This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
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.
Additional possible conflicts of interest:
The Arbitration Committee has published a motion indefinitely banning Tenebrae from mainspace edits (broadly construed) to Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh "due to a conflict of interest". The committee was apparently contacted by multiple editors following publication of an article in The Daily Dot. The motion does not make clear or even hint at the extent of Tenebrae's 15 year history of promoting Frank Lovece.
I compiled this list mostly just by going through Frank Lovece and looking at some of the blue links. It does not include the literally hundreds of references to Lovece in articles, generally as a film critic (currently 379 hits for "Lovece, Frank" and 104 hits for "Frank Lovece"). I'm starting a discussion here in hope that a more complete list can be generated and the articles checked over. Mo Billings ( talk) 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that Tenebrae previously admitted to editing as an IP in a manner which led to a block. [4] It should also be noted that an external source (the Daily Dot linked above) has linked Tenebrae with several other IPs and named accounts, such editing similarly promoting Lovece and his employer Newsday. While any sockpuppet investigation might well be turned down as 'stale', I would suggest that the circumstantial evidence for socking to promote a CoI might be seen as a great deal stronger than is customarily seen as sufficient to sanction a contributor with less history. Such edits also merit investigation. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I've edited out the link to the article, because I think that leaving such a link likely violates the WP:OUTING policy. I hasten to add that I don't think that anyone did anything with bad intent, and admittedly, the decision by ArbCom comes awfully close to saying the same thing. It's enough to say that Tenebrae has an apparent COI here, without getting into who Tenebrae might or might not actually be in real life. I hope that no one will restore the link. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll give 3 concrete examples that may be in the next issue:
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.
User:Redi Productions created Draft:Tank Cleaner on 24 February but was soon soft blocked for username violation and immediately User:PavinderWraich continues editing it, removing review comments on several occasions and being warned about COI editing here, here , here, here and here by User:Spiderone. Redi Productions is the name of the company producing the film Tank Cleaner and Pavinder Wraich is the director and the author of the screen play. No response has been made to any of the warnings and despite the warnings Draft:Tank Cleaner was again submitted for review at AfC. Velella Velella Talk 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
<s></s>
tags weren't closing properly and the report I added after this one was also showing as TyronTO has previously removed the COI tag [8] at Groundfloor (company), which I reverted, suspecting paid editing again. They added a paid disclosure to their userpage after my reminder. Their latest edit [9] is marked minor and I haven't had time to review it other than to note it isn't what we usually call minor in size (over 4 kB). ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I reverted [10] editor at MinIO, same sorts of problems, not disclosed on their userpage so I am presuming more forgetfulness AGF. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Seemingly a SPA editor who says she hasn't got a coi. The editor is adding long unstructured lists of company investments, often reams of blue links to company articles of that type, often with no references. It's is pure advertising and tendentious editing. This is an example: August Capital. I asked about it and she offered a very simple slogan Capitalism needs transparency!. I posted a paid notice, said she wasn't being paid, but there is some kind of COI. It is all the same type of company. scope_creep Talk 11:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This individual works with that website (see https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/author/luca-passani/ for example) but refuses to disclose his COI. He went berserk and keeps accusing me of having some kind of "counter-COI", of being a "hacker", a "vandal", a "hater", a "cyber-attacker" you name it… just because I nominated his article. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ. 📩 08:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The AAR Corp, a page with historic COI problems, has another likely-COI editor working on the page without disclosing the COI: Fgbwashdc. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This sockfarm with 16 CU-confirmed socks seems to have been very active at financial company articles, possibly entertainers, entertainment productions, and some other orgs as well. Does anybody here have more information on who they are so they can be added to WP:PAIDLIST appropriately? A sampling of their creations or interests is listed above. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Has been replacing sourced article content with what reads to be promotionally written content which the user claims are "Language & date edits provided by the SMC historian." Put notices on the user's page, but no responses. Garuda28 ( talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I hope this is the right place to put this. I saw a suspicious edit on my watchlist and after looking through Tegiap's contributions I noticed that their only edits consist in adding references to self-published papers by a single author to various articles. I think these edits need to be reverted, is that correct? In any case, this is my first time posting here and I'm looking for advice :) Thanks! -- Mvbaron ( talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The history and tenor of this article is as fishy as the sea. I would not be surprised if later substantive contributors to its advertorial tone were the same editor under a different name, or another UPE. BD2412 T 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Muhur and I have been having a bit of a disagreement about some self citations that he added to Medical device. He's moved to using the talk page now, so fair enough, that should be fine. What is not fine, though, is that Muhur has now taken to following me around and leaving trolling comments on the talk pages after I open discussions, see here and here. I would greatly appreciate it if some uninterested parties could take a look at the situation and have a word with whomever is in the wrong here, even if that turns out to be myself. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere at the Millennium of Space is a project very similar to the album Everywhere at the End of Time, aiming to replicate it with music from the 1980s to the 2000s. I did contribute a bit to it during its production, but those contributions never made it in the final product. I'm wondering if this is enough for me to need to declare a conflict of interest, and if I would need to delete the redirect. Nowhere at the Millennium of Space is briefly mentioned in the Everywhere at the End of Time article, so I think the redirect could stay. Invalid OS talk 12:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The article on this British record producer has been edited by several apparently COI editors, most recently and most extensively by Treasure Chest Boy who has said in the edit summary here that they are the article subject. They have not responded to any messages on their talk page, or on the article talk page. Some of the edits are unproblematic - changing referenced information to no great effect, marking major edits as minor, and so forth - but the article could benefit from some admin oversight. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New to Wikipedia I was pleased to add the name of Tom McGrath, Producer as the person who introduced the idea of the Late Late Show. This fact has been recorded many times in newspapers and on RTE. I am now aware that I should perhaps have first used talk and also I would mention that now 85, I am a younger cousin of the producer who died more than 25 years ago. Baile Atha Cliathach Baile Atha Cliathach ( talk) 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This editor has been around for over 18 months and their first edit was to declare that they've been paid by the artist Epos 257 for their contributions to Wikipedia. Over those 18 months their only edits have been to what was a draft about the artist. So far so good. However that draft is now in mainspace, and the editor has not paid any attention to the two messages I've left them on their talk page about the need for them to make edit requests now, rather than edit the article directly. They just need a bit more weighty encouragement to do so. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Promotional editing on pages related to Ashok Soota. The user Vtamagond has not replied to any of the COI messages that have been left (starting about a year ago) on his/her talk page. --- Possibly ( talk) 07:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
He created Tushar Rayate, which was speedy deleted in 2016. Then he created it this time again. It is possible that this is probably an autobiography, probably because of his name or conflict of interest, which can be he is talking about his boss at work, the manager, or the owner of the company he’s working at. Kaseng55 ( talk) 06:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Both users were brought to my attention by IceWelder, who found a connection between the two users and the pages that they were editing. Username represents a company headed by Repenning named "AgentSheets Inc. (Dragentsheets) and has edited pages related to Repenning and Repenning's field of interest (information technology and computer science) for the past 14 years. On one occasion, Dragentsheets signed off on a talk page with the name "Alex". A related account, KaptainFire, has also been editing articles related to Repenning and Repenning's field of interest, and uploaded File:The Computational Thinking Process.jpg, which Dragentsheets warred over on Computational thinking. Among both users' contributions include questionable addition of links to AgentSheets which appear borderline promotional and (assuming that this is Repenning editing) addition of self-made research papers and primary sources on articles. All linked pages above have evident issues with encyclopedic tone and have a biased point of view. Chlod ( say hi!) 13:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Added an external link to a website that has the same name as the username as seen in a contrib to Wireless. Kaseng55 ( talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The user at issue has a user page stating that he/she is "paid employee of the nonprofit associated with the work of Mark Siljander." There has been repeated inappropriate COI editing from this account over a series of months. The specific flavor of COI editing here is promotional whitewashing: removal of well-sourced, cited, appropriately weighed content; inappropriate threats in edit summaries; use of multiple accounts, etc. Neutrality talk 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
As a COI editor, I request the two following edits:
1) The Justice Department's press release states, "It is important to note that the indictment does not charge any of the defendants with material support of terrorism, nor does it allege that they knowingly financed acts of terror." [1]
2) Judge Nanette Laughrey is quoted during sentencing saying: "But the truth is, when you look at this objectively, this is not a case about [Siljander] aiding a terrorist, it just isn't..." [2]
Please endeavor to publish without personal bias and with a complete and accurate context. The following reference provides a decent summary overview which indicates all ties to terrorism were merely alleged and suspected and that no defendant was charged with any such violation or association with terror funding: [3]
{Blpwatch|from=04/2021|reason=incomplete context related to alleged terror claims}
-- GWaldron88 ( talk) 17:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I was having a really hard time explaining to this user that they could not have thirty external links in the body of an article. They are quite insistent that the many, many links they have added to Wikipedia that lead to drawger.com and illoz.com are helpful to readers. After some unproductive back and forth on their talk page, and after tagging many of their articles with the {{external links}} tag, I noticed this at the bottom of their user page:
full disclosure
This member manages these websites for illustrators
That disclosure was first made in 2008. Now, this user has been adding links to drawger.com and illoz.com to Wikipedia for a really long time:
These examples add up to about 90 instances of links or refs leading to drawger or illoz. This sounds like a fairly large COI problem, as they are presumably in control of what the sources they are adding say. It's not clear from their disclosure what the relationship is here: they manage the entire illoz/drawger sites? They manage individual pages on drawger/illoz for artists? They manage the drawger/illoz sites for the artists they are writing articles about? Anyway you sklice it this does not sound good. They also carried on a very long conversation with me today about the links, without once mentioning that they work with the company that is being linked. --- Possibly ( talk) 06:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
these sites are the only place where the artist's works and writings can be accessed. Can you see how that is a problem, given that you are writing the articles, then sourcing them with a site you created and control? It brings the notability of the artists in to question; if illoz and drawger are the only sources, you personally are basically the authoritative source for the articles, and can determine notability independently of our policies by creating new illoz and drawger material. I'm curious to see what other editors think; it's possible that the illoz and drawger sources have to go entirely. Finally, I am not unsympathetic to the good design-world work you are doing. It's just that it conflicts strongly with many our SELFCITE and COI policies.--- Possibly ( talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
you cannot be the publisher of sources you yourself use in articles, as it violates our COI policyis entirely true as explained in WP:SELFCITE, and because WP:COI isn't really a "policy" per se. However, I do agree that it's generally considered good practice to try and avoid citing oneself whenever possible because it can lead to misunderstanding. My suggestion to Rezimmerman would be for them to look for WP:SECONDARY sources (both to themselves and to the subject of the article) per Orange Mike below and try to develop articles based upon those sources instead of trying to cite oneself. If Rezimmerman feels the need to cite themselves, they should propose it on the relevant article's talk page to give others a chance to comment and see what the consensus is. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
If these artists are genuinely notable, it should not be hard to find critical articles about them outside your own sites. If no such sources exist, then we have to wonder whether they are genuinely notable. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There are a bunch of different COI issues here to be fixed or dealt with, so I am creating this subsection for one of them. Per the above disclosure that Rezimmerman has COI regarding the Hamilton King award and the Society of Illustrators that bestows it, it is problematic that they have also gone through Wikipedia and added this text:
This appears to be another instance of COI, seeing as they gave him an award after he made them a web site.--- Possibly ( talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
A number of editors that appears to be COI have both added immense levels of puffery to the Craig Shirley page, as well as cited his books on a bunch of other articles. 12:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Page created by undisclosed paid editor: User:Störm
https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01910ab31d373a68bc
Can anyone check all of his edits and stop him by creating a legit storm. 178.165.130.210 ( talk) 06:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
To create a wikipedia page for 3 Michelin Chef, Sebastien Lepinoy.
Provide:
- short description of his early life & education
- description of his professional career
- type of cuisine
- specialization
- awards and nominations receivedWe will provide you with more information about the chef once you agreed to take on the job.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
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.
Additional possible conflicts of interest:
The Arbitration Committee has published a motion indefinitely banning Tenebrae from mainspace edits (broadly construed) to Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh "due to a conflict of interest". The committee was apparently contacted by multiple editors following publication of an article in The Daily Dot. The motion does not make clear or even hint at the extent of Tenebrae's 15 year history of promoting Frank Lovece.
I compiled this list mostly just by going through Frank Lovece and looking at some of the blue links. It does not include the literally hundreds of references to Lovece in articles, generally as a film critic (currently 379 hits for "Lovece, Frank" and 104 hits for "Frank Lovece"). I'm starting a discussion here in hope that a more complete list can be generated and the articles checked over. Mo Billings ( talk) 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that Tenebrae previously admitted to editing as an IP in a manner which led to a block. [4] It should also be noted that an external source (the Daily Dot linked above) has linked Tenebrae with several other IPs and named accounts, such editing similarly promoting Lovece and his employer Newsday. While any sockpuppet investigation might well be turned down as 'stale', I would suggest that the circumstantial evidence for socking to promote a CoI might be seen as a great deal stronger than is customarily seen as sufficient to sanction a contributor with less history. Such edits also merit investigation. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I've edited out the link to the article, because I think that leaving such a link likely violates the WP:OUTING policy. I hasten to add that I don't think that anyone did anything with bad intent, and admittedly, the decision by ArbCom comes awfully close to saying the same thing. It's enough to say that Tenebrae has an apparent COI here, without getting into who Tenebrae might or might not actually be in real life. I hope that no one will restore the link. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll give 3 concrete examples that may be in the next issue:
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.
User:Redi Productions created Draft:Tank Cleaner on 24 February but was soon soft blocked for username violation and immediately User:PavinderWraich continues editing it, removing review comments on several occasions and being warned about COI editing here, here , here, here and here by User:Spiderone. Redi Productions is the name of the company producing the film Tank Cleaner and Pavinder Wraich is the director and the author of the screen play. No response has been made to any of the warnings and despite the warnings Draft:Tank Cleaner was again submitted for review at AfC. Velella Velella Talk 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
<s></s>
tags weren't closing properly and the report I added after this one was also showing as TyronTO has previously removed the COI tag [8] at Groundfloor (company), which I reverted, suspecting paid editing again. They added a paid disclosure to their userpage after my reminder. Their latest edit [9] is marked minor and I haven't had time to review it other than to note it isn't what we usually call minor in size (over 4 kB). ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I reverted [10] editor at MinIO, same sorts of problems, not disclosed on their userpage so I am presuming more forgetfulness AGF. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Seemingly a SPA editor who says she hasn't got a coi. The editor is adding long unstructured lists of company investments, often reams of blue links to company articles of that type, often with no references. It's is pure advertising and tendentious editing. This is an example: August Capital. I asked about it and she offered a very simple slogan Capitalism needs transparency!. I posted a paid notice, said she wasn't being paid, but there is some kind of COI. It is all the same type of company. scope_creep Talk 11:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This individual works with that website (see https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/author/luca-passani/ for example) but refuses to disclose his COI. He went berserk and keeps accusing me of having some kind of "counter-COI", of being a "hacker", a "vandal", a "hater", a "cyber-attacker" you name it… just because I nominated his article. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ. 📩 08:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The AAR Corp, a page with historic COI problems, has another likely-COI editor working on the page without disclosing the COI: Fgbwashdc. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This sockfarm with 16 CU-confirmed socks seems to have been very active at financial company articles, possibly entertainers, entertainment productions, and some other orgs as well. Does anybody here have more information on who they are so they can be added to WP:PAIDLIST appropriately? A sampling of their creations or interests is listed above. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Has been replacing sourced article content with what reads to be promotionally written content which the user claims are "Language & date edits provided by the SMC historian." Put notices on the user's page, but no responses. Garuda28 ( talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I hope this is the right place to put this. I saw a suspicious edit on my watchlist and after looking through Tegiap's contributions I noticed that their only edits consist in adding references to self-published papers by a single author to various articles. I think these edits need to be reverted, is that correct? In any case, this is my first time posting here and I'm looking for advice :) Thanks! -- Mvbaron ( talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The history and tenor of this article is as fishy as the sea. I would not be surprised if later substantive contributors to its advertorial tone were the same editor under a different name, or another UPE. BD2412 T 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Muhur and I have been having a bit of a disagreement about some self citations that he added to Medical device. He's moved to using the talk page now, so fair enough, that should be fine. What is not fine, though, is that Muhur has now taken to following me around and leaving trolling comments on the talk pages after I open discussions, see here and here. I would greatly appreciate it if some uninterested parties could take a look at the situation and have a word with whomever is in the wrong here, even if that turns out to be myself. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere at the Millennium of Space is a project very similar to the album Everywhere at the End of Time, aiming to replicate it with music from the 1980s to the 2000s. I did contribute a bit to it during its production, but those contributions never made it in the final product. I'm wondering if this is enough for me to need to declare a conflict of interest, and if I would need to delete the redirect. Nowhere at the Millennium of Space is briefly mentioned in the Everywhere at the End of Time article, so I think the redirect could stay. Invalid OS talk 12:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The article on this British record producer has been edited by several apparently COI editors, most recently and most extensively by Treasure Chest Boy who has said in the edit summary here that they are the article subject. They have not responded to any messages on their talk page, or on the article talk page. Some of the edits are unproblematic - changing referenced information to no great effect, marking major edits as minor, and so forth - but the article could benefit from some admin oversight. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New to Wikipedia I was pleased to add the name of Tom McGrath, Producer as the person who introduced the idea of the Late Late Show. This fact has been recorded many times in newspapers and on RTE. I am now aware that I should perhaps have first used talk and also I would mention that now 85, I am a younger cousin of the producer who died more than 25 years ago. Baile Atha Cliathach Baile Atha Cliathach ( talk) 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This editor has been around for over 18 months and their first edit was to declare that they've been paid by the artist Epos 257 for their contributions to Wikipedia. Over those 18 months their only edits have been to what was a draft about the artist. So far so good. However that draft is now in mainspace, and the editor has not paid any attention to the two messages I've left them on their talk page about the need for them to make edit requests now, rather than edit the article directly. They just need a bit more weighty encouragement to do so. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Promotional editing on pages related to Ashok Soota. The user Vtamagond has not replied to any of the COI messages that have been left (starting about a year ago) on his/her talk page. --- Possibly ( talk) 07:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
He created Tushar Rayate, which was speedy deleted in 2016. Then he created it this time again. It is possible that this is probably an autobiography, probably because of his name or conflict of interest, which can be he is talking about his boss at work, the manager, or the owner of the company he’s working at. Kaseng55 ( talk) 06:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Both users were brought to my attention by IceWelder, who found a connection between the two users and the pages that they were editing. Username represents a company headed by Repenning named "AgentSheets Inc. (Dragentsheets) and has edited pages related to Repenning and Repenning's field of interest (information technology and computer science) for the past 14 years. On one occasion, Dragentsheets signed off on a talk page with the name "Alex". A related account, KaptainFire, has also been editing articles related to Repenning and Repenning's field of interest, and uploaded File:The Computational Thinking Process.jpg, which Dragentsheets warred over on Computational thinking. Among both users' contributions include questionable addition of links to AgentSheets which appear borderline promotional and (assuming that this is Repenning editing) addition of self-made research papers and primary sources on articles. All linked pages above have evident issues with encyclopedic tone and have a biased point of view. Chlod ( say hi!) 13:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Added an external link to a website that has the same name as the username as seen in a contrib to Wireless. Kaseng55 ( talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The user at issue has a user page stating that he/she is "paid employee of the nonprofit associated with the work of Mark Siljander." There has been repeated inappropriate COI editing from this account over a series of months. The specific flavor of COI editing here is promotional whitewashing: removal of well-sourced, cited, appropriately weighed content; inappropriate threats in edit summaries; use of multiple accounts, etc. Neutrality talk 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
As a COI editor, I request the two following edits:
1) The Justice Department's press release states, "It is important to note that the indictment does not charge any of the defendants with material support of terrorism, nor does it allege that they knowingly financed acts of terror." [1]
2) Judge Nanette Laughrey is quoted during sentencing saying: "But the truth is, when you look at this objectively, this is not a case about [Siljander] aiding a terrorist, it just isn't..." [2]
Please endeavor to publish without personal bias and with a complete and accurate context. The following reference provides a decent summary overview which indicates all ties to terrorism were merely alleged and suspected and that no defendant was charged with any such violation or association with terror funding: [3]
{Blpwatch|from=04/2021|reason=incomplete context related to alleged terror claims}
-- GWaldron88 ( talk) 17:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I was having a really hard time explaining to this user that they could not have thirty external links in the body of an article. They are quite insistent that the many, many links they have added to Wikipedia that lead to drawger.com and illoz.com are helpful to readers. After some unproductive back and forth on their talk page, and after tagging many of their articles with the {{external links}} tag, I noticed this at the bottom of their user page:
full disclosure
This member manages these websites for illustrators
That disclosure was first made in 2008. Now, this user has been adding links to drawger.com and illoz.com to Wikipedia for a really long time:
These examples add up to about 90 instances of links or refs leading to drawger or illoz. This sounds like a fairly large COI problem, as they are presumably in control of what the sources they are adding say. It's not clear from their disclosure what the relationship is here: they manage the entire illoz/drawger sites? They manage individual pages on drawger/illoz for artists? They manage the drawger/illoz sites for the artists they are writing articles about? Anyway you sklice it this does not sound good. They also carried on a very long conversation with me today about the links, without once mentioning that they work with the company that is being linked. --- Possibly ( talk) 06:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
these sites are the only place where the artist's works and writings can be accessed. Can you see how that is a problem, given that you are writing the articles, then sourcing them with a site you created and control? It brings the notability of the artists in to question; if illoz and drawger are the only sources, you personally are basically the authoritative source for the articles, and can determine notability independently of our policies by creating new illoz and drawger material. I'm curious to see what other editors think; it's possible that the illoz and drawger sources have to go entirely. Finally, I am not unsympathetic to the good design-world work you are doing. It's just that it conflicts strongly with many our SELFCITE and COI policies.--- Possibly ( talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
you cannot be the publisher of sources you yourself use in articles, as it violates our COI policyis entirely true as explained in WP:SELFCITE, and because WP:COI isn't really a "policy" per se. However, I do agree that it's generally considered good practice to try and avoid citing oneself whenever possible because it can lead to misunderstanding. My suggestion to Rezimmerman would be for them to look for WP:SECONDARY sources (both to themselves and to the subject of the article) per Orange Mike below and try to develop articles based upon those sources instead of trying to cite oneself. If Rezimmerman feels the need to cite themselves, they should propose it on the relevant article's talk page to give others a chance to comment and see what the consensus is. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
If these artists are genuinely notable, it should not be hard to find critical articles about them outside your own sites. If no such sources exist, then we have to wonder whether they are genuinely notable. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There are a bunch of different COI issues here to be fixed or dealt with, so I am creating this subsection for one of them. Per the above disclosure that Rezimmerman has COI regarding the Hamilton King award and the Society of Illustrators that bestows it, it is problematic that they have also gone through Wikipedia and added this text:
This appears to be another instance of COI, seeing as they gave him an award after he made them a web site.--- Possibly ( talk) 17:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
A number of editors that appears to be COI have both added immense levels of puffery to the Craig Shirley page, as well as cited his books on a bunch of other articles. 12:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Page created by undisclosed paid editor: User:Störm
https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01910ab31d373a68bc
Can anyone check all of his edits and stop him by creating a legit storm. 178.165.130.210 ( talk) 06:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
To create a wikipedia page for 3 Michelin Chef, Sebastien Lepinoy.
Provide:
- short description of his early life & education
- description of his professional career
- type of cuisine
- specialization
- awards and nominations receivedWe will provide you with more information about the chef once you agreed to take on the job.