This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
These are three paid editors who have disclosed their status on their user pages, and even in their usernames, but aren't disclosing at the articles they create or edit. Rachel Helps according to her user page is the program coordinator; she was asked to also disclose and have her students disclose at article talks but has said she doesn't think it's necessary, and from a quick check of the most recent article creation of each, they aren't doing so.
They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable. But I do think they probably need to disclose at article talk, and since there's already been discussion at Rachels Helps' talk, I thought I'd bring it here and see if others had concerns. —valereee ( talk) 10:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work"That is a dreadful slur on Wikimedians in Residence; the community does not "turn a blind eye" (viz: "To ignore or deliberately overlook, especially with respect to something unpleasant or improper"), it positively and actively encourages Wikimedians in Residence; and the good work they do - and rightly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it?I concur. That's really a pretty cut and dried case - David Gerard ( talk) 00:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The relevant section of
WP:PAID, which is a
Wikipedia policy, says: "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries."
. Note the use of "or", not "and". Also note that
WP:CURATOR applies.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I fear there is a large disconnect between the (a) Wikipedians in Residence project and its participants and (b) editors concerned about conflicts of interest.I agree and I don’t think it’s a new problem. Innisfree987 ( talk) 06:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is certainly merit to what Valereee is asking. The problem is that our policies are not entirely clear. There is a difference between what has been said about paid editing above (which has been properly disclosed on the user's page) and our
WP:COI guideline, which says "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content."
The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page. Following that intent, it certainly does make sense that a user would disclose a conflict on the talk page of the article in question.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk) 07:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
"I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions") for a report on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
in the beginning; IIRC it was the product of more than a decade of work and debate in the community.)As our community experience has shown, even though it's important to keep an eye on where content is coming from, highlighting an apparent COI is not an accusation of terrible dishonor and malfeasance—it's simply a statement of fact, which is why I am bewildered by the Sturm und Drang over noting in article talk pages that declared paid editors with WP:ORGNAME usernames related to the article topic have edited... as Valereee notes,
Usernames can changeand WP:PAID declarations can be removed once the user is no longer an employee. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)"Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published."
Can anyone clue me in on why this issue is apparently seen as a major problem by Wikipedians in Residence? Or point me on where to look? For me, one institution/institution's participants voluntarily deciding to declare COI at potentially-perceivable-as-COI article talk doesn't seem like it "sets precedent" that other editors similarly paid by institutions would be therefore required to follow, but editors here who have been WiR are disagreeing. I'm not trying to fuck with WiR and similar programs here. What am I missing? —valereee ( talk) 20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period; material which is not necessarily problematic due to their own actions—as it is not, so far, conclusively clear what multidimensional eigenpolicyguideline state would have previously held sway from the combination of, as ThatMontrealIP puts it,
The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page—hence until this discussion is concluded in a consensus-establishing way, the problematicness of the material derives with certainty only from a confluence of external factors rather than from anything these editors have done.Overall, I share the sentiments valereee expresses above:
..I kind of do feel it would be best practices for editors paid by cultural/educational institutions to do it voluntarily for any article they could be perceived to have a COI for. I guess I don't understand why there's such passion against doing something that seems like it represents the most transparent rather than simply doing the minimum required.The simple matter of fact is that, the way the MediaWiki software and administrative processes presently work, as pointed out above, if at some future point a user page paid disclosure were to be removed for legitimate reasons, and the user name changed for likewise legitimate reasons, it would be very difficult to discover the apparent-COI connections to the material.I'll go a tad further than valereee though: while I don't think that a WP:PAID and/or WP:ORGNAME editor failing to place a talk page template COI notice on an article they've edited where an apparent COI could reasonably be said to exist, should be taken as prima facie evidence of the violation of any policy or guideline, I think it should be valid to regard failure to do so as an aggravating factor should concrete COI or substantial NPOV concerns arise. (Which, again, I have seen no evidence of in this particular case.) I mean, there's a reason why the basic {{ uw-coi}} warning template advises the receiving user to simply avoid editing connected articles, and {{ coi-stern}} says,
edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged(emphasis mine.)I'd also highlight that, although Scope creep made it sound as though paid editing and conflicts of interest are all about companies and brands and filthy capitalist lucre, which academics are above, in matter of fact there's a vintage 2004 essay Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism all about this kind of behavior in the noble Academy—also edited as recently as 27 weeks and 1 day ago, and with a specific talk page notice template, {{ Academic booster}}, which grew out of it, though that doesn't appear to have gotten much use. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
For me there is a qualitative difference between a WIR writing an article about someone else employed by their organization or about a department of their organization and someone more tangentially connected - for instance an alumni of a university. So in this instance I specifically bring up Orson Scott Card which I'm interested in as I'm currently doing a GA review of that article. There's been a second claim of a COI for Rachel which is that BYU, which she works for, is named after Card's great-great-grandfather; that's way too indirect for me. However, to the extent that there is a COI do Alumni for a sponsoring organization qualify? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No action needed: Thanks for raising those points Valereee. The discussion that came up was enlightening. As you have rightly pointed out at the start, "They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced." These aspects are essential for Wikipedia. Thus, I think bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy rather than for attaining the objectives of Wikipedia is not healthy. Vikram Vincent 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I've always understood this to refer to volunteer editors who form relationships with universities, libraries, museums and archives, and who help to upload and write about material to which those institutions have access, perhaps exclusive access. They may or may not be paid to do this.
But in the cases we're dealing with here, the WiRs have never been volunteer editors. Bassknight(byu) and Cstickel(byu) appear to have no non-paid edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) has made six non-paid edits with that account and 41 with Rwelean. Otherwise it's all paid. A recent example of their work is Draft:Patrick Madden (essayist) (moved today by Barkeep to draft space), a professor that one of them knows, which includes:
This is PR. And yet it's being supported on COIN, of all places. If the community has decided to support this kind of editing, then we can all get paid-editing jobs. That will include Christian Scientists writing about faith healing with information from the Mary Baker Eddy Library and drug-company reps with special access to the GlaxoSmithKline archives. Is that what the community wants? SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
To answer the question posted in the section heading, there is nothing better than WP:COI in the section
Wikipedians in residence, reward board
"There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations or marketing for their organization, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there."
That really answers all the questions in this whole thread especially the last sentence. More particularly about what is a WiR. At the redirect from the link above and at several other places aimed at GLAMers and WiRs there are informal definitions and guidance but I can't find a formal definition, and there is not an organization that says "You are officially a W-i-R" or that can say "You've broken the W-i-R rules, so you are no longer a W-i-R." (If anybody finds those offcial requirements please let us all know.) I personally think some W-i-Rs or GLAMers should come up with some sort of official definition of who is or who isn't a Wikipedian-in-Residence. Otherwise the enWiki community needs to do it, if we give them any exemptions from the WP:PAID rules, and I'd rather not have to do that.
More general background W-i-Rs started trying to get people to work with us if they represented a "mission-aligned organization." I was never aware that people wanted to get paid for this until about the 3rd or 4th W-i-R (from the Catalonian Wiki) announced his new position and that he would be getting paid. AS long as they were from "mission-aligned organization" it didn't make a lot of difference to me, but I do think it's time to clarify that we don't mean that W-i-Rs can come from General Motors or the Teamster Union. Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that there is any reason to keep this open, IF we all agree to work together, without rushing it, to get a mutually agreeable position. @ Rachel Helps (BYU): seems to feel that she and BYU are being singled out unfairly, but I think that the Wikipedians in residence, reward board section of WP:PAID lays it out that declaring on the talk pages is the normal expectation of WiRs. Perhaps this hasn't been well enforced in the past. I also believe that the Card article is more controversial than Rachel realizes. Maybe we can put the GA nomination for Card on hold for awhile until Sarah, Rachel, Barkeep and others come up with something acceptable in the article. I'd also like to ask everybody to come up with suggestions on how
There is some grumbling above about corporations such as pharmaceutical companies like GSK. Here in London, our most effective and productive WiR has been based at the Wellcome Library which derives its resources from a large pharmaceutical business which now forms part of GSK. Sir Henry Wellcome was a collector of curios and so his collection includes much quirky material about topics such as alchemy and witchcraft. This is all grist to our mill as we cover them alongside more modern modes of medicine. The Wellcome Library is a wonderful resource and I have attended many events there organised by their WiR and, during the lockdowns, still use their online facilities. For example, I wrote the topical article fever hospital using illustrations uploaded by Wellcome and put this on the main page as a DYK. It would be quite foolish to erect barriers to prevent cooperation and partnership with such a well-endowed institution and so we should not do so. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Getting back to Smallbones's point, I think that's an acceptable resolution, yes. — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 16:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking around to see how "Wikipedian in residence" is defined. Wikipedian in residence states that it's a Wikipedian, but other pages suggest the title may be taken by someone who works for the institution. They all stress that the WiR should generally not write about the institution. For example, Wikimedian in residence:
Wikimedian in residence/Creating a Wikimedian in Residence position: "Typically WIR positions should not be writing content, such as Wikipedia articles, for the institution as their main activity." And: "Wikimedia platforms ... should be seen as scholarly communications platforms where the knowledge of the institution is shared, rather than marketing platforms, which focuses on improving the reputation of the institution."
Wikipedia:GLAM/About says: "GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote the institution, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public."
That seems pretty conclusive. SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This is to share on the evolving experience in Tatar Wikipedia, previously reported on by Smallbones in The SignPost's coverage of government-paid editing for Tatarstan.
P.S. Happy to have woken up at 2:30 am, start from m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Global Conversations to slowly end up here to enjoy reading whole of this non-stop from #Brigham Young University down & greatful to all contributors to the discussion. -- Frhdkazan ( talk) 04:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I am told that first published translation is this into the article on Sabinsky District. Frhdkazan ( talk) 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
All of these above people are on the Gleam Futures client roster. https://www.gleamfutures.com/uk-roster. I also have off-wiki evidence depicting a conversation between a Gleam Futures employee and a Wikipedia editor where she confesses that User:DarkGlow is operated by one of her colleagues at Gleam Futures. If you would like to see the evidence, get your email address to me.
and
user:reddirector also seemed to be involved at some point but it looks like their edit histories got oversighted. 147.78.5.79 ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The "off-wiki evidence" ( VRTS ticket # 2020120610006413) says the opposite of what 147.78.5.79 claims above. They contacted a representative of Gleam Futures, who said that neither of these editors have any connection to the company. This accusation is seems entirely baseless and certainly not ground for a CheckUser. And since 147.78.5.79 expressly has no interest in contributing to Wikipedia and is apparently only here to harass DarkGlow, I've blocked them. – Joe ( talk) 10:22, 11 December 2020 (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.
Robbie Blackwell has repeatedly created unsourced autobiographies of themself. They don't appear to have responded to any of the many warnings or speedy deletion templates. There was an IP editor, who I can estimate is probably Robbie Blackwell themself who had simply logged out, who has removed the speedy deletion tag from the most recent article. In full disclosure, I restored it in a somewhat |"ignore the rules" fashion (technically, only article creators are disallowed from removing CSD tags). I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. I ran across the article Saša Toperić today. It basically reads like a resume. Can I get a second opinion on what to do with it? Some of the problems I see are...
I was wondering if I should nominate it for deletion, but then I noticed he's a published author with 8 books. They're all from the "Brookings Institute". The books do appear to have ISBN's.
I guess I could slap some tags on it. Which tag(s) do you recommend? Any other actions? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I filed this action for an editor that I believe might have a WP:COI. I mention that in the filing. Please comment there:
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I recently edited the article for Dragon Group when I came across the old versions of the article edited by User:Mqsobhan. Check for example this version:
All unsourced. The account also created an article for Dragon Sweater, a subsidiary of Dragon Group, with some sentences the same word-for-word. The connection of the editor to the group can be checked fairly easily by reading the article itself. The article has been nominated for deletion before, but I think its now in a state worth keeping. However, I'm not familiar with CoI and so unsure what to do with User:Mqsobhan. I've notified him of the potential CoI on his talk page, but got no reply. His last edit was in 2016. Zarasophos ( talk) 09:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Mqsobhan has just become active again and deleted most of the Dragon Group article. The same revert was also done by User:119.30.41.228 and a newly created account, User:Mqs2020, who deleted the same contents three times over. Pinging User:CLCStudent, User:Viewmont Viking, User:Materialscientist and User:DoubleGrazing since they were also active on the page (thanks for that!). Zarasophos ( talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind. Two new IP accounts, User:37.111.192.130 and User:123.200.10.190 have edited the article today, deleting negative information. Zarasophos ( talk) 21:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
quakity edit. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This user has been adding to pages for a lot of different Punjabi films the claim that a person with the same name as their username mastered and mixed the music for the film. This seems to be the exclusive purpose of the account, and the user is unresponsive on their talk page. Thanks, Ain lina (box) ? 00:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
User has disclosed their affiliation (i.e., employee of MutualArt.com) here. Now it seems they need some guidance on WP:COI issues (which is rather behavioural than content-related, hence less suitable for WP:DRN). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Almost sole intent is promoting members of the Olsen family. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The editor submitted Draft:Village Roadshow Entertainment Group for AFC review. This is the parent company of Village Roadshow Pictures. The draft was declined, both with a question about conflict of interest and a question about why separate articles were needed for the holding company and the production company. The draft was resubmitted with an edit summary stating that a separate article was needed, but with no explanation in AFC comments or a talk page as to why, and no answer about conflict of interest. Resubmitted draft has been declined again. Persistently asking for separate articles for divisions of a company or affiliated companies is sometimes a sign of paid editing, which should be declared. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Leetwice stated here: "I am a contracted employee of the City of Hawley. I made edits today that were twice reversed to the page. All of the images added were contracted for and paid for by the City of Hawley. We have full permission to use them any way we please. Thank you for allowing these edits. Lee/City of Hawley (Leetwice)". Their edits to Hawley were unsourced and included: "Hawley welcomes new families and new businesses and has a strong business community"; "Hawley is home to great outdoor activities"; and "Hawley features safe neighborhoods and wide streets". As well, the edit summary here said: "Again changed the skyline photo. Again--all photos posted by me were contracted with a photographer, paid for, and we have their full permission to share them as we wish." The photos uploaded to the commons, and subsequently added to the Hawley article, contained exif metadata which stated the photo is "Copyrighted" by "www.fatcatstudiosonline.com". Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Publicreferenceguide is an employee of the college. He or she began making edit requests in the article's Talk page which is great but now he or she is also approving those same requests and implementing them as if he or she is also an impartial editor with no connection to the subject. ElKevbo ( talk) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Gazal288 was registered back in 2018 and they are only here to promote Ram Awana. Their first edit was to create Ram Awana and as of today, they made 173 edits so far and more than 150 edits are related to the same subject. Also, the subject appears to have played some minor roles in major production as I'm unable to find anything online. GSS 💬 17:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Kentuckian in NY ( talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
December 19th, MrsSnoozyTurtle deleted an approved article about a female author ( Tiffany Reisz) that contained multiple sources and had been edited by multiple users. She gave no reason for her deletion. I originally created the article (first one ever!) so I went to her talk page to ask why. Instead of answering, she deleted the question. I reverted it and asked again. She said she didn't have to answer. Per conflict of interest guidelines, I created a new section on her talk page asking if she had deleted the article for COI reasons. Instead of responding, she went to my talk page and threatened to report me for harassment. I have zero interest in getting in some sort of weird tit-for-tat here. I just genuinely want to make sure articles about women aren't deleted for COI reasons and prevent this user, whose talk page shows there have been COI misunderstandings before, from vandalizing (which yes I know is different from COI, but I'm posting here because I think it's COI driven) anything else moving forward. Constant reverts are just a time suck for everybody, y'all.
Thank you! Kentuckian in NY ( talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Fred. Appreciate your taking a look. This is the first time I've posted to the noticeboard, so I apologize for leaving out critical information. To me, personally, if you delete an article, you should explain why. If you don't explain and someone asks on your
talk page "is there a COI" and there's not one, you say no. Instead, this user deleted the question. If there's no COI, why is it so hard to say no? Instead she deleted the question then went to my talk page and threatened to report me for harassment because I asked. That's weird. Now, weird does not equate to COI. But if there's no COI, just say so. And in the meantime, I still have no idea why she deleted the article and the draft is still waiting. Hope this addt'l information helps. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kentuckian in NY (
talk •
contribs) 22:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
OF INTEREST: Since I posted this, MrsSnoozyTurtle has removed mult conversations with other users surrounding COI from her talk page. You will need to look in the history to read them. Kentuckian in NY ( talk) 22:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle here... wow, this is all quite perplexing. I have no COI regarding Tiffany Reisz. I was not aware that the question was even being asked of me.
(Also, there was no notification given to me about being investigated here at COIN, despite the prominent red message on this page, which also appears every time one posts a message here)
Peace. MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk) 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Philippinesfan has suggested in their edits that they are multiple people somehow connected to First One Entertainment [6] [7]. I placed a general note on their talkpage, but received no response. Their edits are completely promotional, relating to Philippine music groups, and they are now recreating ( XOXO (Girl Group)) articles that have been moved to draft space ( Draft:XOXO (group)). CMD ( talk) 07:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Multi-way finger-pointing contest regarding alleged UPE at Benjamin Gordon (businessman).
See [9] by Krutapidla2, [10] by Martinvince, and [11] by Bengee123.
When I first heard about this matter, I put indefinite full protection on the article; however, I will be lifting that protection shortly; anyone else is welcome to do whatever they deem appropriate. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
User claims to be the subject of the article, is adding unsourced information of a partially self-promoting nature, and is unresponsive on their talk page. Have already reverted twice, and they have restored the unsourced information. Thanks, Ain lina (box) ? 01:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The above users engaged in long term WP:CITESPAM in T.H. Tse and Metamorphic testing, namely inserting papers of Tse. Those users also showed interests in University of Hong Kong, where Tse is employed. Despite User:Laiwoonsiu denying any conflict of interests when questioned in 2019, the CoI is apparent. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 18:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
There must be some misunderstanding here. User:Laiwoonsiu, did you create this 2012 photograph of the subject of the article yourself: File:Photo_of_T.H._Tse.jpg? That's what you said when you uploaded it to Commons in 2014. Seems like there must be some personal connection here, which indicates a potential COI. Please be up-front about this. - Bri.public ( talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not about a conflict of interest in an existing article, more looking for advice through this thicket.
I have been a Wikipedia editor for 17 years and an admin for most of that. Since maybe 2006, I've been more focused on Commons, and am also an admin there. As of December 2020, I am in the process of retiring from a career in software development, and am returning to performing music professionally, something I left somewhat behind circa 1980 when I went into software, and more so since 1990, when my career took a turn that required more focus.
I may be going into a partnership on creating a performance venue with two people who cannot yet be named, one of whom has a (quite solid) Wikipedia article, the other of whom deserves one almost as much, but does not have one. The latter person is about my age, and their heyday was pre-Internet. I'm in the process of gathering clippings, etc. but this may be tricky. I can't yet reveal their identity and my connection because the deal isn't yet solid, and in any case will not be announced until deals are made, papers are signed, etc, probably late January but it could take longer.
Obviously, I am the dead wrong person to write the article. I assume that the way through this is to pass the "clippings file" to some other editor and let them write the article; if this were to happen soon, I'd need some way to have confidentiality, at least the next 4-6 weeks and possibly longer, about even my connection to this person. And how do I make arrangements with that other editor? Even on-wiki discussion would let the cat out of the bag, since people would see who took this on and it would be obvious what article they then wrote.
Can someone tell me how best to proceed? - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
On [ https://www.reddit.com/user/jorkadeen/ ] Reddit user jorkadeen wrote:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
This user has been trying to add material cited to her personal blog, Pinkerite.com, in the James A. Lindsay article. [16] [17] On the talk page of the Steven Pinker article, she confirmed that she is the owner of this blog: [18] She also has previously attempted to add similar material in at least one other article about a living person. [19]
In her comment here, she is arguing that blogs are allowed as sources in articles about living people. So aside from the conflict of interest, this user also appears to not understand BLP policy. 2600:1004:B14D:1C:D028:4D88:3BB7:81A ( talk) 16:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The newly registered user in question (first edit today) asserted in an edit summary that he/she is a "paid employee of the nonprofit (Trac5, Inc.) associated with the work of Mark Siljander." Edit-warring to reinstate challenged (promotional) content. Needs more eyes. Neutrality talk 18:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The IP editor has claimed that they are the subject of this page here and has continued to edit the page despite NPOV and COI notices being given. The second editor seems to be a continuation of the third account, which was primarily responsible for the creation of the page. That individual has links to Gotzon, which I won't post here for fears of violating WP:OUTING; I will be happy to email such information to concerned administrators. Nearly 80% of the page's contents was made by these editors.
Sdrqaz ( talk) 10:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ragueneau appears to have a conflict of interest with
Oswaldo Salas and/or his work. Over the course of 3 years editing Wikipedia, Ragueneau's edits have focused almost exclusively on Salas or films that Salas has been involved with. In addition to this single-purpose approach, Ragueneau has had a tendency to fill the Awards sections of articles that they have contributed, such as
Holestepper and
Extirpator of Idolatries, with dozens of non-notable entries, mostly cited to primary sources. When I asked Ragueneau about their edits on their talk page, I was met with flat denial, and the ultimate explanation for their focus on Salas's oeuvre was Because unfortunately in the Peruvian artistic environment there are very few artists, to say almost no one, who have obtained the recognitions that he has obtained. If there were more relevant Peruvian artists to be able to publish on wikipedia, with reliable sources, I would.
, which I find unpersuasive. While Peru is not a country with a particularly active film industry, there's nevertheless many blue-linked names and films at
List of Peruvian films and
Cinema of Peru, and presumably even more for which sources are available. As we appear to be at an impasse at Ragueneau's talk page, I'm asking for additional input to see whether additional measures are appropriate. signed,
Rosguill
talk 23:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a single-purpose account who wholly replaced an acceptable stub at Wavin, including references, with a promotional page. I suspect undisclosed paid editing. FalconK ( talk) 01:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Long term ownership, using multiple accounts. Molds the content as an autobiography. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C9AC:A0C:6F13:582C ( talk) 18:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User is edit-warring WP:PEACOCKery regarding non-Wiki-notable Ed Dowd (who appears to be himself given the initials at the beginning of the username) into the "notable alumni" section. I've already reverted twice today and left a templated-but-with-substantive-addendum on Emdinc123's talk page. I'll be notifying him on his talk page immediately. Thanks, folks. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The user was quick enough to give me an intimidating "Final Warning" on my talk page following my SD attempt was declined. He also seems to be wiki-hounding me. It was followed by ad hominem attack in an attempt to deter me. User has admitted COI only after I raised suspicions[ [20]]. However, he has continued to edit the article directly. RationalPuff ( talk) 17:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.Sdrqaz ( talk) 13:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Question for IM3847: Do you know Gattem personally? "Studied along with" is rather vague. Sdrqaz ( talk) 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GoogleMeNowPlease is an editor who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. I came here to ask for your comments on if he had a COI with the EB, as a large portion of the edits made by his suspected sockpuppets were made with the intent of discrediting Wikipedia and crediting the Encyclopedia Britannica. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoogleMeNowPlease. JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Promotional edit histories at artists' biographies. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This user edits in the area of Miss India Australia articles, beginning with removing mostly references from Miss India Australia (Raj Suri). Afterwards going to merging, copy-paste moving. This is a conflict of interest issue, as based on their username they seem to be affiliated with a competitor beauty pageant ( Miss India Australia (Touch the Soul))/being the founder of it. There has not been a reaction to the concerns raised on the user's talkpage. NJD-DE ( talk) 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
As per your concerns. The content not copied over was more ad-based and irrelevant to the encyclopaedic nature, references were to self and not external sources (the page had a history of unreferenced/poorly referenced content). However, if you think the information is relevant and should be added then this is something that should occur. I simply copied & pasted the information as per the previous disambiguation page which listed Koak then Suri in last name alphabetical order. When I copied the table over, I copied the table that had been edited and not the most updated table - hence the references. Which have now been readded from a previous copy. However, if the alphabetical issue is a major concern, you may re-list on first name alphabetical basis. I did find 3 more pageants in Australia named 'Miss India Australia' however, they were not notable enough to add to the disambiguation page. Furthermore, I suspect editing & hijacking will continue occurring, I personally agree with NJD-DE in copying the article over in full and cleaning up, but keeping both in the same page. User talk:Nephelae — Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
On November 28, 2020 an anonymous person added a section "Episteme according to Giano Rocca" to the end of the article on Episteme. The section is a very long, very poorly-written screed of apparently personal opinion, citing no references. It does, however, leave a link to Giano Rocca's personal web page ( https://independent.academia.edu/GianoRocca).
I think that this section should be removed as (1) useless and (2) almost certainly a case of blatant self-promotion. Stephen.R.Ferg ( talk) 17:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
These are three paid editors who have disclosed their status on their user pages, and even in their usernames, but aren't disclosing at the articles they create or edit. Rachel Helps according to her user page is the program coordinator; she was asked to also disclose and have her students disclose at article talks but has said she doesn't think it's necessary, and from a quick check of the most recent article creation of each, they aren't doing so.
They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable. But I do think they probably need to disclose at article talk, and since there's already been discussion at Rachels Helps' talk, I thought I'd bring it here and see if others had concerns. —valereee ( talk) 10:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work"That is a dreadful slur on Wikimedians in Residence; the community does not "turn a blind eye" (viz: "To ignore or deliberately overlook, especially with respect to something unpleasant or improper"), it positively and actively encourages Wikimedians in Residence; and the good work they do - and rightly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it?I concur. That's really a pretty cut and dried case - David Gerard ( talk) 00:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The relevant section of
WP:PAID, which is a
Wikipedia policy, says: "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries."
. Note the use of "or", not "and". Also note that
WP:CURATOR applies.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I fear there is a large disconnect between the (a) Wikipedians in Residence project and its participants and (b) editors concerned about conflicts of interest.I agree and I don’t think it’s a new problem. Innisfree987 ( talk) 06:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is certainly merit to what Valereee is asking. The problem is that our policies are not entirely clear. There is a difference between what has been said about paid editing above (which has been properly disclosed on the user's page) and our
WP:COI guideline, which says "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content."
The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page. Following that intent, it certainly does make sense that a user would disclose a conflict on the talk page of the article in question.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk) 07:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
"I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions") for a report on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
in the beginning; IIRC it was the product of more than a decade of work and debate in the community.)As our community experience has shown, even though it's important to keep an eye on where content is coming from, highlighting an apparent COI is not an accusation of terrible dishonor and malfeasance—it's simply a statement of fact, which is why I am bewildered by the Sturm und Drang over noting in article talk pages that declared paid editors with WP:ORGNAME usernames related to the article topic have edited... as Valereee notes,
Usernames can changeand WP:PAID declarations can be removed once the user is no longer an employee. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)"Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published."
Can anyone clue me in on why this issue is apparently seen as a major problem by Wikipedians in Residence? Or point me on where to look? For me, one institution/institution's participants voluntarily deciding to declare COI at potentially-perceivable-as-COI article talk doesn't seem like it "sets precedent" that other editors similarly paid by institutions would be therefore required to follow, but editors here who have been WiR are disagreeing. I'm not trying to fuck with WiR and similar programs here. What am I missing? —valereee ( talk) 20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period; material which is not necessarily problematic due to their own actions—as it is not, so far, conclusively clear what multidimensional eigenpolicyguideline state would have previously held sway from the combination of, as ThatMontrealIP puts it,
The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page—hence until this discussion is concluded in a consensus-establishing way, the problematicness of the material derives with certainty only from a confluence of external factors rather than from anything these editors have done.Overall, I share the sentiments valereee expresses above:
..I kind of do feel it would be best practices for editors paid by cultural/educational institutions to do it voluntarily for any article they could be perceived to have a COI for. I guess I don't understand why there's such passion against doing something that seems like it represents the most transparent rather than simply doing the minimum required.The simple matter of fact is that, the way the MediaWiki software and administrative processes presently work, as pointed out above, if at some future point a user page paid disclosure were to be removed for legitimate reasons, and the user name changed for likewise legitimate reasons, it would be very difficult to discover the apparent-COI connections to the material.I'll go a tad further than valereee though: while I don't think that a WP:PAID and/or WP:ORGNAME editor failing to place a talk page template COI notice on an article they've edited where an apparent COI could reasonably be said to exist, should be taken as prima facie evidence of the violation of any policy or guideline, I think it should be valid to regard failure to do so as an aggravating factor should concrete COI or substantial NPOV concerns arise. (Which, again, I have seen no evidence of in this particular case.) I mean, there's a reason why the basic {{ uw-coi}} warning template advises the receiving user to simply avoid editing connected articles, and {{ coi-stern}} says,
edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged(emphasis mine.)I'd also highlight that, although Scope creep made it sound as though paid editing and conflicts of interest are all about companies and brands and filthy capitalist lucre, which academics are above, in matter of fact there's a vintage 2004 essay Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism all about this kind of behavior in the noble Academy—also edited as recently as 27 weeks and 1 day ago, and with a specific talk page notice template, {{ Academic booster}}, which grew out of it, though that doesn't appear to have gotten much use. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
For me there is a qualitative difference between a WIR writing an article about someone else employed by their organization or about a department of their organization and someone more tangentially connected - for instance an alumni of a university. So in this instance I specifically bring up Orson Scott Card which I'm interested in as I'm currently doing a GA review of that article. There's been a second claim of a COI for Rachel which is that BYU, which she works for, is named after Card's great-great-grandfather; that's way too indirect for me. However, to the extent that there is a COI do Alumni for a sponsoring organization qualify? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No action needed: Thanks for raising those points Valereee. The discussion that came up was enlightening. As you have rightly pointed out at the start, "They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced." These aspects are essential for Wikipedia. Thus, I think bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy rather than for attaining the objectives of Wikipedia is not healthy. Vikram Vincent 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I've always understood this to refer to volunteer editors who form relationships with universities, libraries, museums and archives, and who help to upload and write about material to which those institutions have access, perhaps exclusive access. They may or may not be paid to do this.
But in the cases we're dealing with here, the WiRs have never been volunteer editors. Bassknight(byu) and Cstickel(byu) appear to have no non-paid edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) has made six non-paid edits with that account and 41 with Rwelean. Otherwise it's all paid. A recent example of their work is Draft:Patrick Madden (essayist) (moved today by Barkeep to draft space), a professor that one of them knows, which includes:
This is PR. And yet it's being supported on COIN, of all places. If the community has decided to support this kind of editing, then we can all get paid-editing jobs. That will include Christian Scientists writing about faith healing with information from the Mary Baker Eddy Library and drug-company reps with special access to the GlaxoSmithKline archives. Is that what the community wants? SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
To answer the question posted in the section heading, there is nothing better than WP:COI in the section
Wikipedians in residence, reward board
"There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations or marketing for their organization, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there."
That really answers all the questions in this whole thread especially the last sentence. More particularly about what is a WiR. At the redirect from the link above and at several other places aimed at GLAMers and WiRs there are informal definitions and guidance but I can't find a formal definition, and there is not an organization that says "You are officially a W-i-R" or that can say "You've broken the W-i-R rules, so you are no longer a W-i-R." (If anybody finds those offcial requirements please let us all know.) I personally think some W-i-Rs or GLAMers should come up with some sort of official definition of who is or who isn't a Wikipedian-in-Residence. Otherwise the enWiki community needs to do it, if we give them any exemptions from the WP:PAID rules, and I'd rather not have to do that.
More general background W-i-Rs started trying to get people to work with us if they represented a "mission-aligned organization." I was never aware that people wanted to get paid for this until about the 3rd or 4th W-i-R (from the Catalonian Wiki) announced his new position and that he would be getting paid. AS long as they were from "mission-aligned organization" it didn't make a lot of difference to me, but I do think it's time to clarify that we don't mean that W-i-Rs can come from General Motors or the Teamster Union. Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that there is any reason to keep this open, IF we all agree to work together, without rushing it, to get a mutually agreeable position. @ Rachel Helps (BYU): seems to feel that she and BYU are being singled out unfairly, but I think that the Wikipedians in residence, reward board section of WP:PAID lays it out that declaring on the talk pages is the normal expectation of WiRs. Perhaps this hasn't been well enforced in the past. I also believe that the Card article is more controversial than Rachel realizes. Maybe we can put the GA nomination for Card on hold for awhile until Sarah, Rachel, Barkeep and others come up with something acceptable in the article. I'd also like to ask everybody to come up with suggestions on how
There is some grumbling above about corporations such as pharmaceutical companies like GSK. Here in London, our most effective and productive WiR has been based at the Wellcome Library which derives its resources from a large pharmaceutical business which now forms part of GSK. Sir Henry Wellcome was a collector of curios and so his collection includes much quirky material about topics such as alchemy and witchcraft. This is all grist to our mill as we cover them alongside more modern modes of medicine. The Wellcome Library is a wonderful resource and I have attended many events there organised by their WiR and, during the lockdowns, still use their online facilities. For example, I wrote the topical article fever hospital using illustrations uploaded by Wellcome and put this on the main page as a DYK. It would be quite foolish to erect barriers to prevent cooperation and partnership with such a well-endowed institution and so we should not do so. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Getting back to Smallbones's point, I think that's an acceptable resolution, yes. — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 16:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking around to see how "Wikipedian in residence" is defined. Wikipedian in residence states that it's a Wikipedian, but other pages suggest the title may be taken by someone who works for the institution. They all stress that the WiR should generally not write about the institution. For example, Wikimedian in residence:
Wikimedian in residence/Creating a Wikimedian in Residence position: "Typically WIR positions should not be writing content, such as Wikipedia articles, for the institution as their main activity." And: "Wikimedia platforms ... should be seen as scholarly communications platforms where the knowledge of the institution is shared, rather than marketing platforms, which focuses on improving the reputation of the institution."
Wikipedia:GLAM/About says: "GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote the institution, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public."
That seems pretty conclusive. SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This is to share on the evolving experience in Tatar Wikipedia, previously reported on by Smallbones in The SignPost's coverage of government-paid editing for Tatarstan.
P.S. Happy to have woken up at 2:30 am, start from m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Global Conversations to slowly end up here to enjoy reading whole of this non-stop from #Brigham Young University down & greatful to all contributors to the discussion. -- Frhdkazan ( talk) 04:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I am told that first published translation is this into the article on Sabinsky District. Frhdkazan ( talk) 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
All of these above people are on the Gleam Futures client roster. https://www.gleamfutures.com/uk-roster. I also have off-wiki evidence depicting a conversation between a Gleam Futures employee and a Wikipedia editor where she confesses that User:DarkGlow is operated by one of her colleagues at Gleam Futures. If you would like to see the evidence, get your email address to me.
and
user:reddirector also seemed to be involved at some point but it looks like their edit histories got oversighted. 147.78.5.79 ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The "off-wiki evidence" ( VRTS ticket # 2020120610006413) says the opposite of what 147.78.5.79 claims above. They contacted a representative of Gleam Futures, who said that neither of these editors have any connection to the company. This accusation is seems entirely baseless and certainly not ground for a CheckUser. And since 147.78.5.79 expressly has no interest in contributing to Wikipedia and is apparently only here to harass DarkGlow, I've blocked them. – Joe ( talk) 10:22, 11 December 2020 (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.
Robbie Blackwell has repeatedly created unsourced autobiographies of themself. They don't appear to have responded to any of the many warnings or speedy deletion templates. There was an IP editor, who I can estimate is probably Robbie Blackwell themself who had simply logged out, who has removed the speedy deletion tag from the most recent article. In full disclosure, I restored it in a somewhat |"ignore the rules" fashion (technically, only article creators are disallowed from removing CSD tags). I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. I ran across the article Saša Toperić today. It basically reads like a resume. Can I get a second opinion on what to do with it? Some of the problems I see are...
I was wondering if I should nominate it for deletion, but then I noticed he's a published author with 8 books. They're all from the "Brookings Institute". The books do appear to have ISBN's.
I guess I could slap some tags on it. Which tag(s) do you recommend? Any other actions? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I filed this action for an editor that I believe might have a WP:COI. I mention that in the filing. Please comment there:
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I recently edited the article for Dragon Group when I came across the old versions of the article edited by User:Mqsobhan. Check for example this version:
All unsourced. The account also created an article for Dragon Sweater, a subsidiary of Dragon Group, with some sentences the same word-for-word. The connection of the editor to the group can be checked fairly easily by reading the article itself. The article has been nominated for deletion before, but I think its now in a state worth keeping. However, I'm not familiar with CoI and so unsure what to do with User:Mqsobhan. I've notified him of the potential CoI on his talk page, but got no reply. His last edit was in 2016. Zarasophos ( talk) 09:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Mqsobhan has just become active again and deleted most of the Dragon Group article. The same revert was also done by User:119.30.41.228 and a newly created account, User:Mqs2020, who deleted the same contents three times over. Pinging User:CLCStudent, User:Viewmont Viking, User:Materialscientist and User:DoubleGrazing since they were also active on the page (thanks for that!). Zarasophos ( talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind. Two new IP accounts, User:37.111.192.130 and User:123.200.10.190 have edited the article today, deleting negative information. Zarasophos ( talk) 21:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
quakity edit. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This user has been adding to pages for a lot of different Punjabi films the claim that a person with the same name as their username mastered and mixed the music for the film. This seems to be the exclusive purpose of the account, and the user is unresponsive on their talk page. Thanks, Ain lina (box) ? 00:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
User has disclosed their affiliation (i.e., employee of MutualArt.com) here. Now it seems they need some guidance on WP:COI issues (which is rather behavioural than content-related, hence less suitable for WP:DRN). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Almost sole intent is promoting members of the Olsen family. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The editor submitted Draft:Village Roadshow Entertainment Group for AFC review. This is the parent company of Village Roadshow Pictures. The draft was declined, both with a question about conflict of interest and a question about why separate articles were needed for the holding company and the production company. The draft was resubmitted with an edit summary stating that a separate article was needed, but with no explanation in AFC comments or a talk page as to why, and no answer about conflict of interest. Resubmitted draft has been declined again. Persistently asking for separate articles for divisions of a company or affiliated companies is sometimes a sign of paid editing, which should be declared. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Leetwice stated here: "I am a contracted employee of the City of Hawley. I made edits today that were twice reversed to the page. All of the images added were contracted for and paid for by the City of Hawley. We have full permission to use them any way we please. Thank you for allowing these edits. Lee/City of Hawley (Leetwice)". Their edits to Hawley were unsourced and included: "Hawley welcomes new families and new businesses and has a strong business community"; "Hawley is home to great outdoor activities"; and "Hawley features safe neighborhoods and wide streets". As well, the edit summary here said: "Again changed the skyline photo. Again--all photos posted by me were contracted with a photographer, paid for, and we have their full permission to share them as we wish." The photos uploaded to the commons, and subsequently added to the Hawley article, contained exif metadata which stated the photo is "Copyrighted" by "www.fatcatstudiosonline.com". Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Publicreferenceguide is an employee of the college. He or she began making edit requests in the article's Talk page which is great but now he or she is also approving those same requests and implementing them as if he or she is also an impartial editor with no connection to the subject. ElKevbo ( talk) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Gazal288 was registered back in 2018 and they are only here to promote Ram Awana. Their first edit was to create Ram Awana and as of today, they made 173 edits so far and more than 150 edits are related to the same subject. Also, the subject appears to have played some minor roles in major production as I'm unable to find anything online. GSS 💬 17:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Kentuckian in NY ( talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
December 19th, MrsSnoozyTurtle deleted an approved article about a female author ( Tiffany Reisz) that contained multiple sources and had been edited by multiple users. She gave no reason for her deletion. I originally created the article (first one ever!) so I went to her talk page to ask why. Instead of answering, she deleted the question. I reverted it and asked again. She said she didn't have to answer. Per conflict of interest guidelines, I created a new section on her talk page asking if she had deleted the article for COI reasons. Instead of responding, she went to my talk page and threatened to report me for harassment. I have zero interest in getting in some sort of weird tit-for-tat here. I just genuinely want to make sure articles about women aren't deleted for COI reasons and prevent this user, whose talk page shows there have been COI misunderstandings before, from vandalizing (which yes I know is different from COI, but I'm posting here because I think it's COI driven) anything else moving forward. Constant reverts are just a time suck for everybody, y'all.
Thank you! Kentuckian in NY ( talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Fred. Appreciate your taking a look. This is the first time I've posted to the noticeboard, so I apologize for leaving out critical information. To me, personally, if you delete an article, you should explain why. If you don't explain and someone asks on your
talk page "is there a COI" and there's not one, you say no. Instead, this user deleted the question. If there's no COI, why is it so hard to say no? Instead she deleted the question then went to my talk page and threatened to report me for harassment because I asked. That's weird. Now, weird does not equate to COI. But if there's no COI, just say so. And in the meantime, I still have no idea why she deleted the article and the draft is still waiting. Hope this addt'l information helps. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kentuckian in NY (
talk •
contribs) 22:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
OF INTEREST: Since I posted this, MrsSnoozyTurtle has removed mult conversations with other users surrounding COI from her talk page. You will need to look in the history to read them. Kentuckian in NY ( talk) 22:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle here... wow, this is all quite perplexing. I have no COI regarding Tiffany Reisz. I was not aware that the question was even being asked of me.
(Also, there was no notification given to me about being investigated here at COIN, despite the prominent red message on this page, which also appears every time one posts a message here)
Peace. MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk) 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Philippinesfan has suggested in their edits that they are multiple people somehow connected to First One Entertainment [6] [7]. I placed a general note on their talkpage, but received no response. Their edits are completely promotional, relating to Philippine music groups, and they are now recreating ( XOXO (Girl Group)) articles that have been moved to draft space ( Draft:XOXO (group)). CMD ( talk) 07:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Multi-way finger-pointing contest regarding alleged UPE at Benjamin Gordon (businessman).
See [9] by Krutapidla2, [10] by Martinvince, and [11] by Bengee123.
When I first heard about this matter, I put indefinite full protection on the article; however, I will be lifting that protection shortly; anyone else is welcome to do whatever they deem appropriate. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
User claims to be the subject of the article, is adding unsourced information of a partially self-promoting nature, and is unresponsive on their talk page. Have already reverted twice, and they have restored the unsourced information. Thanks, Ain lina (box) ? 01:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The above users engaged in long term WP:CITESPAM in T.H. Tse and Metamorphic testing, namely inserting papers of Tse. Those users also showed interests in University of Hong Kong, where Tse is employed. Despite User:Laiwoonsiu denying any conflict of interests when questioned in 2019, the CoI is apparent. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 18:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
There must be some misunderstanding here. User:Laiwoonsiu, did you create this 2012 photograph of the subject of the article yourself: File:Photo_of_T.H._Tse.jpg? That's what you said when you uploaded it to Commons in 2014. Seems like there must be some personal connection here, which indicates a potential COI. Please be up-front about this. - Bri.public ( talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This is not about a conflict of interest in an existing article, more looking for advice through this thicket.
I have been a Wikipedia editor for 17 years and an admin for most of that. Since maybe 2006, I've been more focused on Commons, and am also an admin there. As of December 2020, I am in the process of retiring from a career in software development, and am returning to performing music professionally, something I left somewhat behind circa 1980 when I went into software, and more so since 1990, when my career took a turn that required more focus.
I may be going into a partnership on creating a performance venue with two people who cannot yet be named, one of whom has a (quite solid) Wikipedia article, the other of whom deserves one almost as much, but does not have one. The latter person is about my age, and their heyday was pre-Internet. I'm in the process of gathering clippings, etc. but this may be tricky. I can't yet reveal their identity and my connection because the deal isn't yet solid, and in any case will not be announced until deals are made, papers are signed, etc, probably late January but it could take longer.
Obviously, I am the dead wrong person to write the article. I assume that the way through this is to pass the "clippings file" to some other editor and let them write the article; if this were to happen soon, I'd need some way to have confidentiality, at least the next 4-6 weeks and possibly longer, about even my connection to this person. And how do I make arrangements with that other editor? Even on-wiki discussion would let the cat out of the bag, since people would see who took this on and it would be obvious what article they then wrote.
Can someone tell me how best to proceed? - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
On [ https://www.reddit.com/user/jorkadeen/ ] Reddit user jorkadeen wrote:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
This user has been trying to add material cited to her personal blog, Pinkerite.com, in the James A. Lindsay article. [16] [17] On the talk page of the Steven Pinker article, she confirmed that she is the owner of this blog: [18] She also has previously attempted to add similar material in at least one other article about a living person. [19]
In her comment here, she is arguing that blogs are allowed as sources in articles about living people. So aside from the conflict of interest, this user also appears to not understand BLP policy. 2600:1004:B14D:1C:D028:4D88:3BB7:81A ( talk) 16:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The newly registered user in question (first edit today) asserted in an edit summary that he/she is a "paid employee of the nonprofit (Trac5, Inc.) associated with the work of Mark Siljander." Edit-warring to reinstate challenged (promotional) content. Needs more eyes. Neutrality talk 18:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The IP editor has claimed that they are the subject of this page here and has continued to edit the page despite NPOV and COI notices being given. The second editor seems to be a continuation of the third account, which was primarily responsible for the creation of the page. That individual has links to Gotzon, which I won't post here for fears of violating WP:OUTING; I will be happy to email such information to concerned administrators. Nearly 80% of the page's contents was made by these editors.
Sdrqaz ( talk) 10:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ragueneau appears to have a conflict of interest with
Oswaldo Salas and/or his work. Over the course of 3 years editing Wikipedia, Ragueneau's edits have focused almost exclusively on Salas or films that Salas has been involved with. In addition to this single-purpose approach, Ragueneau has had a tendency to fill the Awards sections of articles that they have contributed, such as
Holestepper and
Extirpator of Idolatries, with dozens of non-notable entries, mostly cited to primary sources. When I asked Ragueneau about their edits on their talk page, I was met with flat denial, and the ultimate explanation for their focus on Salas's oeuvre was Because unfortunately in the Peruvian artistic environment there are very few artists, to say almost no one, who have obtained the recognitions that he has obtained. If there were more relevant Peruvian artists to be able to publish on wikipedia, with reliable sources, I would.
, which I find unpersuasive. While Peru is not a country with a particularly active film industry, there's nevertheless many blue-linked names and films at
List of Peruvian films and
Cinema of Peru, and presumably even more for which sources are available. As we appear to be at an impasse at Ragueneau's talk page, I'm asking for additional input to see whether additional measures are appropriate. signed,
Rosguill
talk 23:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a single-purpose account who wholly replaced an acceptable stub at Wavin, including references, with a promotional page. I suspect undisclosed paid editing. FalconK ( talk) 01:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Long term ownership, using multiple accounts. Molds the content as an autobiography. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C9AC:A0C:6F13:582C ( talk) 18:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
User is edit-warring WP:PEACOCKery regarding non-Wiki-notable Ed Dowd (who appears to be himself given the initials at the beginning of the username) into the "notable alumni" section. I've already reverted twice today and left a templated-but-with-substantive-addendum on Emdinc123's talk page. I'll be notifying him on his talk page immediately. Thanks, folks. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The user was quick enough to give me an intimidating "Final Warning" on my talk page following my SD attempt was declined. He also seems to be wiki-hounding me. It was followed by ad hominem attack in an attempt to deter me. User has admitted COI only after I raised suspicions[ [20]]. However, he has continued to edit the article directly. RationalPuff ( talk) 17:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.Sdrqaz ( talk) 13:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Question for IM3847: Do you know Gattem personally? "Studied along with" is rather vague. Sdrqaz ( talk) 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GoogleMeNowPlease is an editor who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. I came here to ask for your comments on if he had a COI with the EB, as a large portion of the edits made by his suspected sockpuppets were made with the intent of discrediting Wikipedia and crediting the Encyclopedia Britannica. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoogleMeNowPlease. JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Promotional edit histories at artists' biographies. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This user edits in the area of Miss India Australia articles, beginning with removing mostly references from Miss India Australia (Raj Suri). Afterwards going to merging, copy-paste moving. This is a conflict of interest issue, as based on their username they seem to be affiliated with a competitor beauty pageant ( Miss India Australia (Touch the Soul))/being the founder of it. There has not been a reaction to the concerns raised on the user's talkpage. NJD-DE ( talk) 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
As per your concerns. The content not copied over was more ad-based and irrelevant to the encyclopaedic nature, references were to self and not external sources (the page had a history of unreferenced/poorly referenced content). However, if you think the information is relevant and should be added then this is something that should occur. I simply copied & pasted the information as per the previous disambiguation page which listed Koak then Suri in last name alphabetical order. When I copied the table over, I copied the table that had been edited and not the most updated table - hence the references. Which have now been readded from a previous copy. However, if the alphabetical issue is a major concern, you may re-list on first name alphabetical basis. I did find 3 more pageants in Australia named 'Miss India Australia' however, they were not notable enough to add to the disambiguation page. Furthermore, I suspect editing & hijacking will continue occurring, I personally agree with NJD-DE in copying the article over in full and cleaning up, but keeping both in the same page. User talk:Nephelae — Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
On November 28, 2020 an anonymous person added a section "Episteme according to Giano Rocca" to the end of the article on Episteme. The section is a very long, very poorly-written screed of apparently personal opinion, citing no references. It does, however, leave a link to Giano Rocca's personal web page ( https://independent.academia.edu/GianoRocca).
I think that this section should be removed as (1) useless and (2) almost certainly a case of blatant self-promotion. Stephen.R.Ferg ( talk) 17:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)