Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 185

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

London Action Resource Centre

For a long time, two users (one is Harry Potter, now Leutha; the other is Paki.tv also known as PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal) have been adding disputed text to the article about London Action Resource Centre (LARC). They tend to back up each other and seem to know each other offwiki. There have been various fruitless attempts to debate the disruption on the talkpage and Paki.tv has been blocked twice for disruptive editing, most recently this month. The most frequently added text is the followign paragraph:

Despite this there have been various issues around hierarchical structure of the organisation. The library was set up to run on the principles of the Antisystemic Library on 18 June 2003. A split in the User Group over claims of institutional racism and of fascist infiltration of Peoples' Global Action.[7] of which LARC is one of the founding info-points, led to the expulsion of the No Platform group West Essex Zapatista at the December 2004 AGM of the company. This led to the forced departure of the Voice Refugee Forum and eventually the relocation of the Antisystemic Library.

The paragraph or similar has been added by Paki.tv: here, here, here, here, here, here, here; and added by Leutha: here, here, here, here, here.

The problems stem from an apparent real life beef the two users have with LARC after they were expelled from the centre in 2004. The statement by LARC is actually on wikipedia, here. The relevant part is:

At this year's London Action Resource Centre (LARC) Annual General Meeting, a decision was made (by majority vote) to exclude two individuals who had been behaving disruptively and often abusively for some time. They are now not welcome within the building. Their names are Fabian and Asim, part of a group called West Essex Zapatista.

And NickW commented on the talkpage in 2006:

My view on the LARC article is straightforward. Users Paki.tv and Harrypotter have attempted to misrepresent LARC through their numerous edits. Their motivation appears to be one of 'revenge' as they are banned from using LARC (you'll note early contributions to the article by Harrypotter in 2003 were of a different vein). They are both consistent in their approach and methodology, favouring obscure labyrinthine 'intellectual' debate (i.e. obfuscation to confuse and wear down third parties), personal attacks and 'outing'(N.B. I don't think they always use their named accounts), self-creation of supporting 'evidence', and general misrepresentation. Interestingly enough, it was this kind of behaviour that led to their rejection from LARC.

This beef leads them to add poorly referenced information (often from their own websites) about alleged racism and how the club is run. They were previously involved as the antisystemic library and West Essex Zapatista (WEZ). Lately, in offering new poor references to support their argument, Paki.tv has made the conflict of interest apparent again and that's what I'll come on to now, after noting that I've made various efforts to ask about conflict of interest which haven't got very far on the talk page, eg here, here, here

Leutha

Leutha began the LARC page when they were Harry Potter. Now on User:Leutha they have a link to another of their accounts, namely User:Fabian_Tompsett_(MDR). Fabian Tompsett crops up in a Mute editorial, where they write "Asim and I were heavily involved in developing the London Action Resource Centre (LARC), and in 2004 became involved in preparations for the Peoples Global Action (PGA) conference scheduled for that year in Belgrade" and as Fabian here, in "Where I found concerns raised by West Essex Zapatista dealing with the Resnik vs. Jajinci issue relevant, it is not necessarily the same with the gender reader and questionnaire issue. Concerns raised by Fabian from WEZ in April in regards to gender questionnaire seemed to me minor issues relating to language of the document".

Therefore, Leutha has been involved with LARC and West Essex Zapatista, yet keep on adding nonsense to the LARC article. That's the COI. Leutha seems intent on denying this COI, saying in their latest comment "Again, I repeat, at no time was I a member of LARC. Surely that's easy to grasp." Not a member perhaps but definitely involved and definitely with an axe to grind.

Paki.tv

They have consistently avoided answering if they have a COI. I believe it's obvious after their recent edits, happy to expand on this in the correct channels if necessary.

Thanks for any help Mujinga (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to pblock both from the article in question, but am open to other suggestions. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
That is certainly one way to handle it. See also User talk:Paki.tv#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion, where I left a final warning for Paki.tv. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability, I am afraid that I do not feel your response is appropriate for the following reasons:
  • I do not understand why the COI issues of two different editors is being treated as a single issue. I shall only deal with the issue as regards myself, however.
  • I do not understand why you have not followed the Wikipedia:Blocking policy (W:BP):
    eg: "pblock" may be a term which admins are familiar with, however this was jargon leaving me wondering what you were referring to. If you wish to use such an abbreviated term, this can easily be linked to Wikipedia:Partial blocks to fall in line with W:Bp
@Mujinga has cited four edits made by myself, dating from 2008 to 4 July 2020, when the last of these was made. However he has avoided referencing the most recent edit: here (26 November 2021) to which @Mujinga deleted two days letter with an explanation on the talk page,here. Why?
I find the contents of this explanation of 28 November 2021 very problematic.
1) @Mujinga identifies me
2) They claim that I am an exmember of LARC
3) They claim that I that I was contributing "original research to the article in a weird attempt to besmirch the project's good name as they already did many years ago."
4) They further suggesting that I was "using wikipedia to pursue a vendetta".

Please consider Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Avoid_outing: "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence." There is also a link to Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information.

2)So, having pointed to a real word identity, @Mujinga has identified me falsely as having been a member of LARC, something which is carefully defined in the memorandum and articles of association which can be found in the incorporation documents here.
3)&4) As regards this claim, I responded We do indeed live in hope.

I must admit since the 28 November personal attacks by @Mujinga I have been particularly circumspect.

Having reviewed the material @Mujinga has tried to ignore, lets now deal with their claims:

  • The issue as regards the edit nearly a year and a half ago on 4 July 2020, this is in many ways covered by the response to 3 & 4. I certainly felt hope in the weeks following the protests to the murder of George Floyd and also the Central Park birdwatching incident (May 25, 2020), I optimistically hoped that the consensus on the importance and credibility of these issues had shifted ground. Unfortunately with @Mujinga this does not appear to be the case. In the subsequent 18 months, I have not reposted any of this material, so it seem hard to see why @Mujinga is creating anxieties that I might do so? Perhaps his concerns relate to point 3, and the points he made about this using words such as "besmirch" and "vendetta." As I previously remarked "it would seem that in taking state funds the directors are acting in accordance with their governing document. Indeed some people might see this as example of shrewdness." Indeed many people living in the UK – probably a large majority _ agree that having state funding for the NHS and other community facilities is a good thing and welcome community organisations accessing these funds.

When issues of COI are coached in such inflammatory terms, and based on incorrect information, I would suggest that the question should be posed in less antagonistic terms:

What COI would an individual who may have had even "heavy involvement" with an organisation over a decade and a half ago make as regards editing the page with an update about how that organisation has been handling the COVID crisis? Leutha (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Pblock proposal

Care UK

Stephenjonescareuk (SJ) has declared a COI but has continued to edit the article directly rather than via for example {{request edit}}, most recently to remove a {{COI}} tag at Special:Diff/1064302180 with the Removing the COI statement as I feel this has been explained and understood from me side. (which I reverted, especially as I do not believe his contributions through November 2021 and December 2021 have been checked through for neutrality). SJ has just made a talk page comment 2 days ago where they were expressing concerns over the neutrality of some editors at Special:Diff/1063895650, and perhaps rightly or wrongly I might feel that is a insinuation towards myself, but I may be feeling sensitive. Under these circumstances I bring the matter to COIN for review, to see if the {{COI}} should be removed, or the matter dealt with as paid editing with correct declarations fully in place. There may be a question if a PBlock is appropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Stephenjonescareuk has declared their COI at Talk:Care UK as an employee of Care UK. For best practices, I recommend Stephenjonescareuk declare the COI on their user page with {{Paid}} and only contribute to Care UK (and potential related articles) via their talk pages. It's been a couple of days with no activity but if editing resumes unabated, then I'd recommend a PBlock. So for now, I think we are in a holding pattern. --SVTCobra 03:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Peter Wyse Jackson

SelHun98 edited Peter Wyse Jackson with the edit summary

Page updated on behalf of Peter Wyse Jackson

I reverted the edits since they were entirely unsourced, and informed SelHun98 why, including references to Wikipedia's WP:COI policy. SelHun98 has since twice restored their own preferred version, without making any effort to discuss the matter, as instructed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Boy howdy, that page is in rough shape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Whoops, I was looking at the wrong version. I'll keep an eye on it as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
WikiDan61 my information is sourced at the bottom of the wiki page. Please stop harassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelHun98 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@SelHun98: Enforcing Wikipedia policies is not considered harassment. Ignoring Wikipedia policies is considered vandalism. Your "sourcing at the bottom of the page" consisted of two primary sources that cannot be considered reliable. And neither of them address the fact that you are editing with a conflict of interest, again, outside of Wikipedia policy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@WikiDan61: So what source would you like to be cited? The information is pulled from his biography page from the Missouri Botanical Garden, which he currently works and from the school he teaches at. Seems like two reliable sources to me. How am in breech of the conflict of interest policy?SelHun98 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@SelHun98: Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. If there are not sufficient sources that have been published by anyone other than Dr Jackson or his employers, then the expanded content about him should not be included. I'm sorry if that upsets you or Dr Jackson, but that is how Wikipedia works. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: @SelHun98: You are in breech of the conflict of interest policy since you have admitted yourself that you are editing the page on Dr Jackson's behalf. Wikipedia articles are intended to be neutral reports of the subject at hand, not hand-crafted biographies approved by the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

{reply|WikiDan61}} One of the sources on the original page is a page from the Missouri Botanical Garden Website, so how is that considered to be a reliable source since a part of it is written by him and the other part is written by his employer? "President's Welcome". Missouri Botanical Garden. Retrieved 3 July 2013. Just trying to gain understanding. I am a first time wikipedia editorSelHun98 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@SelHun98: The sourcing on the page has never been great. That is not an excuse to vastly expand the page with even poorer sourcing. And the main topic of this discussion is your conflict of interest: you should not be editing the page at all since you are acting on Dr Jackson's behalf. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: So anyone else could update. thepage, just not me or anyone else close to him with the "correct" sources

@SelHun98: Yes, editors who are independent of Jackson can update the page with proper sources. You, as a close associate, should not, since your conflict of interests may prevent you from writing with the proper neutrality. That is why Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy exists. You, as a close associate, should limit yourself to making requests on the article's talk page for the improvements or updates you would like to see, and allow disinterested parties to evaluate your requests and make the needed updates. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Probable undisclosed paid editing at Donald Shaw (musician)

EVERYTHING IS GOOD
And thus ends the most civil and productive thread of 2022. It's all downhill from here, folks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2022 (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.


@TangoTizerWolfstone might have taken payments from Donald Shaw (musician) and hasn't disclosed it. See: User talk:TangoTizerWolfstone#Help with Wiki page. A manager working for the musician reached out to the user and asked for to edit in return of "commission", and shared their email address to contact further. -- Tame (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that they have edited that page. I've also left a notification on their talk page about this thread. It also appears there have been no substantial edits to that page since the request on the user's talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I was also going to say, Tango hasn't edited that article. But I would be curious to know what they meant by "other reservations" in their reply to this blatant offer for paid editing. --SVTCobra 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That is slightly concerning, yes, but I'm trying to WP:AGF at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. No, I never edited the page. By other reservations I just meant other pages I wanted to work on. I tend to focus on expanding album articles and artist bios are not my forte so truthfully I had little interest, but flattered by their interest in me I was willing to collaborate with them on the article if they were interested. Given that they gave their email (rather than a link to their sandbox or whatever) I didn't follow them up.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@TangoTizerWolfstone, Thanks for clearing that up. Seems like there isn't much to discuss about it further. As an ardent contributor, I felt the liability to share the matter with others. Hope u understand. Have a wonderful day. -- Tame (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries, @Tame, I appreciate your dedication to Wikpiedia. Cheers.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mike Dunleavy (politician)

Dunleavy's deputy press secretary has been active on this article over the past week, including uploading multiple photos without proper licensing. I left a hint in an edit summary about COM:VRT in the hopes that that aspect can be resolved (the photos are attributed to a photographer who works for the state government as well as commercially). The remaining edits are mostly harmless. For years now, the article has had plenty of watchers who mindlessly revert everything they can while contributing little or nothing themselves, so that may not necessarily be as much a problem except for subtle attempts to mirror his official web biography. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume the identity of the user, but we should keep an eye on this. Especially, if they do not respond and keep editing. So far, it looks contained. --SVTCobra 03:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:ASUPhotog

CLOSED
Over a decade old with no activity. --SVTCobra 03:36, 13 January 2022 (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.


This user has mainly (or only) edited articles related to Angelo State University. A lot of their edits have a strong tone of advertising and they are open about the fact they are connected to the college, both with their user name and on their user page, where it says they are a student of the university. Although it's possible they are not paid, I doubt their edits would be so full of the advertising language that they are if there wasn't something like paid editing going on. Even if not, there is still a COI with them being a student of the school and only editing articles related to it. Although, I do feel there is more to their edits then just being a student that is editing articles related to a school they attended purely because of interest in the topic. Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: They haven't edited since 2009. I don't see how reporting them now would do any good. Miracusaurs (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
True, but some of the articles they created are currently nominated for deletion and I thought it would be worth reporting them now in-case they come back to either edit the articles, re-create them later, or vote in the AfDs. Better to be on the safe side IMO. It also sets a precedent for any other editors associated with Angelo State University that might come along in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they hire someone else to edit their articles at some point. Is there some rule that COI editors can't be dealt with if they have stopped editing for a certain period of time or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is no hard and fast rule that I know of. They provided COI disclosure so we're aware that they aren't a disinterested third party. You can notify them for sure; I have left notices to long-dormant accounts myself, in case they return. But there's nothing actionable; their editing predates the WP:PAID rules that came into force in June 2014, so they can't be held accountable for that.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if someone who was a student would return 13 years later to edit the same articles they did back then, unless they are predisposed to some serious WP:OWN behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drm310 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Both of you are probably right. It would be a long time for them to come back and edit the articles again. I guess we can wait to see if they do and deal with things from there if need be. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ryan Kavanaugh wikipedia page

Earlier this year Ryan Kavanaugh's company triller named the H3 podcast (Ethan Klein) in a lawsuit. Since the lawsuit started the podcast has had numerous videos on wikipedia where they discuss his wikipedia page as they go through everything that has been added. Since the lawsuit was raised Ryan Kavanuaghs page has had a lot of press about his businesses and legal dealings added to his page. I began editing his page last year and have received the below messages from the user Swift502

"Yeah it's definitely Kav Kav. --Swift502" - accusing me of being Ryan using the nickname "kavkav" that H3 (Ethan Klein) use for Ryan. "The chance that you're not Ryan Kavanaugh or one of his minions is as slim as the chance of Ryan winning the lawsuit." --Swift502 (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC) - here the fact the editor says about the lawsuit surely shows that this is his main motive for editing the page and that he is just a fan of the podcast trying to vandalise the page

Ive also found that this username is active [elsewhere] and this user has a conflict of interest with this page and is not editing with a WP:NPOV

Garen67541 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: Do not post links to off-wiki sites in violation of WP:OUTING. I have removed it from your post. --SVTCobra 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Garen67541: I do not see the aspersions you allege from Swift502, though I do note that something they wrote in November on your talk page was redacted. While Swift502 may have COI with regards to Ryan Kavanaugh, they have not edited the article and only contributed to the talk page. Your own edit history shows a singular interest in h3h3Productions and Ryan Kavanaugh with a certain bias. --SVTCobra 04:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if Swift502 were a fan of Ethan Klein, that wouldn't be a COI. A COI would mean that Swift502 has an actual, personal connection to the involved parties. Do you have any evidence that Swift502 has a COI with respect to this page? If not, then this is not the correct forum for this complaint. Mlb96 (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: @Mlb96: Apologies if this was not the correct forum for the complaint & thank you for clarifying, Thee claim about ".. slim as the chance of Ryan winning the lawsuit." does show some bias towards the lawsuit from one side and doesn't adhere to NPOV, however if it isn't classed as COI then this case can be closed.

Garen67541 (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Garen67541 (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in. Just to clarify, yes I am a fan of the H3 podcast. I have never directly edited the Ryan Kavanaugh article, and I don't plan to. I asked about introducing information to the article once but we all agreed the sources weren't reliable. I regrettably did make inappropriate comments in the past for which I apologize, it won't happen again. --Swift502 (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

MBK Partners

I have received an email from this user stating that he is an employee of MBK Partners. However he has been editing the article without disclosing his affiliation. What are the procedures going forward for this user?. Imcdc (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have placed a paid editing notice on their user talk. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ross Edgley

Potential COI contributions have been dealt with and user has been inactive since 2020. --SVTCobra 05:40, 14 January 2022 (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.


Edit summaries:

  1. I'm Ross Edgley (person in this image and who this page is about) and I just wanted to upload a better image for my wikipedia page
  2. Amended the picture to a better one which I (Ross Edgley) own the rights to

Hasn't been active for some time, I left {{Welcome-COI}} on their talk. Is there anything more that needs doing? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That's probably enough on the COI front - it wasn't the greatest disclosure in the world, but better than nothing. What's of more concern is WP:REALNAME - since Ross Edgley is notable, we'd need proof of identity for that account to be sure he's not being impersonated. However since there are no edits since September 2020, I don't know if any action would be taken anyway. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Drm310, I just removed the photo from the article that he had added, that might prompt him to come back. But that remains to be seen. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Oh, I didn't realize that when I added it back but lower in the article. --SVTCobra 18:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
SVTCobra, I removed it because it lacked permission (implausible own work claim and would require VRT permission anyway as Ross Edgley is notable), but my undo button still works. I had mentioned that in the edit summary btw. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I left a {{uw-username}} message with Rossedgley139. We'll see if anything comes of it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
SVTCobra, according to GQ the photographer is Richard Whittle. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Interesting the user would have access to the original photo upon which the cover is based. Perhaps that adds to credibility they are who they say they are. --SVTCobra 21:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:FrenchLaLa

Created promotional article about a company, Opera Columbus. Her user page suggests she is the owner/CEO of the company. Tame (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it is COI though to FrenchLaLa's credit, the page is not overly promotional. As for notability I am not an expert in this area of the performing arts. As a side note, FrenchLaLa's user page ought not look like an article. --SVTCobra 02:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hot damn! I mentioned the inappropriate user page and within minutes it is deleted and with it the evidence for COI. Well, I guess we are left to verify and fact-check Opera Columbus. --SVTCobra 03:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
On the other hand, it is possible FrenchLaLa was using their user page as a sandbox and not actually be Julia Noulin-Mérat at all. (It was a fully formed article with citations, etc.) Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra, Yeah I thought that too. In any case, the user seems very dedicated on the company. There's a high chance of them having a COI with it. -- Tame (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
BTW, for evidence, can't an admin see the deleted texts? Tame (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, indeed they can, Tame. But I am not one. Cheers, --SVTCobra 07:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

3D files attributed to "Scan the World" apparently promoting a commercial product.

Contributor RuleTheWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently added images to multiple articles ( The Three Graces (sculpture), [1] Medusa (Bernini), [2] Big Ben, [3] Statue of Liberty [4]) each with a caption '3D model. Click to interact'. Clicking on the image (on Chrome at least) does nothing except take the reader to the relevant 'File:...' page (see e.g. the one for the Statue of Liberty [5]) though clicking again on the image there finally produces a 3D model that can be rotated via the mouse. This is clearly less than optimal, though not an issue for WP:COIN. What is an issue, however, in my opinion is the way that the 'File:..' pages (and linked equivalents on Commons) are being used to promote MyMiniFactory, a commercial product. "Scan the World" is stated to be a 'non-profit initiative introduced by MyMiniFactory, through which we are creating a digital archive of fully 3D printable sculptures, artworks and landmarks...', but the actual contact links provided are to the company. Note the 'we' in the text, suggesting that the files have been uploaded on behalf of the company (or at least, by its 'non-profit initiative') rather than by a Wikimedia contributor acting on their own behalf. This may well be seen as a conflict of interest, and I'd like to read what others here think.

I should make it clear that I have no objection whatsoever to (properly functioning) interactive 3D images in Wikipedia. Or to the results of open-source scanning of artefacts being used on Wikipedia. What I do find problematic however is that readers are being directed, via a series of clicks, to a 'File:' page (normally not something readers are expected to need to visit to look at an image) where they are being directed to contact myminimactory.com. The media filetype (.stl) appears to be an industry standard, and if the files are open source, it should be possible to make them viewable without such blatant promotion. I'd incidentally note that there may be possible copyright issues involved in ascribing "Scan the World" as author for the files, rather than the individuals presumably responsible, though again that possibly isn't an issue for this noticeboard.

I've attempted to discuss this with RuleTheWiki, but got nowhere, so am raising this here, where at minimum, I'd like an answer as to who the 'we' is in the file descriptions, since the wording suggests that they have uploaded the material and added the article content on someone else's behalf, to promote the company, the 'initiative', or both. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The 'we' in this instance is not me using a sockpuppet it is only me copying the description from another Wikimedia Commons Scan The World article, although the person who uploaded the other images (Venus de Milo, Venus of Willendorf etc.) is the person behind Scan The World. I don't know why you're having trouble with the File Previewer as it correctly previews the .stl file for me (Firefox). - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Copying someone else's file description verbatim is inadvisable. And if the person uploading other files with the same description is 'behind Scan the World', there would still seem to be a CoI issue: with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Well its not a COI in the sense of how ENWP defines it (rather than the actual meaning of 'conflict of interest') as the subjects of the articles are unrelated to the uploader. And even if we took 'they have a financial incentive in having their models used on as many articles as possible' in a broader sense to indicate a financial conflict - its still self-promotion not COI as there is no 'interest' involved. Personally I have zero problems with the file pages having the info - because routinely we are not required to view the file pages to view the media. So for me its only an issue because the current version forces us to go to File: in order to view the media, thus ensuring we see the company. So for me we should a)work out how to technically view the file uploaded without going to file page, b)identify if its been uploaded by a company rather than a single account (eg xxx@myminifactory). Free media is free media, so if they want to upload free stuff thats of good quality, they should be enabled to. If the price for that is a link to the company, thats actually a small price and well within the licensings norms. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I will add, clicking the media from the article takes me to the enlarged version with all details hidden and allows me to rotate (albeit after a short loading delay). So I see no uploader info without clicking more info. This seems reasonable for me. Running firefox with ublock origin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
File Preview works for me on Firefox for Mobile (Android) - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Doesnt appear to work at all for me in mobile view (on my mobile). Which may actually be a reason not to have them in articles but strictly as a commons resource - given the amount of people who view articles in mobile view. (Stats are available somewhere, Iridescent's talkpage had it come up occasionally). Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:COI policy is distinctly at odds with mine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Its actually a blind spot in the COI policy that probably needs to be rectified, as an example: if someone uploads media/edits on behalf of their employer, but their employer has zero interest in the individual article, nor any relationship with the article subject, none of the usual COI disclaimers apply. What does apply is WP:PAID to that editor, but thats not a COI issue. It cant even be argued WP:PROMO is relevant as that is about editing promotionally about a subject. Wikipedian's-in-residence actually have a more demonstrated COI in regards to their subject editing than this example. I am not disagreeing there are issues, only that its not one of COI as ENWP defines it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
As I said, my interpretation of policy differs with yours - perhaps we should wait for further input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: While, as you said, the functionality of the .stl format is not for COIN, though it does seem to work for me in Firefox. I get that they can't be interacted with as a thumbnail and that it is necessary to click on them to spin/rotate/zoom. The same is true for video files. Clicking on a thumbnail on any media from Commons will automatically display some author and source information. For a photo, this can be a professional photographer and/or the site from which it came. Would you consider a photo by Gage Skidmore (a professional photographer) transferred to Commons from Flickr (a commercial for-profit enterprise) to be spamming for Skidmore and/or Flickr? Clicking on such an image will indeed display one or both of those names. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn't just 'author and source information' though. This is the file description:
This object is part of "Scan The World". Scan the World is a non-profit initiative introduced by MyMiniFactory, through which we are creating a digital archive of fully 3D printable sculptures, artworks and landmarks from across the globe for the public to access for free. Scan the World is an open source, community effort, if you have interesting items around you and would like to contribute, email stw@myminifactory.com to find out how you can help.
This is an explicit appeal to contact MyMiniFactory, a commercial concern. More than a simple statement about the source. I've not been able to find any obvious links to 'Scan the World' suggesting that this 'initiative' has any independent existence. Which rather suggests that even if it is nominally 'non-profit', it may have been set up to draw in customers for MyMiniFactory.
incidentally, the actual MyMiniFactory page for the Medusa file [6] (unhelpfully not actually linked as the source) states that it is BY-NC-SA licensed - e.g. for non-commercial use, as I understand it. The same appears to be true for the Big Ben and Statue of Liberty files. I suspect the licensing may not be compatible with WP:COPYOTHERS, which requires less restrictive CC BY-SA licensing or equivalent. I'm no copyright expert though, and copyright on 3D models is a bit of a minefield as I understand it, so this probably needs looking into by someone more familiar with relevant law and Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Not gonna address your incidental point, but you are otherwise talking about the description field of the information template on the file, such as it is at File:Big Ben (detailed).stl? In that case, I think it is something that needs to be cleaned up on Commons. Yes, that sentence is a bit too promotional. This may require a cross-wiki discussion. --SVTCobra 01:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
As a soft opening to interacting with Commons, I posted here to the Village Pump (akin to the Teahouse). Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see how they respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump:, it looks like Commons doesn't really care unless a particular description is required for the license which does not appear to be the case here. In other words, the offending text can be changed to something that actually describes the object of the 3D model instead of encouraging people to email the project. However, it will have to be done on Commons. Another thing I noticed is these are actually quite old ... 2014-16 in most cases. While age does not confer inaccuracy, I wonder if all dimensions are correct for these. Alas, that is also not for COIN, but rather a content discussion. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@RuleTheWiki: You are not obliged to use/copy the description the source uses when transferring freely licensed files to Commons. In fact, I think it would be far better if you actually describe what is in the 3D image. But as I have suggested above it is an issue for Commons more than Wikipedia, though I don't think Wikipedia should be a conduit for promotional material. --SVTCobra 02:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Another issue I have, is these scans seem to be from 2014 (in the few I viewed). Do we even know if the dimensions are accurate? Why suddenly upload a bunch of old 3D files and add them to articles? --SVTCobra 03:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The quality of the files is clearly open to question, too, though again not an issue for this noticeboard. Maybe we need to start some sort of centralised discussion on whether they should be used, and if they are, how we present them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: I believe the descriptions have been changed on all the related files, so that should settle any COI issues. As for evaluating their quality/usefulness I don't have much input to give. The placement seems to have been appropriate within the articles (i.e. not replacing any high quality photos or main image). Personally, I think we can leave it to the page-watchers of the individual monument/building/statue pages to evaluate the quality of these 3D models. If you feel a centralized discussion is needed, I'll leave that entirely up to you. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ida Liu

The history of this article and of the draft appear to show that they are the work of two single-purpose accounts in collaboration. Collaboration is good, but undisclosed commercial collaboration is not so good. The image in the draft and the draft indicates that it was emailed by the photographer, which is another sign of commercial collaboration. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon Apologies for causing concern here. Please know that I am not connected with Benue Links. I don't know how I may be able to prove that to you but I did not know of their activity on an Ida Liu biography page before today. Please allow me to explain myself a bit below on the other flags you raise as I truly did not wish to cause problems with the article I worked on before another version of this went online.
I started the draft version of the Ida Liu biography you link to above in connection with some team members at Citi Private Bank and while my account isn't single-purpose I should have declared that I was connected with them in some form on my account. I was worried, however, that if I had a banner like this on my page it would cause an automatic rejection of my article when I was wishing for it to go through proper channels of review and moderation to make it suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia (I put it into the draft space and requested comments on it back in December and have been waiting for review up to today - I'm sorry if it appeared as though I was impatient and was trying to circumvent policies as I did not do this and still don't wish to do this - I want to work with moderators and editors to ensure that anything which goes online is appropriate and relevant).
My actions on the Ida Liu biography which was live (but now has also been moved to draftspace) were made when I saw that this new article was online and I noticed errors in her job title. I thought I was being helpful by correcting some factual inaccuracies which did not reflect her current role and as I was checking it over I also tried to correct a reference to a Bloomberg article that wasn't working (it was pointing to a captcha page and not the actual article which didn't seem up to usual standards), and then I added a more complete person info box which I had prepared already - I didn't think this would have been problematic as it was mostly updating it with an image which I added to Wikimedia in December and links to relevant other pages (e.g. where she studied). I did post on the talk page at the same time to alert other editors that my version of her biography had been started already but nobody replied to me there. I did not wish to make other changes because I was connected to the subject matter and only wished to update it where I knew there were obvious inaccuracies. I'm sorry if I should have flagged the issues on the talk page first - I did not wish to cause alarm or concern when I made changes that I thought were useful.
Regarding the photo of Ida Liu, I requested a photo of her from Citi which I then shared on Wikimedia after they arranged for the photographer to release the image for creative commons usage. I have emailed Wikimedia permissions with release information but my email to confirm rights wasn't sufficient to prove that it had been released under creative commons so I've also asked for a follow-up to be sent by the photographer himself using the release generator.
Although I'm connected with the subject matter I feel like Ida is a very interesting person and - at least to me - fitted the notability requirements for biographies of living persons. I also use this account to support updates on other articles on Wikipedia and indeed would like to help with the creation of new articles in the future - I don't know if you can see all of my edit history or talk page contributions but I do look at other pages where I may be able to make simple changes or highlight potential revisions - though I know I haven't been as active as I could be.
I will add necessary COI disclosures to my account for future reference and I will not make edits to a live article about Liu without first posting them to the talk page should it be approved for inclusion. Are you or anyone else able to help me on the draft article which I have written about her? I am happy to make any changes to this draft version that may be required in order to bring it in line with guidelines and requirements for biographies of living persons and to ensure its neutrality in tone.
Sorry for the long message but I hope to be able to clear up any problems here.
Anonymous-owl-contributor (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Anonymous-owl-contributor: I will have to say, your draft looks better than Draft:Ida Liu 2 (the live article was draftified). --SVTCobra 20:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Thank you for your response - one of the original reasons for my article being declined was that another version about Ida existed. Now that this new version has been draftified, what is the best approach to request a review of the work that I produced? Anonymous-owl-contributor (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Anonymous-owl-contributor: It does read a like a CV which isn't great and I don't know enough about Ida Liu to evaluate if it is a fair description of her or if there is bias through omission. I think she would pass the notability standard, nevertheless. When do you think the permission from the photographer will be sorted out? That said, now that you have declared your COI, there's really nothing stopping you from clicking the resubmit button if you are confident in your work. --SVTCobra 15:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Thank you, the photographer should be sending it in over the next few days. I will request some help on the live chat on where it may be possible to amend the article and make it look less like a CV - but if you are able to provide any pointers of better biographies or areas that particularly stand out to you that would be appreciated. I think some other biographies which I have read discuss a person's professional history in a similar fashion but I'm sure there are ways my article can be improved. If you think I'm okay to resubmit I will do that and add some notes of explanation to the talk page as to why it's been resubmitted even though a second biography exists. Anonymous-owl-contributor (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Roopkotha

Made a few edits on the page also titled Roopkotha. Maybe he is indeed the person of the article, a 16 year old boy. I left a warning note on their talk page. Not sure if they are coming back tho. But does their username fall under WP:USERNAME? Should we post about it on WP:UAA? -- Tame (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I say yes - I've reported them as WP:IMPERSONATE. If this is the actual subject, then they can provide proof of identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:World Federation of Associations of Pediatric Surgeons

I am a physician with digital skills. I have been assigned to create a page for the World_Federation_of_Associations_of_Pediatric_Surgeons. It is a Pediatric surgery parent association to many existing Surgical Associations as American Pediatric Surgical Association and British Association of Paediatric Surgeons. I am a bit new to Wikipedia and I am declaring that I have no conflict of interest, I am creating the page for the WOFAPS pro bono. I hope it gets accepted. I am still learning a lot from the mods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianzaco (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pianzaco:. Hello, thanks for coming here. The fact you are not receiving direct financial compensation for creating the article does not preclude a conflict of interest. Can you described in more detail how this task was assigned to you? Are you an employee or a member of WOFAPS? Are you a member of one of the member associations? Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned I am a surgeon, I do not pay to be a member of the Association. I am not a member of any mentioned subsidiary associations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianzaco (talk • contribs) 12:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pianzaco: Who assigned you? scope_creepTalk 12:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I cleaned up the article somewhat and promoted to mainspace after fixing the lede and adding some references. It is a notable organisation. I write articles on peadiatric doctors, so I'm somewhat familiar with this organisaton. I planned to do an article on it years ago, but never got around to it. scope_creepTalk 12:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Pianzaco: But WOFAPS assigned you the task of creating the page because of your digital skills? You say you do not pay for membership; is the page creation in lieu of the standard membership dues? --SVTCobra 13:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not getting paid to create this Page nor am I an individual affiliate member nor I pay anything to WOFAPS. I am declaring that I am writing the WOFAPS page as it is a notable association that deserves recognition, just like the rest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianzaco (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, @Pianzaco:, but you did state I have been assigned to create a page for the World_Federation_of_Associations_of_Pediatric_Surgeons. What does that mean? Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yip. Good block. scope_creepTalk 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Jerimiah Rodriguez

User:Jerimiah Rodriguez worked on the draft Jerimiah Rodriguez. When the draft was declined due to lack of notability, Rodriguez immediately blanked the draft. An IP made the draft; I have no idea if this IP is Rodriguez or not. Checkuser needed. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This can't be handled by CU. Per WP:CUPRIVACY, an account can't be linked to an IP. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
There certainly appears to be a WP:REALNAME issue. --SVTCobra 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Ghostwriterwho

Pblocked by Cullen328

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.


This username has repeatedly add the fan fiction written by same username as this on How to Get Away with Murder. They are engaging in inappropriately promotional behaviors. — YoungForever(talk) 23:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Already indeffed. Not really much of a reason to bring this here, WP:AIV would have been the better place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I have indefinitely pageblocked this editor from How to Get Away with Murder. I had suggested this venue at WP:UAA before the editor resumed their self-promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_185&oldid=1069473847"