain a rather vitriolic personal attack in relation to a user who was apparently just making policy based reversions, or am I missing something? Axad12 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Then put a warning about assuming good faith on her talk page. I've just warned her about disruptive COI editing leading to a block.

She's the subject of an article and she clearly feels attacked when her badly-sourced versions are reverted, so understandably she lashed out. I've seen this happen often when a subject gets involved in editing an article, and it often ends badly. The COI editor ends up being blocked, then responds angrily on their talk page while refusing to listen to advice or read any links given, then the talk page access is revoked. We'll see how it plays out in this case. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have done so, as the post in question was clearly well beyond the bounds of civil discourse. Unfortunately it seems to be fairly standard these days for activists to seek to demonise those who disagree with them, but that is the opposite of how things are supposed to operate here.

The user would be best advised to work within the relevant policies and guidelines and to collaborate with others.

Unfortunately the user is instead doubling down on their accusations, here [1], so I have advised them to take their concerns (on content) to the article talk page. Axad12 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

And, she's also complaining on her X account. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the most relevant issue to all of this is the one recently raised by Melcous (by adding to tag to the article), i.e. is the subject actually notable? Axad12 (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The article creator might be relying on the MBE to meet WP:ANYBIO ("well-known and significant award or honor"), although a search on Wikipedia talk:Notability indicates that MBE isn't inherently notable. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

She has an MBE, and is the subject of press coverage separate to that, so seems to be notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of COI, also worth noting that the user has made a number of edits (2024, 2021 and 2020) to the article for Godfrey Meynell (which the following edit [2] indicates was the user's grandfather). The added material is all entirely unsourced (as in fairness is most of the article).

There is also an amount of inserting the user's name into other articles (e.g. here [3] and here [4]) and a general lack of sourcing. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ek Main Aur Ek Two

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.

---

• Ek Main Aur Ek Two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ek main aur ek two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ek main aur ek two - Hindi comedy play (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ek Main Aur Ek Two page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• English Play-Nathuram Godse Must Die (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nathuram Godse Must Die (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• English Play (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paritosh Painter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ramdattabuvaji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is solely interested in writing about Paritosh Painter and his works, but doesn't take heed of the multiple COI notices, speedy deletions, ... on their user talk page. This has been going on for months, and disruption continued today Fram (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You can add Ek Main Aur Ek Two - Hindi comedy play to the above list. Fram (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramdattabuvaji has been registered since 2018 and has only edited pages related to Paritosh Painter, which strongly suggests a COI. I would recommend that they be blocked if they continue their COI editing, as this appears to be a SPA and not WP:HTBAE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent COI user was blocked yesterday by Star Mississippi. With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all! Fram (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Howard Maibach

• Howard Maibach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dermatotoxicologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is a single-purpose account who has twice added a lengthy list of books to the article on the dermatologist Howard Maibach. I have asked him on his Talk page whether he is, or is connected to Maibach. Sungodtemple has asked him twice whether he is Maibach. He hasn't answered either of us. Would be grateful if anyone else can have a look, and perhaps be more successful than I have been at communicating with this editor. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the material and instructed the user to comment on whether or not they have a COI, either here or on their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Just some further background on the timeline here:

user:Dermatotoxicologist first added the list of books on the 28/Aug.

Tacyarg asked the user about COI on 31/Aug (and received no response).

Derma(etc) was then asked for clarification on possible COI on 11/Sept by user:Sungodtemple who then removed the list of books.

Dema(etc) responded to Sungodtemple without making any comment on the COI issue.

Sungodtemple then pointed out the removal, gave the reason for removal, and asked once again about COI (again receiving no response).

Then four weeks later Derma(etc) returned to the article to add the list again – presumably working on the assumption that no one was watching.

The only reasonable conclusion, I would suggest, is that the user does have an undeclared conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Since Dermatotoxicologist is not responding and continue to edit the said BLP, it seems clear they are not WP:HTBAE but are instead engaging in COI editing, which is discouraged. Their username also suggests they may be the subject themselves or closely connected to them. @Dermatotoxicologist: Please understand that you may face a block if you don’t respond soon. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

COI editing is discouraged, but author bibliography might be ok on the ground of WP:NOTPRICE #6. I'm saying might, because I don't know if different expectations apply for a biography for someone who is notable an author or someone notable for something else, but also happens to author stuff on the side. Not saying that this person meets WP:ANYBIO as I haven't done any search yet. I deal with promotional editing all the time involving companies such as record label articles showing each artist, or each release. Graywalls (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Torrevieja

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.

---

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

I just wanted to check whether we can use Valencian exonyms (see Corpus Toponímic Valencià) in the Spanish-speaking regions of the Valencian Community. I think we could since Valencian is official in the whole Valencian territory, and the same happens with Spanish in the Valencian-speaking regions of the Valencian Community (i.e. we use both forms despite official local denominations, see Benissa in Valencian and Benisa in Spanish). What's the recommendation by admins and Wikipedia? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a query for WP:HELPDESK rather than the conflict of interest noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

OK no problem, I'll move the conversation there then, thank you — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Darko Šarović is an autobiographical article

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.

---

• Darko Šarović (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Perfect Introvert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darko Šarović appears to have been written by the subject himself. Article contains extremely nitty gritty details about own profile, like things he did when he was 4 years old, without citations. So many inflated claims such as he is the fifth fastest Serb etc, again without citations. Not a notable person for Wikipedia.88.207.11.225 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Much of the content was either written by Perfect Introvert (talk · contribs), who has been inactive for several years, and from various IP addresses. Generally, we don't block IP addresses which are no longer engaging in WP:DE, and blocking or even warning Perfect Introvert doesn’t seem warranted either especially since the account is stale. One can address the issues of WP:OR and If one believe the BLP fails to meet WP:N, it may be appropriate to take it to AFD - but to me, the athlete appears to be WP:N. I don’t think any admin action is necessary at this time. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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

RaviEditor and Umar Saif

• Umar Saif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• RaviEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account RaviEditor was registered in April this year and is a SPA that only edits the Umar Saif's BLP, primarily adding PROMO content and removing well-sourced information they dislike. This clearly indicates a COI in their editing. I warned them multiple times, but there has been no response. Instead, they are engaging in edit warring. I suggest they should be blocked to encourage a response at the very least. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I filed the report, the editor has started contributing to other articles, seemingly to create the impression they're not a SPA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Longterm Academic boosterm user:Richardatlarge

• Richardatlarge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Richard DeGrandpre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Meaning-making (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Special:Diff/1052421820
• Mind–body dualism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Special:Diff/133503545
• Alfred R. Lindesmith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) very extensive quotation of Richard DeGrandpre authored contents and one of the main purpose of creating the article appears to be featuring Degrandpre published source.

This appears to be covert self advert account that has been going for over a decade whose apparent purpose is to increase the academic prominence of one Richard Degrandpre. This self promoting activity became quite obvious after their declined draft in July 2024. Someone warned them about COI back in July, however given the long term pattern, its likely they might come back. Also, that didn't address the rather covert self-promo. It only addressed the suspeted autobiography writing. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This is very concerning, although I would note that at the very beginning this account was not covert... [5], for their first month on wiki in 2007 they were open about their identity. Based on a good faith reading of that I would characterize these promotional efforts as more overt than covert, that does not however excuse them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say it was covert, because they continued promotional editing after they've made their user page less conspicuous and making others have to go through the user page edit history. Graywalls (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that while its interesting to try and get in their head it really doesn't matter... This is a bright line violation either way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And before this, something like this about the same author was being done by a publisher agent: Special:Diff/104146851 Graywalls (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the user seems to have been engaged in an amount of self-citation over the years, and is currently engaged in trying to get a self-authored article about himself into Wikipedia (albeit not very successfully). Upon returning to Wikipedia after a 3 year hiatus to start work on his own article he appears to have commenced work by removing certain info [6] from his user page which would otherwise have connected him to the subject of the article.

I also noticed the following thread [7] which the user initiated, and where he very animatedly appears to try to get (previously removed) negative allegations installed on the article for another author. Given that the user seems to be an effective WP:SPA on himself and matters that he is related to, I couldn't help but wonder if there was some form of link.

It seems to be the only issue on Wikipedia that he is animated about, and appears to be both arbitrary and to correspond with the second time his autobiographical article was declined. So, what do we have here, WP:RGW, WP:COI, WP:POINT or something else?

It seems to me like a most unusual post for an editor to have posted on Wikipedia and I do wonder if it should either be revdelled or the user be warned not to use Wikipedia in this way again?

The material that the user is animated about was added to the relevant article twice by two IP addresses, here [8] and here [9]. It seems that only 2 IP users and one registered user have any interest in this issue, so what is going on? Axad12 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTHERE is the bets fit. They're not here to build an encyclopedia, but to increase his prominence in the academia in the hope of scholars coming to articles, seeing their work cited, then cite those works in other scholarly work. Graywalls (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I removed a further instance of self-citing here [10]. I also noted that one of the user's books was one of only seven 'Books & Journals' listed at the end of the article for prominent UK politician Michael Gove. Not sure which user added it there but it was clearly tangential (or irrelevant?) to the subject matter so I removed it. Possibly an instance of self-citing, possibly not, but removed either way [11].

In fairness to the user, he does seem to have disappeared since being told in July that he wasn't notable and that autobiography was suspected.

Re: the other material mentioned in my earlier post. I will ask the owner of the talk page if they will delete it. The issues referred to have previously been deleted twice from the article concerned, presumably on the basis that they are poorly sourced, potentially defamatory and non-BLP compliant. That being the case, they probably shouldn't be sitting on someone's talk page either. Axad12 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Faisal Mahmud Faizee

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.

---

• Faisal Mahmud Faizee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Faisal Mahmud Faizee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Justice FAISAL MAHMUD FAIZEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New SPA has been white-washing the article which is clearly about themself. Numerous warnings have been issued including a final warning and the article has bee Draftified by Wikishovel. I have posted an extended warning about COI on their talk page but everything has been ignored.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that Justice FAISAL MAHMUD FAIZEE is persistently removing sourced content, which disrupts the editing process, I recommend a temporary block. This would enable another editor to take over the control of the BLP for the time being. PS. If they are indeed the subject themselves, as their username suggests, it's quite ironic that a high court judge would be engaging in such editing behavior and violating our P&Gs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User now indefinitely blocked by Star Mississippi. Axad12 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"the Braveheart of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh" now that is some over the top promotion! COI or not there are some clear issues here Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Metalworker14

• Symphony of Heaven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Metalworker14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• [nearly all additions of themetalonslaugth.com] appears to be from Metalworker14

I've definitively determined there's a strong COI between the editor and the band Symphony of Heaven and personally identifying private evidence has been emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. It isn't hard to find it, but we can't directly post such information. I am opening the case here, because I suspect further promotional activity such as promoting bands, record labels or sources cited within the articles the editor created. The user is a prolific creator of articles about Christian Metal and Metal bands, albums and record labels. Suspicion was triggered when Metalworker14 uploaded an image into Symphony of Heaven through Commons, stating that they were the copyright holder only for me to find that it's a downsized version of the black and white photo right above "biography" from the band's official website. The band's website is copyrighted and does not identify the author of the photo, and the photo that was on Commons did not have VRT verification. The user has previously been notified about uploading an image from the band's Facebook. In the process of investigating copyright matters, I browsed the band's website and came upon "For managemental concerns: Return to Dust Promotions" at contact section of the page. When I went to seek information on that company, the search result suggests COI with the extensively cited source "The Metal Onslaught Magazine is extensively cited in Symphony of Heaven as well as other articles created by the same author. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

While I cannot comment on whether there is a COI issue with the article you flagged without seeing the off-wiki evidence you found, I would like to add that this website themetalonslaught.com is not a RS at all, yet Metalworker14 has excessively used it across many articles which raises serious suspicions that they may have a COI with the magazine. I strongly suggest they stop using this source entirely unless they receive approval at WP:RSN. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib:, I believe that there is COI with the Magazine and the inserting party, actually. I just had to be really careful to not go foul of WP:OUTING but if you spend a few minutes Googling, it should become clear. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Off-wiki evidence does suggest that they have a COI with both Symphony of Heaven and Ascending King. And according to our P&Gs, Metalworker14 is required to declare their COI either on their user page or on the tps of the relevant articles, which they have yet to do so I strongly urge them to do so as soon as possible. Also, I recommend they refrain from directly editing these articles but if they continue to ignore these warnings, a temporary block may be necessary to get their attention. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Symphony of Heaven is one thing, but the bigger issue is the extensive use of sources they're closely related to that are not WP:RS trying to bolster the notability of non-notable bands, albums and recording companies. If you spent more than a minute or two searching with the research skills held by quite a few Wiki editors, that should become obvious. All I can say is that it's highly plausible and convincing that Metalworker14 has vested interest to promote certain authors and certain magazines, production and promotion companies. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is absolutely correct. The user has created over 150 articles and the frequency with which certain sources and authors are used would be considered industrial grade spam if those references were being added to pre-existing articles.

The fact that the user created the articles themselves and used these non WP:RS compliant sources to support notability makes the matter worse rather than better.

To be honest, the sheer number of links makes me wonder if Search engine optimization was a factor here. Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a large part of what music promoters do. Outside evidence suggests involvement of suspected COI editor partaking in the promotion business. Perhaps themetalonslaught needs to be suggested for Mediawiki blacklisting. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Quite so. There is no place on Wikipedia for this sort of activity. Axad12 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

• Eric Gilbertson (climber) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User User:KnowledgeIsPower9281 has a likely conflict of interest with Eric Gilbertson (climber). The majority of that article's references constitute links to the subject's personal blog. In addition, KnowledgeIsPower9281 is engaged in taking original research presented in said blog that is being used as a reference on multiple articles. This includes ones they created (see examples here and here) and existing articles such as Mount Rainier where a discussion on the talk page regarding these edits is ongoing.

KnowledgeIsPower9281 has received notes reminding them the need to disclose COI here and here, both of which were ignored. Their use of original research is disruptive and they are by far the primary author of Eric Gilbertson (climber), which I nominated for AfD last week. I am bringing up the COI notice here because of disruptive edits elsewhere. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

DJ Cane, First, since you’ve already nominated the BLP for deletion, I don’t understand the logic behind filing this COI/N report. Second, which blog are you referring to that is being used as a reference in multiple articles? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response @Saqib. If there is a better place to handle the original research edits, please let me know. The blog is referenced as Country Highpoints. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

DJ Cane, I agree that countryhighpoints.com is not a RS, but a WP:SPS and KnowledgeIsPower9281 appears to be aware of this concern, as reflected on the article's tp, yet they continue to cite it across multiple pages, including on this BLP which is concerning. In light of this, I would suggest that an admin step in and issue a warning to KnowledgeIsPower9281 to cease citing this WP:SPS going forward.
As for the issues with the BLP, since the article is already at AFD, it may be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion. If the BLP is kept, I recommend initiating a discussion on the article's talk page to try to resolve the WP:OR concerns there and incase if that approach doesn’t lead to a resolution, you can revisit the issue here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at edit history of Eric's article, the timing of edits suggest some kind of off-wiki coordination with another editor named Keithgilbertson (talk · contribs) which has all of two edits under their account. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is mentioned in my conflict of interest declaration. It appeared that Eric's father independently uploaded a picture of Eric on the summit of K2 in 2022. I was not contacted by him, but thanked him for the contribution and fixed the formatting of the file. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, I have declared the COI. I believe Gilbertson's achievements are notable in the climbing world, so if other editors rewrite the page in a more encyclopedic tone, decrease the reliance on the subject's blog, and use some of the reliable sources Gilbertson has done interview with (mentioned on talk page), could the article still be salvaged? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

KnowledgeIsPower9281, Thank you for declaring your COI. Whether the BLP is kept or not will be decided at the AFD, so I suggest you wait for the outcome there. If the BLP is kept, I recommend avoiding direct edits to the article and instead, please use the BLP's talk page to propose any changes. In the meantime, as I mentioned above, please refrain from using countryhighpoints.com as a source in articles. I’ve noticed that it has been repeatedly cited across multiple articles by you. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to surveys he's done on mountain peaks and highpoints is Peakbagger sufficient as a source? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Peakbagger has been used as a source extensively, but things written directly by him don't meet the guideline. If his survey leads to Peakbagger updating their updating the elevation info section, this seems fine to me for minor mountains. Major mountains like Mount Rainier should not have this information presented in the infobox but can have it discussed in the body because in instances like Mount Rainier there remains a large body of official reporting, which should be favored over Peakbagger. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've abated a bunch of original research that's not directly supportable by the Peakbagger sources. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@KnowledgeIsPower9281:, what is the nature of your relationship with various corporate sponsored events, if any? I am seeing you've started multiple sports related events, only citing the event owner/sponsors. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Graywalls, see my response in my user talk page. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Despite denial, it seems like the Gilbertsons are kept in loop somehow. Keithgilbertson (talk · contribs) somehow joined while edits were actively taking place, and now Eric Gilbertson is involved in Eric Gilbertson (talk · contribs) on this topic. I'm quite persuaded that there's some level of coordination taking place outside of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Graywalls, as stated in my conflict of interest disclosure which I hope you have read, Keithgilbertson independently uploaded the K2 photo. As my COI disclosure states, Eric and I have discussed his measurements. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I did. The timing suggests though, they have been kept in the loop about Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Be sure to check out Talk:Mount_Rainier#Name_of_Mt._Rainier. Graywalls (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Rick Castro

• Rick Castro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eigilvesti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Eigilvesti, who has been editing the article "Rick Castro" since 2020, has just stated on his talk page that he is the subject of the article, Rick Castro. I have in the past tried to deal with the promotionalism and poor sourcing in the article, but wearied of it and slacked off. I'm posting links to WP:COI and WP:RS to the user talk page. I would appreciate other eyes on the article. Donald Albury 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Eigilvesti (or better said, Rick Castro) has been editing their own BLP since 2007 and has been given enough warnings by now, but if they still won’t stop writing their AUTOBIO, I honestly don’t know what will make them stop. I must note that the BLP is in poor shape, with significant issues of WP:OR and PROMO content and it’s evident that Rick Castro is using Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, which violates our P&Gs. While I don’t wish to sound overly harsh, but I believe it may be time for Eigilvesti to be temporarily blocked to give them the opportunity to reconsider their approach. A temporary block could help reinforce that they do not own the BLP and should refrain from editing it directly going forward. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

this reeks of over policing. all my sources are verified and factual. this is the history of my art. nothing is make up, created, fake or slanderous. Eigilvesti (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Eigilvesti, I don’t want you to get blocked, but it’s important to respect our P&Gs, especially regarding AUTOBIO, which is not allowed - even if you're citing RS. You’ve been editing here since 2007, but continuing to insert PROMO content is wasting others' time. Even if you're a SPA but as long as you comply with the P&Gs, you’re welcome to continue editing and proposing changes on the BLP talk page. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you. I do my best to comply.. I guess I will not post for awhile, since this all makes me nervous. Wikipedia is important to me and I don't want to abuse it. could you please restore my most recent post? all the sources are publications and posting by the book shops and venues in question. thank you for your time. Eigilvesti (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Many of the sources you have offered have not been compliant with our guidelines. Beyond that, being verifiable from reliable sources is a requirement, but not a guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia. Content that the community regards as "promotional" is subject to removal regardless of the reliability of sources supporting it. Donald Albury 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article here is problematic on a number of counts, which is presumably the result of long term conflict of interest editing...

I've removed an amount of unsourced material from the article, including a long section on Critical Assessment which was entirely unsourced. The article was tagged for needing extra citations 5 years ago so the subject/COI editor has had abundant opportunity to locate and add these. I would encourage Eigilvesti to track down relevant WP:RS citations where possible and present them at the article talk page via a COI edit request (details of the process can be found here: WP:COI).

I'll leave it to others to address the original research, promo and reliable sourcing issues. There are also some issues around overall tone. However, I must say that the article in its current form seems to me to be very poor indeed. It is essentially just a long list of disembodied sentences listing lots of things the subject has done. Some of these sentences are linked together to form paragraphs but it can't be avoided that it basically says: 'Rick Castro did this. Castro did that. Rick did the other' ad nauseum without any sense in which the reader is learning anything about the subject except being exposed to a list of exhibitions and awards.

The overall impression is that most of the article is WP:UNDUE coverage and just an indiscriminate collection of facts. For example, the article is peppered with facts like the subject attending book signings, receiving grants, etc., none of which is encyclopaedic information. Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The critical assessment you have removed are from transcripts by art historian Edward Lucie Smith and publisher Mark Harvey. They were not posted by me. This is the bases of my artwork since the beginning. Now that this has been removed there is nothing to give readers an idea of what my photography is about. If you go to the page of art photographer, Joel-Peter Witkin- (whom I worked for throughout the 80s, and is a source) it has similar verifications of criticism, actually Witkin has less sources than my page. If one is not allowed to add to the bio, then it becomes a list of events. This all reeks of prejudicial hypocrisy. Eigilvesti (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Eigilvesti, Did someone tell you that you're not the owner of your article? If you have concerns about someone removing or adding something, please raise them on the article's talk page, not here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said in an earlier post, I would encourage Eigilvesti to track down relevant WP:RS citations where possible and present them at the article talk page via a COI edit request (details of the process can be found here: WP:COI). Material in Wikipedia articles must be reliably sourced, according to WP:V and WP:RS. Material that is not properly sourced can be removed. If WP:RS sources are presented at the article talk page the removed material may be reinstated, in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Eigilvesti, I have just spent the last 30-45 minutes going through your article making various minor changes to reflect the general Wikipedia Manual of Style, to remove some elements of trivia and promotionalism, adding wikilinks, etc.

The reason that I did that was not because I am a prejudiced hypocrite, as per you comment above, but because (despite having no interest in you) I care about standards on Wikipedia and because your many years of conflict of interest editing had left the article in a poor state.

If you had declared your conflict of interest some years ago, when you were asked to do so, then the article would have had more eyes on it and the various COI edits would have been scrutinised for suitability, wording, references, etc., etc. at the times that they were made. Because that didn't happen, the article needed scrutiny now in relation to a lot of past edits.

As it stands there are still a fair amount of issues with the remaining text but I will leaves those for others to deal with.

I'd also advise you to refrain from making entirely groundless personal attacks against people who volunteer their time to clear up the years of mess created by undeclared COI editors such as yourself. If anyone is being hypocritical here it is the person who created the mess and now apparently objects to the tidy up in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Some further thoughts which may be of assistance to you...

The removed Critical Assessment section, apart from being unsourced, was also written in the style of an essay (rather than an encyclopaedia article) and appeared to contain much original research which I assume would be very difficult or impossible to source.

Even simple statements like the following would need to be adequately sourced: In including humor in his work, Castro confounds the Baroque—which focuses on simple, strong, dramatic expression—in favor of Mannerism, and he avoids the self-conscious, overcharged, unnaturally detailed, jarring elements of Mannerism. But if no one can be found to have said anything resembling that in print then it is just a user's own opinion and is thus, unfortunately, inadmissable.

To work on a revised section on Critical Assessment I'd suggest that you start off by gathering as much material as you can that other people have written about your work, and then write something (from a neutral point of view) that you know can be adequately sourced throughout.

If, on the other hand, you were to start with the removed section and try to add sources all the way through it then I expect that may be a frustrating task.

Hopefully these notes are of assistance, Axad12 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Alison Creagh

• Alison Creagh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Alison Creagh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hawkeye7 created an article about the President of the Australian Paralympic Committee and nominated it for DYK. They dispute having a COI here, despite Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Serendipity, e.g. "media representative, with accreditation supplied by Paralympics Australia" and "Support from Paralympics Australia did not end in Australia. In Paris, they had set up headquarters at a site near the Paralympic Village known as "Our Mob", which contained meeting rooms, a TV studio, dining room and a McCafé concession (McDonald's being one of their sponsors). Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies." Fram (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Writing a BLP about someone who sponsored your trip to the 2024 Paralympics to enhance Wikipedia content is one thing, but nominating their BLP for DYK seems a bit excessive and might not reflect well on you as an editor. I get that Fram has valid concerns, but I also see that you declined any involvement of paid editing, so to help ease the tension, I’d suggest you consider withdrawing your DYK nom. If someone else finds it interesting, they can always nominate it later! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Paralympics Australia did not sponsor my trip to Paris; it provided my media accreditation and assistance and support for our activities. I have never been involved in paid editing; this allegation is false and baseless. The article cannot be re-nominated later. WP:DYKRULES: At the time of nomination, an article must be considered new, which means it was created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to good article status in the seven days preceding a nomination. Nor can I withdraw it, for that is the prerogative of the reviewer and prep area builder. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, for the clarity, I didn’t allege you were involved in paid editing.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that was Fram. All I have done is carry out my role as Wikimedian in Residence, writing articles to expand our coverage of Australian paralympians, coaches and administrators, and Australians at the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, here are some quotes from your Signpost article:

Media accreditation meant that I had access to the media tribunes at the venues and could attend any game even when the event was sold out (as was usually the case). [...]. It meant that we could use the buses of the [...] the Olympic transport system. It meant we had access to the resources of the Main Press Centre (MPC) and the Venue Media Centres (VMCs) [...] It meant that my photographer [...] had access to the Nikon store at the Stade de France, where she was able to get some of her equipment repaired and borrow some very expensive equipment for the duration of the games to supplement the gear she had brought with her from Australia – all for free. (My emphasis on 'all for free').

And Tim Mannion, the General Manager of Communications, gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies (presumably also for free).

And Getting from one venue to another involved a trip on the Paris Metro using the Navigo cards issued to us as part of our media kit. Each day we criss-crossed the city on the Metro as we moved from one venue to the next.

This all sounds like quite a trip. Adding up the financial benefits of this package, what would be the approximate equivalent cash value? Would, say, USD500-1,000 cover it? And what about cost of flights, accommodation, etc?

The idea that there was no financial conflict of interest seems to be quite baseless. There is no meaningful difference between being paid for doing something and being given a large amount of expensive benefits for free.

The project to create large numbers of articles on Australian paralympians has been going in since 2011. During that time you have created many such articles and, based on your Signpost article, attended multiple competitions, possibly under similar terms to those described above. That being the case, what do you estimate to be the total value of benefits received over that period from Paralympics Australia or other organisations?

You deny conflict of interest and paid editing, so I think it would be useful to have a financial figure here to allow other editors to estimate to what extent that was (or was not) the case.

Please note that WP:PAID states: Paid contributions on Wikipedia involve editing any page in exchange for compensation, including money or other incentives. (Again, my emphasis on other incentives).

If an editor is in receipt of lucrative fringe benefits for the duration of a trip where they are researching future potential articles in relation to those who provided those fringe benefits then under the definition above the editor is being paid. However, regardless of that fact, the existence of COI seems quite clear. Axad12 (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The benefits listed were all used to produce articles and images for Wikipedia. There was no personal use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That cannot possibly be true because the articles that were produced could as easily have been produced while sitting at home in front of a television and/or the internet. The images were taken by someone else so that is irrelevant.

As far as I can see it was just an expensive free holiday which had no bearing on the creation of article text.

The only possible exception would be the creation of the article on Alison Creagh, the president of the organisation who paid for the free holiday while you were an undisclosed paid editor... which leads us back to the obvious conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not true. Being present is a vital part. The difference between what can be done when one is present and absent is stark. A lot of material was gathered which could be obtained in no other way. And I was not editing in exchange for anything. That was not my motivation at all. My concern was to expand the coverage of disability sports, particularly women's sports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It is nonsensical to claim that it is necessary to witness an event to be able to write an article on it. Articles are based on material in published sources, not what someone saw with their own eyes or info received directly from discussion with a subject. Axad12 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also would you care to share the details of the situation underlying the arbitration finding of 2011 where it was established (by a vote of 10 to 0) that 10) Hawkeye7 has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to LauraHale and should not be taking administrative actions on LauraHale, or at the behest of LauraHale. If I recall correctly, LauraHale was an editor who was also involved in producing large numbers of sports-based articles and had some specific relationship to netball. To what extent do the details there resemble the situation above (except in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest)? Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a brief update here... There is a marked similarity between the Australian Paralympic related activities of Hawkeye7 and those of the now dormant and WP:VANISHED user LauraHale. Both users seem to have created industrial volumes of Australian paralympic articles which were then swiftly nominated for good article status and inclusion in "Did You Know". Presumably this is some kind of joint endeavour, in which some form of conflict of interest was first demonstrated many years ago. Axad12 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I collaborated with LauraHale on Wikipedia:GLAM/History of the Paralympic movement in Australia in 2011–2012. This was a joint endeavour with multiple editors, not just us. She would research subjects and create an article in something like point form, and when I got home from work I would edit them into a readable and usable form. My practice with all articles I work on and not just Paralympic ones is to send them to DYK or GA on completion in order to get another pair of eyes to review them and correct spelling errors etc. Collaboration with LauraHale ended years ago, and I have not worked with her since. She vanished after a campaign of harassment by Fram. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago. Axad12 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because you said something does not make it a fact. It was not demonstrated years ago. It never happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be completely clear...

Are you denying that you used admin tools inappropriately to assist another user with whom you had a conflict of interest on Australian Paralympics articles? That seems to have been passed by a 10 to 0 majority at arbitration and isn't just "something that I said". Here is the evidence [12].

Or are you denying the existence of some other form of conflict of interest in relation to the creation of Australian Paralympics articles?

I had only stated the former of those two things, but there is the interesting question of why the admin tools were used inappropriately. It has previously been suggested elsewhere on Wikipedia (and with some plausibility) that it was because of payments being received (by LauraHale and/or yourself). That is relevant to the discussion here as it indicates the long-running nature of the undisclosed paid situation. Axad12 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I never used the admin tools on Paralympics articles. The racepacket case refers to events before I became involved with the Paralympics project. This was over ten years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so back in 2011 you were sanctioned for abuse of admin tools (in relation to your conflict of interest re: LauraHale), but then presumably later in that year (as per your comment upthread) you began working on the large scale paid creation of articles on Australian Paralympians (with LauraHale). My apologies for getting the dates slightly wrong. Axad12 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The interesting point here is that LauraHale was certainly being paid for the creation and editing of Australian Paralympics articles from 2011 to 2012, that is proven here [13] where the work next to LauraHale’s name is indicated at being done at a rate of $100 per hour.

If I understand correctly, LauraHale was a Wikipedian in Residence at around that time, with (presumably) a declared conflict of interest – it’s hard to tell because her account was WP:VANISHED. You, however, were not a Wikipedian in Residence at that time.

Very helpfully you’ve added above that LauraHale would research subjects and create an article in something like point form, and when I got home from work I would edit them into a readable and usable form.

So, are we to assume here that LauraHale was being paid $100 an hour to create […] article[s] in something like point form, but that you were being paid nothing at all to edit them into a readable and usable form. Is that really at all plausible? And this is in relation to two editors who were found by ArbCom earlier that year to have some form of unknown conflict of interest between them. Axad12 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I believe that is an aspersion against Fram per ArbCom's findings during WP:FRAM. Also, viewing DYK and GA nominations as a means to get a copyedit is at best oldfashioned, and ignores the publicity aspect; wasn't DYK exposure a HOPAU metric back then? In the present, it seems to me that the fuss over HOPAU-sponsored editing in the past, when you were collaborating on it with Laura Hale, should have indicated it was important to scrupulously disclose all articles related to HOPAU sponsorship going forward. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because you may believe in the healing powers of wax fruit does not make it a fact. I may be oldfashioned but what I have said is a statement of fact. There was no fuss over HOPAU sponsorship. Ever. HOPAU articles are all categorised as such. And the majority of articles I have sent to DYK, GA and FA have been related to military history; I routinely send any article I work on along for review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to ignore the tired "attack the messenger" approach. They even accused me of making personal attacks against David Eppstein at the linked DYK discussion, despite me not commenting on Eppstein or their edits at all. Meanwhile, Hakweye7 still can't seem to admit to the basic fact of having an obvious COI here. One would think that after their Arbcom experience, they would be more scrupulous or careful now, but as they apparently deny that that Arbcom finding of fact ever happened, I guess this is to be expected. I hope they read and comply with all the Wikimedian in Residence rules, e.g. they "are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there" (WP:WIRCOI) and "there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution." (emphasis in original). Fram (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding the likes of Mary Major serves on the board at the International Rootbeer Chugging Society, and citing the society itself or her own website is quite common promotional articles. The fictional IRCS is likely authoritative and reliable that Mary Major is on their board, but I have to say that's probably undue inclusion. I'll leave it up to others to weigh in on this re-addition Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing the subject's board memberships is routine in biographical articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems very odd that a user would go on at great length in Signpost about the generosity of their patron, but not take the entirely reasonable precaution of making a simple CoI declaration on their user page re: all the generosity they have received. It is clearly concerning that instead of doing so the user is opposing unconflicted users' edits on the article they recently created on the president of the organisation providing the generosity. Axad12 (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Because WP:PAID clearly states except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Such grants have never counted as paid editing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:PAID also states that Wikipedians in residence who are paid must disclose which organization (GLAM or similar) pays them. Is there some mention of that fact somewhere on your very busy user page, or on the articles where you made the edits, or are you just another undisclosed paid editor? Axad12 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian in Residence, but I am not paid for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Surely it would be more correct to say that you haven't made the necessary declaration in relation to being a Wikipedian in Residence but that you have stated that you've been in receipt of benefits which are, under the definition in WP:PAID, equivalent to being a paid editor.

However, the lack of the required declaration means that you were (and still are) an undisclosed paid editor, pure and simple. You cannot possibly claim an exemption under a status that you hadn't disclosed in the appropriate fashion. Axad12 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I was not paid, I did not realise that such a declaration was required. No payments were received. I apologise for not putting a declaration on my user page. I did not realise that was a requirement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't directly related to the user discussed here, but I had a look at Paralympics Australia. Wow. The article looks as if it's company controlled social media profile and edited as if it was intended to be another social media platform to regurgitate contents from organization's own information. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• My practice with all articles I work on and not just Paralympic ones is to send them to DYK or GA on completion in order to get another pair of eyes to review them and correct spelling errors etc. Seriously? Using DYK as a spellchecker is ridiculous, If you don't feel capable of writing an article without a second set of eyes, you should give up the autopatrolled permission that was granted to you as a courtesy like ten minutes after your desysop, as opposed to abusing DYK. That's of course assuming that really is the only reason... Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have written over 100 featured articles. How many are you claiming to have written? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  As soon as a user resorts to high score-ism, claiming that only those with an equivalent high score can scrutinise them, it's a clear sign that they are busted.

  (See also: Greg Henderson (another undisclosed paid editor), Doug whatever-his-surname-was, etc. etc.)

  This isn't about your high score. It's about your undisclosed paid editor status. Axad12 (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well that is resolved then. I was not an undisclosed paid editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh yes you were... because you hadn't disclosed that you had received benefits or other incentives in relation to work undertaken. That is perfectly straightforward. No money has to change hands for someone to be WP:PAID, as already indicated at some length above (and presumably accepted by you as you have now apologised above for not having made the necessary declaration for an editor in that situation). Axad12 (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  You presume incorrectly. I have not accepted that. I was not paid or compensated in any way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, well in that case you have still failed to disclose that you received benefits from a third party in relation to whom you created articles. So you are the definition of an undisclosed paid editor. Axad12 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  In relation to issues on whether or not you received some kind of payment for much earlier work on Australian Paralympics articles, I would urge you to respond to concerns raised in my earlier post here [14]. It would appear to be a topic of some importance that the matters raised there are resolved. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was not paid anything at all! I have always been an unpaid volunteer editor. Is that really so unusual? For the last ten years I have normally spent an hour a day working on some Wikipedia article or other, or performing administrative tasks for the Military History Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies but hopefully you will appreciate that it is simply not plausible that one individual was being paid $100 per hour and the other was being paid nothing at all, both for essentially the same work, while in collaboration on specific articles, and when a conflict of interest was noted between the 2 editors earlier that year. Axad12 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I did write about it on the Signpost after the 2012 and 2016 Paralympics... I am not sure what you mean by "received benefits". Let me explain how it works. I apply for media accreditation for myself and other Wikimedians on the team from our National Committee (NOC) as a free-lance journalist writing for WMF or Wikimedia Australia (WMAU). The OCOG wants a single point of contact so that is me. I have to get WMAU to sign off on it. The NOCs have only have a certain number of accreditations to give out. Sometimes the IOC or the OCOG also wants WMF or WMAU to sign various undertakings. If your application is successful, they send you an id card, which is also your visa for that country. Now you are a journalist with the same standing as those from any other "non-rights" organisation! But it is all on your own dime unless you can get a grant from WMF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, so when you said that the General Manager of Communications [at Paralympics Australia], gave generous and welcome assistance and support to our efforts, including providing passes to the opening and closing ceremonies, presumably that is over and above what you mentioned directly above. So, we have (at the very least) free tickets being gifted and we have presumably other forms of generous [...] support, so what did that consist of? Axad12 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have written over 100 featured articles. How many are you claiming to have written? This sort of contradicts your earlier statement that your primary reason for submitting articles to DYK is because you need help proofreading. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 06:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Quite so.

  When editors obsessed with high score-ism refer all their new articles to GA and DYK it isn't to do with proofreading. It is to do with metrics of some nature (either on-wiki or off-wiki metrics). Anyone with any doubt on that has only to look at Hawkeye7's user page, here [15] and look at the lines of stars, crosses and question marks on display (over a whole page of them!).

  Those are not all there in the name of proofreading. Axad12 (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  JSS: that's not completely fair to Hawkeye7's statement, which indicated the desire both for getting another pair of eyes and correcting errors. I definitely use the various DYK, GA, FA processes for that as well, as a second reader may spot small issues with neutrality if there are any. And even editors with a strong grasp of writing make occasional mistakes, which is compatible with the AP perm. Axad12, are you referring to the press pass as a free ticket? I don't think that's how it works, as you'd still need to buy tickets to an event even with a press pass? Possibly the id card as a visa means that some money was saved there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is some background in relation to paid editing in relation to LauraHales, paralympics articles and Hawkeye7.

Prior to the 2011-2 Australian Paralympics project, LauraHales (contributions history: [16]) was a 2-year WP:SPA in relation to the subject of netball and made thousands of edits on that subject, creating many rather obscure articles (Netball in Vanuatu, etc).

Then in mid 2011 her netball-related activity stopped and she became an SPA in relation to Australian Paralympians, an activity for which it has already been established above that at least from 2011-2 she was paid $100 per hour.

Hawkeye7 has said that they collaborated very closely with LauraHales on the 2011-2 Paralympics work, but rather implausibly denies having received any payment, despite the fact that Hawkeye7 was sanctioned for abuse of admin tools around that time in relation to LauraHales, a user to whom Hawkeye7 had an unknown conflict of interest.

Fast forward to 2018 and the details of a further Paralympics Australia project from 2015 onwards can be found in a post here [17]. The project’s aims and activity continue those of the 2011-2 project. LauraHales and Hawkeye7 continued to produce large numbers of Australian Paralympian articles during the 2015-8 period and LauraHales can be demonstrated to have been a member of the project. Hawkeye7 cannot be demonstrated to have been a member of the project but their output of articles in that topic area strongly suggests that they were involved. It is clearly plausible that this was also paid activity of some kind.

Laura’s Hales activity on Wikipedia ended in mid 2019. Hawkeye7 continues to be associated with Paralympics Australia and continues to create and edit articles in that subject area. It seems to me that it is highly implausible that Hawkeye7 was not remunerated in some way for the work in 2011-2 and that payment for such work may have continued over much of the last 12 years. Axad12 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

J1477 (talk · contribs)

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

---

I really didn’t want to bring this up at COI/N if the editor would just honestly acknowledge their COI, but they’ve refused to do so and continue to deny it, when asked repeatedly. And their denial doesn’t make any sense to me, so I’m filing this complaint for the record. They repeatedly created BLPs for Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin. Rafey Kazi is the CEO of the U.S.-based firm COBAIT, and as per her linkedin profile, Laura is a Digital Marketing Strategist there. They also created a bio for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who is Laura’s father, according to her own website. As per linkedin profile, Laura previously worked for Dnet, and J1477 created a page for Dnet (A Social Enterprise) that was later deleted. She also worked for BRAC, and similarly J1477 created Targeting Ultra Poor Program - The Graduation Approach, an article related to BRAC which tagged as advertisement since April 2023. And given Laura also worked for IBCS-PRIMAX Software (Bangladesh) Limited, one should also take a look at this. So overall, this editor has been trying to promote Laura or the organizations she is or was connected to since they joined Wikipedia. They previously uploaded several images related to InfoLady, an NGO run by Laura.
My aim isn’t necessarily to get J1477 blocked, but I’d like an admin to intervene and address the situation, as our efforts seem to be in vain. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Response to Saqib’s Comment:

1. "I really didn’t want to bring this up at COI/N if the editor would just honestly acknowledge their COI, but they’ve refused to do so and continue to deny it when asked repeatedly." I regret not addressing this directly earlier. My initial reluctance to acknowledge a conflict of interest (COI) stemmed from my belief that my contributions were made in good faith, without the intention of promoting anyone that I am related to or anyone paying me. However, I now realize that the connections between the subjects I’ve written about do give the appearance of a COI. For that, I apologize, and I am now willing to admit to having a COI due to the connections between the individuals I wrote about.
2. "They repeatedly created BLPs for Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin. Rafey Kazi is the CEO of the U.S.-based firm COBAIT, and as per her LinkedIn profile, Laura is a Digital Marketing Strategist there." The articles on Rafey Kazi and Laura Mohiuddin emerged from my initial interest in Mohiuddin Ahmed. He indeed is a notable figure due to his historical significance as a freedom fighter during Bangladesh’s war of independence. While researching Mohiuddin Ahmed, I came across Laura Mohiuddin, who is his daughter and worked in social entrepreneurship. I found her involvement with Infolady and IT fascinating, and as I followed her career, I came across Rafey Kazi, leading to an article on him. One thing led to another, and that is how I became involved with these related subjects.
3. "They also created a bio for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who is Laura’s father, according to her own website." Yes, I began by writing the article on Mohiuddin Ahmed because of his importance as a freedom fighter and diplomat. His contributions to Bangladesh’s history are significant, and I believed he deserved recognition on Wikipedia. My intention was to document his notable achievements, not to promote personal connections.
4. "As per her LinkedIn profile, Laura previously worked for Dnet, and J1477 created a page for Dnet (A Social Enterprise) that was later deleted." My interest in Dnet came from learning about Laura Mohiuddin’s work in social entrepreneurship and her involvement with Dnet. I found her contributions to this organization noteworthy and believed that both Laura Mohiuddin and Dnet were worth documenting. While the article on Dnet was deleted, I created it with the belief that it met Wikipedia’s notability standards. You may want to research Dnet's award winning programs.
5. "She also worked for BRAC, and similarly J1477 created Targeting Ultra Poor Program - The Graduation Approach, an article related to BRAC which tagged as advertisement since April 2023." I wrote the article on the Targeting Ultra Poor Program because it is an award-winning program, and I found the initiative to be an impactful part of BRAC’s work. While I understand that the article has been tagged as promotional, my intent was to present the Graduation Approach in a neutral manner.
6. "My aim isn’t necessarily to get J1477 blocked, but I’d like an admin to intervene and address the situation, as our efforts seem to be in vain." I appreciate that your aim is not to have me blocked, and I acknowledge that the connections between the subjects I’ve written about do make it appear as though there is a conflict of interest. While I initially didn’t believe there was a COI, I now understand that my editing patterns—writing about people connected through family or professional associations—may give that impression.

My Clarification:

I have written articles on Bangladeshi personalities and organizations outside of those connected to Laura Mohiuddin. For example, I contributed an article on BASIS (Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services), which was eventually deleted and later recreated by another user, suggesting it was indeed notable. Additionally, I have written articles that have since been deleted or are no longer showing up, likely because they were created long before 2017.

However, since the connections and links between these individuals and organizations are raising concerns and the perception of a COI is growing, I feel that I have no other choice but to admit to a COI. I recognize that my failure to acknowledge this earlier has caused frustration, and for that, I apologize.

Moving forward, I will no longer edit articles where I may seem to have a COI. I remain committed to contributing positively to Wikipedia and am happy to work with the community to ensure the articles I’ve worked on meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and notability. J1477 (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

J1477, First, I kindly ask that you refrain from posting such long statements, repeatedly. Second, your response wasn’t very helpful; while you now admit there’s a COI but you’re still not being transparent and honest about it. I want to clarify that having a COI isn’t forbidden as long as you are transparent about it. You still have the opportunity to honestly declare your COI. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a brief note to say that I find the user's explanation above entirely unconvincing. If what they are saying is true then they would actually have no COI (being interested in a subject is not a COI), and all they have admitted is that their editing pattern could give rise to the perception of a COI.

However, it seems perfectly obvious that they have a very real COI which they refuse to declare.

As Saqib said above, this editor has been trying to promote Laura, people close to Laura, or companies related to Laura, for years. The only reasonable conclusions are that it is undeclared paid editing or the subject editing about themselves and those close to them. Axad12 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Time line of events:

2012: AfC declined for user's article on IBCS-Primax Software [18]

2015: Speedy deletion of user's articles on Dnet [19], Infolady Social Entrepreneurship programme [20], Aponjon [21] and Bangladesh Association of Software [22]

Dec 2020: User created article on Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat), father of Laura Mohiuddin. Article is currently nominated for deletion here [23]

User page deleted as unambiguous advertising and using userpage as a webhost [24].

March 2021 Speedy deletion of user's article on Rafey Kazi as unambiguous advertising. [25]

Nov 2021: AfD deletion of user's article on Laura Mohiuddin on notability grounds. [26]

Userpage subsequently deleted again under U5 (i.e. not a webhost), presumably for hosting the same material?

Feb 2022: Speedy deletion of Laura Mohiuddin under G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) [27]. User's comments include I demand that the page be restored and This is absurd, ridiculous and disrespectful! […] Are you allowing racism come into play here?.

User then recreates the article again the following day, deleted again under G4.[28]

User is asked what their relationship is to Laura Mohiuddin, no response. [29]

Userpage again deleted under criteria U5, presumably for once again hosting the same material.[30]

April 2022: Speedy deletion of Over 50s Cricket World Cup (presumably there is some relation to Rafey Kazi) [31]

October 2022: Edits reverted and warned for adding links to Cobait.com (where Kazi and Mohiuddin work) [32]

October 2024: Current activity re: the recreated article for Rafey Kazi being nominated for AfD, various denials of COI, as per comments and links above.

I should note that this isn't the entirety of the user's activity on Wikipedia, but it is the majority of it. Of the other material, it is entirely plausible that some form of as yet undetected COI also exists. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, shows no sign of admitting their obvious COIs, and more worryingly seems to believe that they are correct and everyone else is wrong. The behaviour above is clearly endemic and will surely continue until the user is prevented from promoting themselves and other people and companies that they have links to. Axad12 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Did I mention that they repeatedly created an article on Infolady Social Entrepreneurship Programme, which is a charity run by Laura per this. @Axad12: you've got an e-mail! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and actioned a block, as rather than addressing the eminent concerns or engaging in uncontroversial and constructive editing, J1477 has elected to forum shop for help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Disclosing stock investment?

This is a general question, not about a specific user or article. WP:PE mentions "being an … investor" as an example of a financial COI. Does this mean that people who own small stakes (well under 1%) of publicly traded companies need to disclose their holdings on their talk page? I haven’t seen this discussed on this noticeboard before, and I tend to avoid writing about companies in which I own any stock, but I am not sure if small stock holdings are considered a COI. White 720 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio

A new editor has made three quality edited connected articles: Mark Kotter, Myelopathy.org, Bit.bio, and constantly removes all UPE/COI tags from them. I strongly suspect that this editor is connected with these subjects and they are all promotional to the work of Mark Kotter. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Damjana12 (talk · contribs) has created a total of three articles here, all related to Mark Kotter, which strongly suggests a COI. I recommend that Damjana12 declare this COI if they haven’t already. However, based on their tp, it appears they have repeatedly refused to disclose it when asked. I also found that Damjana12 has reversed the draftification of these articles to bypass the AFC route and has consistently removed the COI/UPE tags, which they should refrain from doing in the future. I’m sure that it’s not Mark himself writing these articles, but likely someone connected to him, such as an employee or a paid editor. For example, this Babraham Institute based IP 193.34.186.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently edited the bios for both Mark and Bit.bio and given Bit.bio is also headquartered at the Babraham Institute, it wouldn’t be surprising if Damjana12 is an employee from Bit.bio. Just my 2cents! Anyway, we’ll get to the bottom of this soon! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Saqib. I saw this partolling a while back and tagged it. I suspect that the skill-level of the editing strongly hints to a UPE (i.e. beyond the editing level of an employee trying to get their company on WP). thanks again for your attention. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Aszx5000, You might be right but the reason I mentioned it could be an employee of Bit.bio is that Damjana12 also created an article Spondyloarthritis (SpA) (redirected) that a typical paid editor usually wouldn’t be able to create because they aren't not an expert on the topic. You see my point, right? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I do, but when you patrol a lot of B-rated articles, you come across the tradecraft of advanced UPEs (i.e. who make very high quality articles), and one of their actions is to take a make a cut-out of an existing Wikipedia unrelated technical article (or import one from another WP-language) which they do in a single edit to create a more diverse editing history. Regardless, all things are possible and I have - unfortunately - seen all permutations :) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The UPE has returned and removed all COI tags (again, for the third time now). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User just needs to be blocked surely? Axad12 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Amberton University‎

• Amberton University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WatsonCrafted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WatsonCrafted has disclosed in an edit that they work for Amberton University‎. They were then warned that they need to abide by our conflict-of-interest policies and expectations, including WP:PAID. Today, they added a tremendous amount of detailed, unsourced, and promotional material to their employer's article. Unless they can communicate to us that they understand our policies and assure us that they will begin abiding by them, I'm afraid that a stronger warning and perhaps a block of some kind may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

ElKevbo, First, please replace the username Kovcszaln6 with WatsonCrafted (talk · contribs). You mentioned the wrong editor. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I want to clarify that I do not work for Amberton University, nor am I being paid for my contributions. I'm just a local resident who was doing some research on various colleges and noticed that Amberton's page seemed quite bare in comparison. I thought I could help by adding more information based on what I found publicly available.

I understand Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policies and certainly didn’t mean to come across as promotional. I apologize if any of the content seemed that way—I will review it carefully to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. I’m happy to make corrections or remove anything that doesn’t meet the standards.

Thanks again, and I appreciate your guidance! WatsonCrafted (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WatsonCrafted, Thanks for responding! You mentioned that you don’t work for this university, but why does your edit says otherwise?

Also, I don’t think every COI editor needs to be reported immediately. In this case, WatsonCrafted just started editing the university page today and I haven’t seen any discussion or correspondence on their tp or the university's tp, which should happen first before considering a report here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the large warning at the very top of their User Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The material was so promotional, and written to directly address the reader as 'you', that I felt there must surely be some copyvio in there (although Google suggests not). It looks to me like very obvious advertising copy and not something that a passer by would just come up with.

I was wondering why the user would have stated that they worked for the school and then said that they didn't work for the school. Surprisingly it turns out that "Watson Crafted" is the name of a marketing and communications company located not a million miles from the university.

So that explains that then... Axad12 (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)