Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 195

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

pakrail.com

Can any one help remove this spam site from all Wikipedia articles as a source. This site redirects to an online casino and is not the official website of Pakistan Railways (as it pretends to be). It is present on 1,172 articles (most of these articles cite this spam site only which is a bad thing) so it would be great if we can remove it by some sort of script. Thanks all. BookishReader (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@BookishReader: I will do it in 7 to 8 hours from now. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This may be better suited for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. SVTCobra 11:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@BookishReader: Hello. I am removing the links using AWB as we speak. As SVTCobra said, such issues need to be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But given the domain has expired/hijacked, it is a clear case, still notifying Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a good idea. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Advice on creating an article for a sibling

Carla Vernón is my sister. She is the incoming CEO at The Honest Company. I have asked if other people would create her article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Carla Vernón and several WikiProjects where she is a relevant subject. Since no one has stepped forward and I think it would be good to have her article appear at DYK on January 9 when she takes the reigns, I want to know what the proper protocol would be for me to create the article myself. In the past, I have created several articles of friends (Lauren Cohen, Wesley Gray), acquaintances (Kelly Hecking, Ryan Roberts (American football) and people in between Mike Novogratz, Rose Pinkney), but no one as close as a sibling.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi TTT. I don't think it gets more complex than just WP:COIEDIT's "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". You might get lucky, but it would be tough to get the article written, reviewed, and a DYK nom processed and promoted by January 9. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
By what criteria is an incoming corporate CEO notable? The announcement itself gets some coverage, but that's WP:BLP1E. In any case, I would agree with creating a draft and putting in what references you can find for it. BD2412 T 05:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
User:BD2412, it has come to my attention that my sister may have a claim as the first Afro-Latina CEO of a publicly traded U.S. company. Is that notable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Probably, but do you have a solid source for that? BD2412 T 19:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the research of her PR firm do not find any others who have previously claimed this identity. However, as this interview clarifies claiming multicultural heritage is gradually gaining more widespread acceptance. Thus, it is difficult to confirm based on how people identify now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
This Essence article describes her as "one of the few Afro-Latina CEOs at a U.S. publicly traded company", which suggests not the only one, and therefore not the first, although this is still not bad as a source. BD2412 T 20:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
User:BD2412, I believe they say one of the few without naming any others. We currently believe no one has claimed this multicultural identity who has been a female CEO of a publicly traded U.S. company. At this point there is probably a fairly short historical list of female CEOs of publicly traded U.S. companies who have self-identified as either Afro-American or Latino-American. The question is whether any of them would claim multicultural identity as we enter 2023. I guess we could also include an CEOs who in the past were listed as male but that now identify as female with 2023 around the corner and assess their heritage. The list of historical female of CEOs color of publicly traded U.S. companies is probably a short list.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
User:BD2412, I have tried to find anyone who knows or a prior individual.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Carla Vernón has both current press coverage and highlights of past coverage. Am I looking at a contested notability? What is the WP:AFC turnaround time? Of all the people that I have gotten on the main page on important days, I could not imagine I would pursue a process where I can't get this done for my sister. How objectionable would direct mainspace or sandboxing to mainspace be?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:COIEDIT is clear and straightforward on this - use WP:AFC. I agree with BD2412 there may be notability questions, and note that while I appreciate the transparency shown in bringing this here, even TonyTheTiger's language "get this done for my sister" raises exactly the issues that the COI guideline is designed for. Article creation and DYK should be done for the benefit of the encyclopedia, not the subject of the article, and it can understandably be difficult for connected editors to make the distinction. Melcous (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I would just say to create the best draft that you can create. If it doesn't pass muster for notability, it won't be deleted as a draft, but won't be moved to mainspace either. BD2412 T 18:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It's a bad idea to create an article about anyone you know unless you genuinely dislike them. You are entrusting their reputation to an army of anonymous editors who get to decide what goes into the article. TFD (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
User:The Four Deuces, There are a lot of emojis that might be appropriate here, but I am LOL.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree with TFD. Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, you're one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors, so I have to say that I'm disappointed that this has come up. You should never edit an article about someone you know. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and that applies to anyone you care about. Once created, all hell can, and often does, break loose and ruin their life. Seriously. By that time, you have no right to delete it with an "oops". Even the subject lacks that right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 08:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Can I use this source to demonstrate that my sister began to identify as an Afro-Latina later in her professional career?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Advice? Don't do it and go throw a connected contributor tag on Wesley Gray. You definitely can't nominate it for DYK, using wikipedia for promotional purposes (as you seem to very openly want to do) is forbidden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
    • User:Horse Eye's Back, it is currently believed that my sister may have a claim as the first Afro-Latina CEO of a publicly traded U.S. company. How is trying to get publicity of that type of thing a bad thing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
      • The issue isn't with who your sister is, the issue is that she's your sister. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
      • it is currently believed that my sister may have a claim as the first Afro-Latina CEO of a publicly traded U.S. company. How is trying to get publicity of that type of thing a bad thing?
      • Emphasis mine, I do not understand how an editor who has been around since 2006 doesn't understand how much that violates a variety of guidelines. If you don't, you really shouldn't be touching BLPs. Star Mississippi 20:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
        • User:Star Mississippi, this editor has been writing up incredibly fluffy BLPs for years and years. The only surprise is that he started this thread. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
          • User:Drmies, guilty as charged. I like to write near the edges of notability and try to get the article to WP:GA. It is kind of a fun challenge to get things through DYK and GAC that are of marginal notability. Dozens of the high school basketball players went on to do some big things in college. E.g., I fluffed up Jalen Brunson's article when he was a junior in high school. Then he went on to be National Player of the year. Misty Copeland was pretty unknown when I trumped up an article on her. Sometimes I guess wrong and the notability does not blossom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
          I recognize the username, but not super familiar with his edits @Drmies. I took a look at Lauren Cohen after it was linked upthread and among other problematic issues, there was this blanking. Thankful he did start the thread as hopefully it will mean more eyes on the BLPs he has edited. @TonyTheTiger WP should be quite happy to present a groundbreaking biography really!?!? Star Mississippi 01:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
          • User:Star Mississippi, I am trying to understand. Are you saying the first Afro-Latina claiming CEO of a publicly traded U.S. company is not a groundbreaking subject? You guys have had a couple days to shut me up on this one. Have you gone through all the female CEOs of color of publicly traded U.S. companies to silence me. How long is the list of female CEOs of color of publicly traded U.S. companies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I find these comments a bit baffling TonyTheTiger, particularly that you are now accusing people of trying to silence you. The issue here is not what is groundbreaking, nor how many female CEOs of color there are, but what a Conflict of Interest is and how editors should deal with that. I really think you should completely step away from having anything to do with this biography, because your comments here and at the draft talk simply serve to demonstrate exactly why the community has decided it is a bad idea for people so close to a subject to try to write and discuss a biography about them neutrally and objectively. Melcous (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I think that you've gotten lots of good advice here and respectfully suggest that you disengage. With all due respect, I think that your closeness to this subject is negatively coloring your interactions with other editors and potentially - but not necessarily! - affecting your judgment. This is why we discourage COI editing. You are welcome to write a draft article that includes the appropriate COI template(s) noting your involvement. That will give other editors the opportunity to assist with the article in ways that they believe are appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  • User:ElKevbo, Keep in mind that I requested someone else write the article on a wide variety of WikiProjects because I did not think I should be involved. Then I went to WP:AFC to create the draft a few days ago. Another editor has agreed to drive the editing forward. I am already self-restricting myself to the AFC draft talk page. So I don't understand what type of further disengagement I can possibly do. Subsequently, User:Drmies and User:Star Mississippi decided to start badmouthing me here, which I think is what you are seeing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    I have not badmouthed you, as any editor reading the discussion can see as I have not editing a single comment except for possibly a typo. No one is attempting to silence you. Stop assuming bad faith all over the place. If your sister is notable the article will be fine without your input. If she isn't, no amount of input from you is going to overcome that. The project will be fine whether or not she's on the front page for the first day of her new job. That you don't understand why that's a poor goal is on you, not everyone else. I've said I have nothing further to say, at least two others have suggested you disengage. Star Mississippi 22:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    In practice, the article wouldn't be happening if it weren't for his input. It would be just another one of the thousands of subjects about which we could have an article, but don't. Didn't someone calculate, during the Donna Strickland kerfuffle, that something like a third or a half of the Nobel prize winners didn't have an article here until the day the prize was announced? We probably have even fewer articles about CEOs of not-very-big companies (e.g., ones with fewer than a thousand employees). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    User:Star Mississippi, You claim you understand the ways of the main page. All sections of the main page place a priority on presenting content that is relevant to the appearance date. WP:DYK is the section of the main page where the newest articles (the vast majority have been created within the last 10 days before being nominated for inclusion) get highlighted. For that section to highlight content relevant to the appearance date, people commonly have to nudge other involved parties to achieve the agreed upon pursuit of date relevance. Thus, it is common to make it a goal to get an article spiffed up enough for its DYK presentation. I myself have set the goal of getting a specific article on the main page on a relevant date on the order of 3-5 dozen times in the past. Yes dozens and dozens of times it has been the goal to get an article a specific date. Purists who are less concerned about the main page might rather an article marinate and evolve in a manner that it can be the best it can be without any time pressure. However, all the high achieving regs at DYK consider it a normal pursuit rather than a "poor goal" or an ill-advised attempt at "promotion" to attempt to achieve DYK date relevance. However, we are off the hook because my sister does not want to have to deal with the concerns of Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing on her first day of work and is averse to the date relevance that was my initial objective.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    I think there's a world of difference between Nobel prize winners, who would meet ANYBIO and company CEOs who may or may not be notable. We absolutely have a representation/systemic bias issue that needs addressing, but this isn't the path to do so. If this were a new editor looking to do this, s/he would have been blocked from the page if not blocked for promotion. Star Mississippi 16:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    There is also a huge difference between Promotion and an editor with nearly 1000 DYK credits trying get the attention of other editors to pursue proper timing (as he has himself done with dozens of prior random subject) of a main page appearance of his sister when her rise to prominence classifies as WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I wanted my article for Bob ("Weird Al" Yankovic song) to appear on DYK on 22/11/22, and it didn't because someone shuffled it out of the progression, so I had to wait a full month for another palindromic date to come around, so we don't always get the timing we want even when we do everything right. BD2412 T 20:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Umm no, you are describing promotion. If you don't understand that a BLP topic ban is in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think the nature of this discussion shows why Wikipedia has COI guidelines in place. The fact that an unsubstantiated sentenence of "my sister may have a claim as the first Afro-Latina CEO of a publicly traded U.S. company" is being questioned for notability to create an article seems ridiculous to me. If that claim proves to be true I am still cautious of BLP1E. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give the article a pass, so long as the sourcing is good. We need more than PR sources and one sentence as above for GNG or BLP. It might be TOOSOON, it can be revisited in the future when reliable sourcing exists. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Editorial involvment on the draft article seems to have died down. I await responses to several queries there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

New editor on a de-prod run

This editor came in yesderday and removed 12 prod tags. They are a mix but all prodded after NPP review. A couple of the deprods are valid, but it seems an odd type of behaviour that i've not seen before. scope_creepTalk 00:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty obviously not their first account, but the edits so far, while arguably disruptive, don't really scream COI to me. signed, Rosguill talk 00:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m a long time IP editor who jumped on a great name. ”A couple of deprods are valid” Every one is valid, but even if only a few were I’d be helping the encyclopedia. Invalid prods are the first of the great wrongs I want to focus on. Vandalism, targeting and off-line coordination and canvassing are also areas that need help. Right Great Wrongs (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
With a username like "Right Great Wrongs", you're bound to rub people the wrong way. WP:RGW is not saying that people who are here to "right great wrongs" should be welcomed, instead it's saying that they're not compatible with editing a collaborative encyclopaedia and should be shown the door. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Blocked. Pretty obvious who they were from their contribs, mostly used CU to rule out a joe job. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow. I had one of my PRODs (which another editor endorsed) de-prodded by RGW, and thought their actions were odd. Good work to User:scope_creep. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Biography burnishing?

This series of edits by an editor with a username similar to the name of the subject of the article needs to be reviewed. It appears to have both put the subject in a more positive light (adding a philanthropic venture and claiming "millions" benefited from a policy idea) and removed negative information (a lawsuit). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I trimmed a good bit of the fluff; sources are mediocre, at best. Not clear he's notable, and the talk page indicates there are some recent career developments that might paint him in a different light, but looks all WP:BLPRIMARY. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Toon_X_TV

Chrisvalentin92 has, using edit summaries [1], disclosed that they are "directly involved" with Toon X TV. I have notified them about the COI editing guidelines twice now, but they continue to edit the article, even submitting it for WP:AfC. Incidentally, it looks like the draft will almost certainly fail AfC. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The draft has now failed AfC Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I am talking to Chris on my talk page now. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Faith Theological Seminary

WP:OUTING prevents me from saying precisely why I believe this editor has an undisclosed paid relationship with this seminary but I trust that other editors can easily come to the same conclusion with only a few seconds of work. They continue to edit this article and have not disclosed their relationship with the seminary. ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The editor named their connection here years ago, but has not acknowledged a conflict (and under WP:PAID employment could be considered paid as well). Melcous (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Graaff / webnetprof

It has been claimed that the editor who created this article has a conflict of interest Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Graaff, while the IP user didn't exactly behave well (editing the article with their accusations, and some defamatory comments, [2] rather than coming here to discuss it), I think there's some evidence from the NL wikipedia that there is a COI in this case [3] (From an IP user blocked as a sock, so I don't think I'm 'outting' anyone that hasn't outted themselves).

The user has replied to a COI notice with a very un-reassuring response (I read this as implying there is a COI but they will somehow "manage it because they're an author so they know how to" User_talk:Webnetprof#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest). I have to say that as the subject is an anti-fascist, I am very worried about accidentally furthering the agenda of people who may want to discredit his work; but I do think this needs investigating further. JeffUK 10:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

hello JeffUK,,
thank for your concerns, they seem realistic enough. It is a fact of life that anti-fascists are not received everywhere with great enthusiasm. I have no great experience in handling that kind of situation on WP.
Please see some more remarks here: User talk:Webnetprof.
Thanks
Webnetprof (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The article Arthur Graaff was originally written by user Webnetprof who has admitted he is Arthur Graaff on this Wikipedia. I have made several edits, correcting and removing things that had source references that did not support the article text. Several of these have since been undone by Webnetprof, even AFTER the above confirmation that he has read the COI rules. I don't want to get involved in edit war, nor do I want to spend the time on this article that is full of lies, exaggerations, half-truths, and fantasies. Advice on how to proceed is welcome. Wammes Waggel (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted the article for deletion [4]. I don't see it as salveageable, given the apparent large-scale falsification of sources and misstatements of fact. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

user: Morbidthoughts

I informed user Morbidthoughts about the following. They completely ignored everything put before them and made a veiled accusation about me. As such I'm hoping for someone to help mediate.

Below is the public evidence I've found.

Information they have posted about themselves:

  1. 14 November 2009 03:10 Revision History[1]
    • They linked their wikipedia user page to the Flickr user page "Morbidthoughts".
    • They identified the account as theirs: "If you would like to use an image from my Flickr account for an article..."
  2. Flickr user "Morbidthoughts" "About" page[2]
    • They suggested having personal and/or financial external relationships with certain individuals in the images uploaded.
    • They wrote, "Many people in my pictures are my friends or people I work with on a professional level."
  3. Photo DSC02110 2009 AVN Awards uploaded by Flickr user "Morbidthoughts"[3]
    • The photo is tagged "Mandy Morbid" and "Kimberley Kane."
    • The male individual in the photo is identifiably "Zak Smith."
      • See: Wikimedia Commons File:Zak Smith.jpg "Zak Smith by Elena Hill"[4]

Edits by them

  1. Talk Page, Zak Smith[5]
    • Theirs is the most mentioned wikipedia username on the Zak Smith talk page (23 mentions).
    • They are particularly proactive in discussions on the topic of sexual assault allegations made by Mandy Morbid about Zak Smith
      • "I should go ahead and ping the non-banned people involved in these discussions[9][10] the past year about the allegations and the sources. @NekoKatsun: @Merxa: @Nick: @PeterTheFourth: Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)"

This is one example. There are 14,440 adult film industry-related photographs on their Flickr page and edit summary searches for pornography terms and them turn up many results. They have identified themselves as an SME on the subject at large.[6]

The situation appears to be that on subject of pornography, SME derives from their photography background, and therefore their personal and financial external relationships. I have a hard time imagining it deriving from elsewhere, and they themselves have noted there are "sparse independent reliable sources"[6] available on the subject.

As for the case of the "Zak Smith" page, the Apparent COI is concerning, as they have been weighing in persistently and with gravity on the contentious matter of a professionally-harmful subject related to the lives of individuals identifiably within this personal and/or professional circle they share.

This is a bad look, no? BLP must be written conservatively. This surely extends to the optics of our influence on what in a BLP can and cannot be written about.

Thank you.

  1. ^ "User:Morbidthoughts: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2023-01-12.
  2. ^ "morbidthoughts". Flickr. Retrieved 2023-01-12.
  3. ^ morbidthoughts (2009-01-10), DSC02110, retrieved 2023-01-12
  4. ^ "Zak Smith", Wikipedia, 2022-10-30, retrieved 2023-01-12
  5. ^ "Talk:Zak Smith", Wikipedia, 2022-07-08, retrieved 2023-01-12
  6. ^ a b "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Morbidthoughts". Please give a precise explanation of what you believe WP:BLP means. When should one ignore the policy?
    A. I believe that BLP means that biographies must be written conservatively with respect to the person's privacy and strictly adhere to all of the wikipedia content policies. Any material that is contentious and unsourced should be removed immediately without any discussion. The purpose of the policy is to for wikipedia itself to do no harm to its living subjects and I can't imagine a scenario where one should ignore the policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)"
    "What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
    A: My best contributions have been in the pornography-related subject area of wikipedia. I scrutinize every article I come across to make sure it complies with WP:V and W:BLP (when applicable) because of the sparse independent reliable sources available that covers the subject. I edit mostly in pornography-related articles because I know a lot about the subject. The available knowledge on the internet tend to be sensationalistic and many people assume that if something is repeated enough on the internet (without regard to RS) it must be true. Even though I know a lot about the subject, as Epbr123 noted, I do not hesitate to research further any issue when there are any WP:V or notability concerns with an article. I also plan to expand my editing (and scrutiny) into other fields of interest such as basketball and boxing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehmbo (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Jehmbo (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Note:Jehmbo has been blocked as a sock. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Another editor on huge Afd run

Here is another WP:SPA editor who came in on the 9th and did a huge Afd !vote run on the 11th including a couple of TimTempleton's Afd entries. Its seems more odd today than it did yesterday. Same pattern? scope_creepTalk 11:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know what you mean. I reviewed many AFDs and have given many my support to continue as well as others which I felt should be deleted. I did not create more than one or two which I actually worked on and made better. I was fair about it and will continue to edit articles. I don't have to be lazy here but can work hard and learn. I can have niche interests, too. But they are also diverse. Please look more closely at my work and be inclusive please, thanks. JRed176 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You aren't editing very carefully, as you are also tag-bombing leads of articles (even TFA); see WP:LEADCITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't the lead. It was a good faith section edit you're referring to. So it's ok to not cite sources and just let it be? I think not. You should be thanking volunteers who are well-intentioned instead of ripping them to shreds and trying to damage their reputations. You're acting like a bully. I'm a real person and demand respect. Stop with the harassment, please. JRed176 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like the lead of the TFA from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darshak.parmar, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Skyyyer

We have an ongoing issue with apparent COI editors (on both "sides") in articles related to private boarding schools for "troubled teens" and this user seems pretty obviously to have a COI with regard to Provo Canyon School. The account has only a few edits, all of them to the article on that school. They appear to drop by every few years to try and whitewash the article, and now have added the new wrinkle of implying some of the content is against the law. I can't imagine a reason someone would be doing this if they did not have a direct relationship with the school. They were warned for COI nearly two years ago but that clearly had no impact. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Prismart Productions

Karuna kala appears to be a paid editor who has ignored all the COI inquiries on their talk page. This seeming WP:SPA first asked the Help desk "‎how to create our company profile page in wikipedia" on 22 December.

They then made an initial, copyvio edit in order to (unsuccessfully) create trust in their NPOV "good faith". They then made a revdel-ed edit to CCVS. Another post to the Help desk, how to crate a article page, then submitted Draft:Prismart Productions and saw it declined on 2 January 2023.

On 17 January 2023 he asked for help at the AfC Help desk: hiiii didnt get this helpdesk but i just want to tell that the draft i submited about prismart production is geniune its my compamy i am working here since 2 years and added 4 categories to his draft and also added his draft to 3 list articles. This needs to be stopped.Quisqualis (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, after I warned Karuna kala on their talkpage, they came to the Wikipedia IRC Help Channel. We discussed WP:COI, WP:NCORP, and WP:BOSS. They expressed understanding that further edits without a COI declaration might lead to a block. They expressed that they intended to discuss with their supervisor, and to my knowledge, they have not edited on-wiki since my warning. Also, for what it's worth, I understand that IRC discussions are off-wiki. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Bida thomas

This user has created a large number of very similar articles in the past two days, mainly about Sudanese politicians or political organisations. The user did create a couple of draft articles, but they got held up for a number of reviews by editors who didn't like the spammy nature. Another article created got AfD nominated. So rather than bothering with that standard route of drafting an article, he/she created a bunch of thme following on from those directly in main article space, and did so in fairly rapid sequence. Looking across all of the articles and they way they have been written, and the speed, I believe this Bida thomas is an employee or journalist who is being paid. For now I have also moved all the articles into draft space, in response to which Bida thomas has now submitted all off the drafts for publication. I am more familiar with sockpuppetry than paid editors, but if I was applying the WP:DUCK test from the former I'd say this looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, so my assertion is that it's a duck.--10mmsocket (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatever that much of Bida Thomas's editing is highly promotional, and I have warned him about that. I am, however, not sure whether it it is paid editing. It may be more a case of someone with strong views about politics and social justice trying to use Wikipedia to promote what they believe is just and right. JBW (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I have had a terrible experience with Wikipedia just at the start of a new year. I will be excusing myself from here. Bida thomas (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@10mmsocket, good day, you would notice that the above articles are not primarily about politicians or political organisations. Two of the articles are about catholic bishops, one is for a school, one for a human rights watch dog, one about a Ghanaian journalist, and four about governors and commissioners in South Sudan. You maybe worried about the speed, but yes, I am a busy person, so this year I had wanted to dedicated my weekend only for working on Wikipedia articles about South Sudanese.
It is also unfair that you categorise an entire article as spam or just delete it. That, in my opinion is too harsh. I expected that as reviewers, you point specific sections of an article that need review or citations and references that you feel are not credible. In one of the articles that got AfD nominated, the reviewers in the discussion page admitted that they were unaware of the South Sudanese local context, but still you read the references that we share.
This, to me is quite frustrating. Bida thomas (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It was not me who deleted your existing drafts, nor me that nominated an article for deletion. Your behaviour has been bad - you get stopped from publishing your drafts because they need much more work / are not notable, so you decide to bypass the draft process and publish articles directly. I am sorry, but despite your words I remain unconvinced that a journalist is not being paid to write. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not a journalist. Bida thomas (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I usually undertake research before writing, so I ensure that the subjects are notable. Also the reviewers give very vague feedback, but I wish you the very best of luck! Bida thomas (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see what an admin thinks of the claim that you are not a journalist. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Above, I extended an assumption of good faith, but I have now seen proof that Bida Thomas has not been acting totally in good faith. That, together with the fact that he persists with promotional editing despite warnings, has persuaded me to indefinitely block him from editing. JBW (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Coi editor

UPE coi editor making edits on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maven Clinic Afd. Says he is from the company but its a TimTempleton article. Not disclosed. scope_creepTalk 00:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Another WP:SPA coi editor turned up. scope_creepTalk 02:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

UPE finally blocked

TransGobbledygook (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked on 16 January as they were accepting paid work through an online marketplace. All of their work remains undisclosed, so need an independent review. Some of their articles were accepted through AfC process so a UPE tag would be good for them, rest I believe should go to AfC for an independent review. Except David Brandon Geeting, Quality Digest (magazine), William Brewer (novelist), Luke Yankee, and Loay Elbasyouni, all went live without a review by an AfC reviewer (such articles are listed below):

74.15.64.107 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I redirected Dan Perlman to the show for which he's known. Cleaned up Derek Frank and SLO Food Bank a bit.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I moved the rest to draft per segregating UPE editing. Onel5969 TT me 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Guy Bloch

Came across this editor during NPP. SPA editor who focuses on subjects dealing with the Silberman Institute. There are clear indications that they are affiliated in some way with the institute, or the researchers. Onel5969 TT me 13:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear editor @Onel5969
I have been working in the Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences for over 35 years. All these articles and others I may write in the future concerning noteworthy institute members have been written in my free time, as a present to the institute before I retire in two years time. As far as I intend this is not a paid contribution.
Please advise me how to proceed.
Thanks 132.64.65.146 (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. You need to declare your COI on your userpage. And any articles you create need to be submitted through AfC. Once in mainspace, you should not edit the article directly, but ask for any changes you wish made on the article's talk page. You can also read WP:COI. And, btw, enjoy your retirement. Onel5969 TT me 10:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User: Oscarcopper123

There appears to be possible connection between the user and the Del E. Webb Construction Company and possibly other organizations, companies and people in architectural and construction field. Overwhelming majority of their edits for years consist of inserting architectural firm and construction names into articles about buildings that were worked on by the names being inserted; and especially intense working of Del E. Webb Construction Company and the website delwebbsuncitiesmuseum.org as a source into different pages. For example,Welton Becket, Bally's Lake Tahoe, Edward Hotel & Convention Center,HRL Laboratories. On articles that include delwebbsuncitiesmuseum.org as a source, almost all of the insertion have been made by this user. Editing related to Del E. Webb goes back to 2017 and continues to date. Also, Inserting McKee Special:Diff/1127716029 Graywalls (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Honaker High School

Continually adding non-neutral minutia with zero sources suggests the editor has some level of personal involvement with the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a high school kid editing local schools without knowing any better? Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:CressidaA

The editing pattern smells strongly of single purpose account that is part of a paid and/or connected contribution possibly working for public relations firm or working through Upwork or the like. Their editing habit is clearly not a new user just starting out. It's not natural to start their edit with adding rosy contents into multiple articles in companies and people category half an hour after creating one's account. Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That article's had editing from the firm itself and other COI editing issues for a while. Special:Contributions/38.140.62.138 active just a couple of months ago geolocates to guess who? ☆ Bri (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an incorrect assumption. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits to any of the firms or individuals listed, nor is there any conflict of interest. No relationship exists between the companies / individuals and myself. I am simply interested in art and architecture, and follow the local awards landscape. CressidaA (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@CressidaA:, @Bri:, CressidaA, there was an appearance that your edits may potentially be COI. You denied on talk page that you do not COI. So, further discussion is brought here for the community to determine if they have further input. As for removal of contents, it is reasonable to remove awards when it reads such and such received Award X where the cited reference is the organization that gave the award. Verifiability of the contents added is mandatory; but this does not mean that anything and everything that you can verify should be included into an article. When there is a disagreement, per the guideline WP:ONUS, editor seeking to include the content has the burden to establish consensus in favor of inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bri:, and they continue to disregard the policy WP:ONUS and continue to re-add disputed contents. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this board is visited by admins much anymore. You might have better luck at WP:ANI but beware that you are also one edit away from 3RR on ZGF Architects if my counting is right. Look out for WP:BOOMERANG which sometimes is the outcome of the noticeboards, if you are also doing something against the rules. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bri @Graywalls' talk page is full of claims that the user habitually makes unjustified and retaliatory edits across a broad spectrum of subjects. This, in addition to a long history of unfounded COI accusations. Most people seem genuinely confounded by Graywall's conduct and suspect an inappropriate agenda. User is certainly a good candidate at this point for being at the receiving end of a WP: BOOMERANG. I say this because it seems as if Graywalls is becoming an impediment to well-sourced, factual information dissemination, forcing users to retroactively and pointlessly defend their legitimate edits. This is not an efficient way to edit, nor is it in the spirit of Wikipedia's objectives. (CressidaA (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC))
Editors who deal with COI and other sorts of promotional editing will have a lot of complaints on their talk page. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with anti-promotional efforts, it just means promotional editors complain a lot. Graywalls is a valuable editor here. It is natural to be a bit frustrated when you are in conflict with someone, but expressing that frustration through personal attacks as you have here is not acceptable. MrOllie (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Graywalls "Further discussion is brought here for the community to determine if they have further input."... It seems as if no one has further input about your allegations of COI, so I am requesting that the erroneous accusations are retracted and the matter is settled. (CressidaA (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC))
If the user maintains that there is no COI, then it seems difficult to assert otherwise. That being said, the edits are indeed that which you would expect from an employee or other connected individual. At the very least, CressidaA, you should keep in mind that the editing pattern you displayed so far does indeed ring alarm bells — most users do not dive right into adding obscure awards etc. to companies' pages, such as in Special:Diff/1132028958. Would you mind explaining what previous experience you have had with Wikipedia, if any, and what drew you to focus on specific architecture firms and architects? That may help provide a clearer picture. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@WhinyTheYounger I follow the art and architecture awards landscape closely, and I feel I have something to contribute. The awards I cited may seem "obscure" to those who don't follow architecture, but they are notable and very relevant to those who do. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and this is a way that I felt I could be useful -- I think that adding awards and new notable projects is a good way to round out a firm's history and identity. I was planning to make edits across a wider spectrum of arts organizations and firms, which undoubtedly would have consisted of more than listing awards, but I was immediately flagged by @Graywalls and have not wanted to spend time making edits only to have them immediately reversed. I would like to get to the bottom of this so that I (and @Graywalls) can move on -- I would welcome some guidance on how I can stop these confusing personal attacks. Thanks. (CressidaA (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC))
CressidaA, if the awards are notable, then where is the independent coverage of the award being issued? If no one else is independently discussing the award, then neither should Wikipedia. "Obscure" is not an exception to that. So the best way to move forward is to locate secondary sources, otherwise chances are the edits will be reverted again. Slywriter (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Independent coverage cited. Issue should be resolved now. Thanks for your feedback, @Slywriter (CressidaA (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC))
@CressidaA:, I also addressed with you that verifiability is obligatory, but verifiable isn't entitlement to inclusion and when there is dispute, WP:ONUS defers inclusion until consensus is achieved in favor of inclusion and the editor seeking to include it is responsible for getting consensus. This means that it falls on you to start discussions in talk pages, start a WP:3PO, or WP:RFC to achieve consensus. Despite this, you have not been unwilling to go along with this. Graywalls (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you then for desiring to contribute to Wikipedia, and I'm sorry you've got caught up in a bit of a snafu. What is notable and worthy of inclusion for a field or industry is not always so for Wikipedia. By way of analogy, we tend to avoid listing individuals' honorary degrees, even from prestigious institutions. Whether or not the regional chapter of a certain industry group's awards fall into the "worthy of inclusion" category is up for debate, debate that should take place on the talk page when someone reverts your edits.
COI editing is a huge problem here and it degrades the quality of our project while taking huge amounts of effort to combat, so please try to understand why many editors are rather pointed about it, even if it comes off as accusatory. I might gently suggest taking some time to edit other architecture related items (or anything that interests you) to better understand the various norms around editing and help establish bona fides as someone who is interested in building an encyclopedia here. You're more than welcome to continue noting awards, too, but I'd advise being very sure that the awards are notable (a good rule of thumb is if the organization, or even better, the award, has a Wikipedia article itself) and cited to independent, secondary sources. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Eddieguillen23

User appears to be of candidate in upcoming election. Their edits also confirm this. (see here).. - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that this user appears to be the candidate mentioned as it is a new account and has only made two edits to the 2023 Chicago aldermanic election Grahaml35 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Prewrath Rapture

Persists in adding a book they wrote despite warnings. Says because he donates the revenue he has no COI. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does the article even exist? It cites nothing but primary source evangelical Christian material, and appears to be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
As with basically anything to do with Christian eschatology there is volumes of academic work on it... I just don't see it being notable independent of rapture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Ouch. Sometimes I can’t see the wood for the trees. Of course. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Doug, to be clear, I have never received and will never receive compensation for my edits. However, I appear to have a COI in that I want to list under "Further Reading" a book that I published in 2003 (and again in 2014) - a book that explains and supports the Prewrath Rapture interpretation. I am working to understand the COI disclosure steps I should take in order to list that book. SanJuanCat (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
On what grounds do you believe your book merits inclusion in 'further reading'? From a quick Google, I can't see anything resembling a review anywhere significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It's been reviewed on Amazon (4.1 rating), Goodreads (4.1 rating) and other places, including as shown in Book Reviews | PreWrathProphecy. Over 5000 copies have been downloaded on Kindle. And it's one of the oldest books on the prewrath interpretation, originally published in 2003. SanJuanCat (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@SanJuanCat And now you’ve added a diagram from your website. Clearly promotional and self-published. And Amazon etc reviews are never reliable sources and the more a book is fringe the more no one reads it accept believers so the worst books often get 5 stars. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Doug, be that as it may (regarding "worst books"), I'm just interested in making information available to people who might want to see it. Regarding the diagram from my website, you told me earlier that I needed to cite a reliable source ...so I added the diagram and cited the source. I'm just trying to understand the rules of wikipedia and add some info to this page ...definitely not looking for any confrontation regarding people's beliefs. Thanks SanJuanCat (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Reviews on websites selling the book are no evidence of significance.
The article needs deleting. I can't see anything in it that merits merging with the Rapture article - nothing approaching scholarly analysis, just primary sourced/unsourced content, with nothing to indicate it is even representative of the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I was WP:BOLD and redirected the article to Rapture. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
"Prewrath Rapture" is a term given to a particular end-time interpretation that involves much more than just the rapture. It is unique from other end-time interpretations not only from its timing of the rapture but also because of a number of other material differences, including 1) it limits the Day of the Lord to a certain time period within the 2nd half of the "70th week" (of Daniel 9:27), 2) it equates the timing of the return of Christ with that of the rapture, 3) it differentiates the persecution of Antichrist with the wrath of God, 4) it interprets the seal judgments as being the persecution of Antichrist, and 5) it has the great tribulation starting in the midst of the 70th week as opposed to the beginning. To claim the prewrath rapture interpretation should be included in a general rapture article makes very little sense. Yes, it is referred to as the prewrath rapture interpretation, but it is actually a unique and comprehensive interpretation of all the events of the end times. That's great to be WP:BOLD but not at the expense of the value and virtue of the encyclopedia. SanJuanCat (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
We have strong rules here against original research and synthesis. We have not been provided any evidence that this new concept is notable in any way, even within the evangelical community. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I've got the original research issue. Regarding your other point, what makes a concept notable and what evidence is required to deem it so? SanJuanCat (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
It has to have been discussed in reliable sources, either popular (Christianity Today) or scholarly (The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society). We don't care about blogs, Facebook pages, YouTube videos, or comments on sites like Goodreads or Amazon. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

User: Doodyalley User: Burenia

These users have focused exclusively on these two issues. Their editing style is highly concerned with rephrasing criticism of these two subjects as factually incorrect (wikivoice capitalised "Professor", wikivoice "incorrectly called a vanity press", " in honour of his grandfather" instead of "for his grandfather", verbatim quoting apology letters that came about as parts of settlements to litigation, etc.). Doodyalley is otherwise only really focused on linking to the publishing house in tons of citations elsewhere and growing various lists of people in some form or another associated with the publishing house, seemingly for promotional purposes with not much encyclopaedic value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bari' bin Farangi (talk • contribs)

Did some cleanup at both Edwin Mellen Press and Herbert Richardson (publisher). Will keep an eye on these.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ve just logged-in to find this message. I think a mistake has been made, There’s no conflict of interest. I explained on the username page when I began. All I know of Mellen and other presses has come from reading their books & websites. Before joining Wikipedia I had edited before in 2002 once or twice on gardening and plant pages, forgot username and password and not been back since. Before joining I read up on wiki policies making sure I will not break any.

There’s no conflict of interest with Edwin Mellen or Buriena. I don’t know anything about this other usernames. I’m not a good writer. It takes me a long time to edit sentences. That’s why I always looked at old edits on pages for ideas & see if any good /bad bits added & removed over time. There’s only so many ways to reword things & I don’t know I must have taken words from Burena’s old edits & others & worked them into sentences, I did copy bits of sentences I liked from from other pages as well. The info on the Press is covered on the owner’s page Ricardson so if you edit one you have to edit the other. I didn’t like some of the blatantly obvious bias on these pages but nothing I’ve edited has been promotional. I don’t agree with the Press on everytying & I’m not pro or antiMellen but there needs to be some balance just like any other page. I quoted from source websites & stuck to facts as stated, that’s all I could do. tho I struggled to try & cut down bits of paragraphs to try & keep all information keep it factual & bit less wordy but didn’t know how to add notes ,I can see how useful notes are. I was trying to redo citations as well on different pages but not been able to do more since Fall. If your going to terminate my username your going to do it but I’ve followed all Wikipedia policies & explained there’s no conflict of interest with any other page I’ve edited or with any other user.


Forever Living Products

Several months ago Erondigital made some edits on the Forever Living Products page which has seen questionable edits in the past. Their edits [5], [6] seemed fine, but their user name raised some alarm bells and a search linked that to companies where COI/PAID issues were possible. I left them a warning about that. Today, they replied [7]. I think there's a pretty clear COI and I'm not convinced by their explantion that no PAID relationship exists. I'm raising this here for additional comments. There's concerns on the username that I've also raised with them. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I filed UPE evidence with paid-en-wp. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

StrawberryFrog


A series of SPAs have been editing these two articles and it stands to reason this is UPE. Past warnings to these editors hasn't resulted in better behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I did some significant cleanup. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I sent Scott Goodson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Afd. Its one giant advert. These are classic UPE's. scope_creepTalk 00:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Zach Andrews

I noticed this account editing the above page with suspicious edit summaries such as "reference same name used in all social media/web content to ensure consistent image and branding". After reverting an edit, I noticed that this account had been warned earlier today. @Discospinster: has also flagged an image uploaded by this account as a potential copyvio - that image was reintroduced to the above article three times (which happens to be a 3RR vio). Toadspike (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

User contributions show that this is likely a new SPA. Toadspike (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing suspicious regarding the edits. I am working with Zach Andrews as a member of his marketing team. I am trying to update his head shot so that it is the same photo on all branded materials while maintaining a consistent branded image online. Please advise on how I need to move forward. Tjjewell23 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Tjjewell23 as a member of his marketing team, you are required by wikipedia's terms of use to disclose your status as a paid editor and you should not edit the article directly, but can instead suggest changes on the talk page (and provide reliable, independent secondary sources when you do so). Melcous (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Anne Ammundsen and George Washington/Asgill Affair

This user came to my attention today via a close request for At Talk:George_Washington#Requested revised edit. Ammundsen has been acting tendentiously to push their fringe viewpoint on the "Asgill Affair" (an article which they basically wrote entirely) being a major facet of George Washington's biography, to the point that it should get hundreds of words in the main article as well as the 50KB article and various spinouts. This has been going on for years is clearly their main goal on Wikipedia, as judged by their own user page, User:Anne Ammundsen, which smacks of an editor here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. When confronted by the fact that this is UNDUE, she has repeatedly doubled down and refused to entertain alternate opinions. The result is trying to bludgeon the discussions, and continually trying to insert her POV into articles, including making legal threats: see Talk:Asgill Affair, and the repeated attempts to insert this information: [8][9][10] Given that this editor has a conflict of interest with the subject (and indeed, almost all their editing appears to be to issues they have a personal connection to), I think they need to be formally restricted from the topic, especially since they have the potential to distort Wikipedia's coverage of the subject through a very selective and biased lens. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Considered whether this or WP:NPOV/N was a more suitable venue, but feels like this should be where it goes because the issue is more with the contributor over multiple articles than a single locus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
When a person discovers that history has been misrecorded, and therefore misrepresented and skewed, it stands to reason that they want to do something to correct bias which has existed for 2.5 centuries. Wikipedia seemed the natural outlet. However, as time has passed, I no longer feel this way and have no problem being banned, and no problem should all my work here be deleted, especially since it is some time since I last edited. Outside of Wikipedia, my work is considered of value, and my findings have been published several times. The fact that those findings don't appeal to some editors is not my problem. Lexington Books, a prestigious American academic publisher, will be publishing my book, covering everything, and they are really excited about this. It goes without saying that I am too, so I will not allow Wikipedia to bring my sprits down. All this has helped shape my outlook, and I now know that the real world is of greater value to me. The fact that the George Washington page cannot be sullied with the truth tells me all I need to know. Anne (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
As far as Asgill Affair goes, I believe this is a case of WP:SELFCITE at worst, and to be fair to Anne, she has asked me to check the article thoroughly for compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines several times (which I keep putting off because of other demands on my time). With George Washington, I agree that the amount of material that Anne wants added is disproportionate to its coverage in sources, but she has been proposing these changes on the talk page of late rather than adding it directly to the article, which is precisely what our conflict of interest guidelines suggest. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Bringing it up multiple times over the years and hitting people with something like 18 substantial comments (and 37 edits in total) on a talk page over just five days is absolutely tendentious though. That she hasn't edited that article isn't much the point, especially when there's other COI issues (like creating articles on relatives and the self-citing.) Virtually her entire editing history is devoted to propping up a fringe POV about her great-however-many-times grandfather (citing herself, of course) and the supposed earth-shattering injustice visited upon him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Point taken about the talk page comments, but I'm still not sure a topic ban is necessary. It doesn't sound like Anne has much appetite for making further substantive contributions to these articles, but since she appears to have a book forthcoming with a major press, having her in the conversation about future improvements to the articles seems valuable on balance (particularly if she's willing to concede the argument about additions to the Washington article). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry - yes, it is three years now since I asked you to check the articles and ensure they were Wikipedia-compliant. As for self-citing, never, ever, have I done so on an article on Wikipedia. I have always asked other editors - often Cordless Larry (an Administrator) to do so for me. Had he ever been unhappy to do this, I am sure he would have said. If I have referred to my work on talk pages, then that would only have been to make a point, but frankly, it was to ensure editors on the GW talk page realised that I know what I am talking about, that prompted me to mention a forthcoming book deal. I am being attacked by an editor who does not like my "message" and the irony is that it was the Lancaster Historical Society who turned up the evidence about missing letters - not me. Their work seemed worth promulgating. It is a matter of historical fact that Washington violated a solemn treaty and condemned an innocent man to gallows. Is there anyone on earth, who happened to be related to him, who would be happy about that? It is also a historical fact that the French saved his life. I only have one concern, and that is that Washington covered up the truth, 2.5 centuries ago. A small mention of that ought, in my view, to be on his WP article. I appreciate that my first draft was too long. I voluntarily tried to shorten it, and if someone with better précis skills can do so further, that would be fine too. It is the total ban of anything negative on that page which bothers me, but as I say, I care less and less with the passing minutes and have publisher deadlines to meet, which interest me far more. Anne (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Frankly your citations are poor. Local historical journals are not good, high-quality reliable sources, and I intend to prune out the excessive reliance on primary sources and questionable additions, whether or not they were added by a proxy or not. Your biographies are massive inflated and predicated on weak sourcing. If you actually get a book published by a reliable press, that will be a far sight better than the output you have put out. That others recognize that and aren't rushing to include it in an already-stuffed biography about Washington is evidence of good judgement on their part. I'd believe you actually care less and less if you didn't respond militantly to every discussion on the subject and it wasn't your entire reason for editing Wikipedia in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to push back on the suggestion here that I've been proxy editing. Here is the sum total of my contributions to the George Washington article. I've made more edits to the Asgill Affair article, but many of them have been formatting fixes. My main role has been answering Anne's questions and adviser her on policy - stressing the need to use secondary sources wherever possible, follow WP:BRD, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, I wish I knew what you are talking about - you have never proxy edited for me - however, you (and others) have often helped me with inserting references since that is my bête noir, and, quite literally, terrifies me. You so often misunderstand me and misinterpret me, so considerably add to my stress levels as a result. Anne (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
My comments above weren't in reply to you, Anne. Cordless Larry (talk)
Cordless Larry, this is a terrible slur on the Historical Society in Lancaster. Having been there, I cannot begin to tell you how impressive it is; it is a huge and awe-inspiring organisation, on a very large site, even having its own museum. The staff are amazing, and really dedicated researchers. You have the Journal yourself, so you know the quality of their work. Anne (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
That may well all be the case but as far as I know, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, which means it's not regarded as highly by Wikipedia's policies as journals that are subject to such review. Cordless Larry (talk)
Cordless Larry, I see where you are coming from. Lexington Books feels the same way about Wikipedia, and so it has been necessary for me to remove the fulsome praise I gave to some editors in the acknowledgements section - which, as you know, I wrote before then going on to write the book! It's a dog eat dog world out there! Anne (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's certainly worth bearing in mind what Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia has to say on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Anne isn't being bullied as she claimed at WP:CR diff. Frankly, that accusation is deeply upsetting. Nor is she being attacked as mentioned in her post above, which is even more upsetting.
The issue is that she refuses to understand that Wikipedia isn't a platform to host her work and she refuses to adhere to basic policies such as consensus. Furthermore she seems to believe that there is an editor class system so if one person explains patiently she calls an "respected admin" or "long-time editor" for help, diff.
She spams with tl;dr edit requests lacking any kind of formatted sources diff, and when weight and page size explanations are made, follows with additional tl;dr edit requests, example diff. The sourcing is usually not up to standard.
Her comments are sprinkled throughout with out-of-context information (a closer who apparently told her it's okay to add one's own material directly as an external links diff) and appeals to emotion.
These are only a small selection of comments and do not make for a collaborative and collegial environment.
Anne must understand that there are reasons such as consensus, page size, weight, sourcing, etc., that must be considered when editing Wikipedia.
In the end she seems to want only an edit that includes her name, though the sourcing is not great, it's not well-written, and is undue.
She's been here long enough to have learned but she habitually leans on others to do her work and in my view abuses the privilege to edit. If she's willing to collaborate and learn, then she'd be an asset. Victoria (tk) 00:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's do a re-set Victoria. Back in May 2022 I was under the very very clear understanding (after a lengthy discussion) that a Closer had given me permission to go ahead. I was not the only editor who believed that to be the case. Another editor realised, as I did, that I really could not do this myself. That editor gave me an undertaking, on 20.5.22, that they would do this for me. Months went by - promises were renewed - and, in a conversation on 21.12.22 I was told that it would be done by "the end of the year". I am afraid my patience snapped, after 8 months of waiting. I did not have a backup editor to do this for me, so I could see no alternative but to go ahead myself, on the GW Talk Page. You know the rest. Yes, I have a mental block that it is disallowed to point out GW's failings on his page. It has also transpired that it is disallowed to give Moses Hazen the praise offered to him by all the British officers on 27.5.1782 - he was extremely unhappy about the orders he had been given by GW, and he showed remarkable compassion. I also find WP policy mysterious, and I apologise to you and other editors for not understanding what was being said. If I may repeat myself, I was acting, as I believed, on the authority of a Closer and I could not really see beyond that. It may not be comprehensible to you, or others, how nerve-wracking it is to come to a place which is inevitably going to be hostile towards my aims - as a lone-voice, with no backup support. I did not say I was being bullied - I said it felt like I was being bullied. I never wanted to repeat an earlier experience some years ago. That may have clouded my thinking too. That, coupled with my appalling IT 'skills', which always puts me in a cold-sweat every time I go anywhere near WP. Never mind, you guys have had your revenge. My work is being deleted and challenged all over the place. I really am done now and seriously have no interest in whether or not I am banned, or anything else now. It is not worth it for what it is doing to my mental health. I am happy to retire and do the things which interest me, and see no reason on earth to perpetuate my experiences here, or elsewhere on WP. It was nice, and very refreshing to come across you, though. You see, as you know, I remembered you immediately (you were the only editor to show kindness to me). Anne (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Anne, I think the best thing all round would be for you to focus on your forthcoming book for the time being. Once that's published, then we can look into how to use it as a secondary source for Wikipedia, which will hopefully make discussion about the interview redundant and also help address the over-reliance on primary archive sources that we have at present. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, we'll have so see about that! I have reached burnout and the process involved in publishing is the hardest gig I have ever encountered. I expect I will throw the towel in when the book is on the shelves! But, tell me, can other people, or Wikipedia, remove an article from my watch list? I have not been receiving notifications about posts here. The 'star' had reverted to white. Now reapplied it. Anne (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Cordless Larry in my view comments like the one you've made above might be be misconstrued as a guarantee that something will happen, i.e that Anne's book will be widely used to source the relevant suite of articles, which creates another weight issue. We should wait until the book is published, read and evaluated.
Anne your comment above about the watchlist is the type of thing that I find frustrating. It's best to learn how to use Wikipedia rather than continually asking for help. I'm considering an offer of mentorship to teach you how the site works and how we edit articles. I took a quick look at the Asgill Affair and Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. Both articles are overly long and need extensive pruning throughout. I'd undertake that challenge with you looking over my shoulder and having me explain each if needed. Along the way I'd teach how to use WP:DIFFs, how to format per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, how to evaluate sourcing per Wikipedia:No original research etc., etc. For example, the section called "Court cases" on the Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet diff is original research. In the video you explain having learned researching techniques from an ancestry site, which emphasize primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and so two degrees removed from that type of research. Beyond learning and understanding the fundamentals of using this site, learning and understanding our sourcing expectations is needed. Would you be interested in such an arrangement? Take your time to mull it over before replying - I'm just in from a medical appointment and won't be immediately back online. Victoria (tk) 19:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have written "then we can look into whether and how we can use it as a secondary source for Wikipedia" (although I find it inconceivable that a book on the Asgill Affair published by Lexington wouldn't be judged usable as a source for at least the Asgill Affair article). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that a single book shouldn't become the single source for an entire suite of articles. That's why I mentioned weight. And, regardless, the COI still exists. Victoria (tk) 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, thank you for your offer, but I never was, and never will be, cut out for Wikipedia. I have never enjoyed myself here, and my temperament is entirely wrong for this terse environment. I'm a "hugger" by nature! Why make myself more miserable than I need? I have been criticised for having some personal involvement with the articles I have created - I couldn't have created them without the personal knowledge which has gone with it - is that a chicken and egg scenario? I really don't think there is more I would even want to do, and don't want further involvement, if at all possible. However, were you prepared to sort out the AA and CA articles, I would welcome that as help. I think I can trust you to do this honestly, bearing in mind that CA comes from his own perspective, not Washington's - the article is also in British English! All I ask is that you give a good edit summary, so I can see quickly and easily what you have done (some editors have really confused me in this regard). If I seriously object, I will let you know! Nothing from me either means I am happy, or I am terribly tied up with deadlines (of which there are many). One thing though - if you want to take on this task, that is fine and dandy, but please don't place the onus on me to fix something. Messages, such as "citation needed", will be ignored by me. I am past that stage, and the only really important thing now, in my life, is seeing through my commitments to Lexington. P.S. Please don't be too hard on Cordless Larry - I think that was a personal message to me - (he tipped me over the brink, having told him I really couldn't write a book, and his persistence did the trick)! He's a bloody good Admin who would never flout the rules. I am far more often at the end of his ruler slaps, than not! Anne (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify: this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard and the proposition on the table is a topic ban. Were you interested in learning how things work, even something as simple as being able to click the history tab at the top of an article, then click the radio buttons on the left to compare diffs so as to look at edits instead of asking for detailed edit summaries, I believe you might find engaging in Wikipedia more rewarding. Sitting on the sidelines, mentioning BrEng as though one has never encountered it is rather patronizing, and then saying "If I seriously object, I will let you know!". That's not how to learn how to use the site, how to edit Wikipedia, how to become involved.
In my view there is a strong argument for stubbing down a number of the articles you've worked on; I'd hoped you might be interested in becoming engaged enough to learn our processes to understand why and when text is deleted and to help salvage what can be salvaged, based on a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies. Regardless, deadlines are deadlines and of course must be seen through. In the meantime I leave it to the other editors to reach a decision here. Often in cases like this mentorship will stave off other actions. Victoria (tk) 21:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Victoria, have you not noticed that I don't want to be involved here? Have you not noticed that WP has brought nothing but misery into my life? If I don't want to be here, then that is a sort of self-banning isn't it? You said you wanted me to stand over your shoulder, and I seriously misconstrued that as meaning you would value my insight vis a vis Asgill, and that we would sort-of do the job together, but clearly you were only talking about "instructing me". The other factor is the time difference. For the past week, I have been unable to get to bed before 2am. Perhaps someone as invested as you cannot see another point of view? Ban away if that is what you and others think I deserve. Anne (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you misunderstood. No I'm not invested. I simply thought you might like an alternative path to a topic ban that others might accept. Apologies for having bothered you. I'm unwatching this page now. Victoria (tk) 23:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Anne, you've headed into territory that makes me doubt your basic fitness for editing Wikipedia at all. You keep saying Wikipedia has brought nothing but misery and saying you're going to disengage, then you do not disengage and keep editing. You said earlier in this thread you would stop bringing up the issue on the George Washington page and you've edited it a further nine times since 23:05 yesterday. If this is causing you pain an actual block seems warranted since you are incapable of actually stopping yourself here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
By editing WP I thought creating or editing articles was the issue here? This I have not done for some time and have no future plans to do so. That was what I thought you wanted me banned from doing. Setting aside the GW Talk Page, for which I have given detailed explanations for why I went there (having been badly let down) I have had to return when serious errors have been introduced to articles - for instance, incorrectly changing Asgill's wife's name and his place of death. Am I supposed to leave errors of that nature in situ? I do not want to do the former, but would prefer to be able to address situations where errors are introduced. Some people love WP and spend their entire lives here. That's fine, but there may also be a place, as outlined by Cordless Larry, for people who know about particular subjects. I was unaware that one could be banned for not enjoying the Wikipedia experience. I must have missed a trick somewhere, but aren't you the only person wishing me to be banned? It "feels like" you have a vendetta against me and have made it your personal crusade to kick me out. Yes, it would be relief on the one hand, but then I would have to email Cordless Larry every time I saw a glaring mistake being introduced. You sound rather desperate - like a sinking man who sees no hope of being saved. Anne (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
After looking closely at the work produced, having spent some time in the past few days rewriting Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, my edits are here, I'm much less sanguine about this situation and expect an unpleasant reaction. My suspicion is that there's quite a lot of clean up to be done. The issue isn't so much that no secondary sources exist for the material, but that extensive passages of text has been quoted again and again. I'm not convinced that won't happen regardless of the type of source and it certaily shouldn't happen if self-cited. Victoria (tk) 04:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Victoriaearle All this talk of "self citing" is really jarring with me. All referencing on all articles (even ones which can be traced to work published by me in History Today and the Lancaster Journal) were authorised by Cordless Larry, who has a copy of the Journal, and all links were done by him or Dormskirk, because I am pathetic enough, (not being brought up in the computer age) to have been unable to do the referencing myself. Please also note that I am only a co-author. Martha Able was the head archivist at LancasterHistory and the work in the Journal is almost exclusively hers. The only thing of mine was a reprint of my History Today article - HT being a prestigious British monthly history magazine, which you may well not have come across before. There is so much hatred being directed at me for daring to have had work published, and for people like Cordless Larry to have substantially assisted me in getting links on to Wikipedia. The Journal has been quoted extensively, because there is so much in it which has changed the tired old story whih has been repeated ad nauseam for 2.5 centuries, but it is not the same passages over and over again. You two really cannot forgive me for having done the work I have done. You must be loving the demolition of that work which has taken place now. Anne (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
As I've tried to explain before, Anne, no editor on Wikipedia can "authorise" additions in the sense that their approval carries any more weight than other editors. Decisions about article content are determined by consensus amongst editors. I believe that I also explained that extensive quotation from primary sources (any sources, really) is discouraged. When you asked me to review the articles for compliance with Wikipedia's policies, such a review was always likely to identify some of the problems that Victoria is now highlighting. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, you have been heavily involved in what has gone up on that page. Look at all the discussions which took place over the addition of the image of Timothy Day's Tavern, and even more so over the map of its location. Can you think of one good reason for both to be deleted, when you were there from start to finish when they both went up? I am sure revenge is sweet in the American camp, but does this sort of behaviour tally with unbiased, neutral and honest? I hope you are going to understand my words, and not have one of our frequent disconnects now? My work is being deleted by Americans on every page I have ever edited. All to put Washington's visage slanting in his favour. Anne (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Discussions about article content belong on article talk pages, not on the COI noticeboard. Nothing is lost on Wikipedia - it can always be restored later if there is consensus to do so. However, as I've said before, I think it would be best for you to focus on your book for now. Also, please don't make accusations of bias based on other editors' backgrounds unless you have very strong evidence that they are acting improperly - that sort of unfounded accusation will get you blocked (and is counterproductive because it can be turned around to suggest that you're biased too). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, is there anything more biased than deleting the image of Timothy Day's Tavern and the map of its location? - both of which you yourself guided me through the process of getting them on the article? Seriously, I not only have to fight my corner on my own, as always, but you, who have guided me through the processes, on this and other issues, now turn on me. I am replying to posts above, whether they should be on this thread or not. Anne (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
You're assuming a motive without evidence. The Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet article had too many images in it, so I can see a perfectly reasonable motive for removing them. The images concerned are still in the more detailed Asgill Affair article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, the worst possible two have been selected. Totally crucial to what happened to him. What about the 11th foot soldier or Georgiana Cavendish? Both very much part of Asgill's life, but not in the way Timothy Day's Tavern was - are you blinded to that? Your approach is extraordinary.Anne (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
As I've said, this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, Anne. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, I was responding to this post "Victoria (tk) 04:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)". Anne (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Anne (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support topic ban. Posting before this closes. I started trimming Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, on Jan. 26th when it looked like this and was 6300+ words, to this version at 1786 words. Entire sections that included huge blockquotes were removed, example, example, sections that were self-cited removed, example, example. The page is still too long, still filled with primary sources, at least one Ammundsen source, and in my view needs additional culling. Talk page discussion is here. It's not sustainable to edit with disruption and the material isn't worth the level of discussion I allowed myself to engage in. The article Asgill Affair comes in at 9600+ words, most either self-cited or cited to primary sources from what I can tell. Whether it's trimmed down to the size it should be in a single big edit (the best solution), the disruption will continue in my view. Someone else will have to take on the Asgill Affair - health issues have kept me from editing actively on & off for quite some time & this has been - stressful. That's why I'm posting here now, too. There are other articles strewn about that have been trimmed back, i.e here. I believe Drdpw trimmed some of the smaller articles. Victoria (tk) 17:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Anything and everything I ever did on WP is now being attacked, and or deleted. Even my contributions to Solomon Islands articles! If this does not smack of a vendetta, I don't know what does.
Given the help Cordless Larry, Dormskirk and Nthep (amongst others) have given me over the years, I do not see that I have been self-citing. When the Journal was published, Cordless Larry was majorly supportive of work from it being included. I didn't do the referencing, because it is a technological task beyond my capabilities.
So far as my interview is concerned - the Closer, Discuss-Dubious, summarised that consensus had been reached, on that subject, and that at the very minimum - it could be included on the Asgill Affair, Charles Asgill and his father Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet pages. How can one person be a consensus against the Closer's findings, and it be wiped?
The only real evidence that George Washington tampered with the official records of the Asgill Affair has been deleted from the Charles Asgill article. Could it possibly be because the author, Judge Jones, was a Loyalist? I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral, unbiased and honest? This has not been my experience, particularly of late. Anne (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Multiple people, on multiple pages, have explained how Wikipedia uses sources (PSTS), what self-citing is (SELFCITE), and what constitutes due weight (WEIGHT). At some point it's your responsibility to figure out why this is an issue and why multiple editors have had to undertake this cleanup. Maybe the fact that no one except Cordless Larry has responded to your constant pings might clue you in to the fact that you've exhausted any goodwill available to you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia disallow new evidence being provided to this site by anyone providing new evidence, in any sphere, whether it be the humanities or science? I hope you will read my book, when it is published; it will be a revelation to you. It is being published by a reputable American publishing house, not self-published. You are so biased in favour of GW that you are blinded to the fact that, wow, it really was not his finest hour. Your violent anger directed at me is palpable. Consensus for my interview being on at least 3 pages has been established. Spiteful revenge is being directed at me, quite deliberately. How my actions on the Solomon Islands page can be construed as self-citing is beyond me. No, it is simply a deliberate wish to hurt me as much as possible. I have not created new content for a long time, and do not intend to partake anywhere on WP, once this nightmare is over. My book will be my legacy and will be correcting false and biased history. But to be blocked is overkill. Topic banning is the same thing. Where will I be permitted to edit - articles on knitting perhaps?Anne (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
"Does Wikipedia disallow new evidence being provided to this site by anyone providing new evidence, in any sphere, whether it be the humanities or science?"
Generally, YES! Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It summarizes what secondary sources (like news publications, scholarly works, etc. etc.) say. Once that new information has been covered and disseminated in those secondary sources, then it can be integrated into Wikipedia. As an example, if I found irrefutable evidence that Nelson survived Trafalgar and lived out his life as a cobbler in Leeds, it wouldn't be appropriate to add it to Nelson's Wikipedia article. If I wrote a book about the evidence, and it was published by Oxford University Press, received rave reviews from the academic community, and generated articles in The Economist and The Times, then it would certainly be appropriate to incorporate it in Nelson's article, since the article would then be summarizing the overall state of understanding of the topic. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Wow, about your illustration regarding Nelson! However, the new information I speak of WAS published here: The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019. Please see earlier commentary about how Cordless Larry was very supportive of its use (having a personal copy of the publication) and did the referencing involved. Please don't lets go over this old ground again.Anne (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
BubbaJoe123456, the reason I was pleased to see the journal article published was because I'd been telling Anne that her additions to Wikipedia was far too reliant on primary sources. As you've done here, we often tell editors who add original research to Wikipedia articles that they should instead publish that research in reputable outlets, and then we can potentially cite those secondary sources. The problem is that now Anne has done that, she's being told that the secondary sources can't be cited because this constitutes self-citation (though I note that WP:SELFCITE doesn't actually prohibit that outright). It does feel a bit like a catch-22. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
As someone following this discussion but not involved in editing these articles, I would suggest Anne appears to be genuine in intention, but has not understood what wikipedia is about, and in particular that it is a tertiary source and not the place for original research, and has taken valid critiques of her editing as personal attacks when they are not. Suggestions of other editors having a "vendetta" appear misguided at best. Anne Ammundsen you mention your editing on the Solomon Islands article: the last time you edited this was in March 2022, and a completely different editor to those involved in this discussion reverted that in April 2022 asking what the purpose of the image you added was (which I would agree is a fair question - it was in no way integrated into the article or explained). That is a simple example of how wikipedia works, not evidence of a vendetta against you personally. Using terms like "spiteful revenge", "violent anger" and a "deliberate wish to hurt" you about other editors who to me as an uninvolved editor have been quite patient in explaining how wikipedia works to you is a failure on your part to demonstrate good faith and refrain from personal attacks and is not ok here, not matter how you personally feel. It suggests you are not able to see this situation clearly and I would agree with those who have suggested you should step back from editing, particularly from Asgill related topics as you have a clear conflict of interest. If you are unwilling to do so, it may be that the suggested topic ban is the only way forward, as this continued lengthy discussion does really not seem to be getting anyone anywhere. Melcous (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
For instance - a whole (separate) thread was devoted to my interview being on 3 articles in particular. Consensus was reached, and it was applied as per closer. When one editor comes along and deletes it everywhere, contrary to consensus, that certainly feels like a vendetta. The purpose of that editor seems to be to remove anything positive from CA's article, about CA, and remove anything negative about GW there too. This has been the entire tenor of the editing done. To remove the Judge Jones quote seems absolutely scandalous to me. All evidence of GW's "tampering with the evidence" has gone. This is CA's page, for God's sake. On the other hand, I included a passage where the Patriots were denigrating Judge Jones, for balance, you understand. Listen, I have said all this. Why am I having to say it all again? I have given full details of the edits and my view of the purpose of those edits. If you choose not to read all this, then I just cannot go on and on and on saying that there was nothing "good faith" about the editing done. Anne (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Btw, has anyone, just anyone here at all, taken into account that I asked Cordless Larry, 3 years ago, to do the editing I was aware was needed. He agreed, as he states at the beginning of this discussion. OK, so he has been too busy. Rather like another editor who broke promise after promise after promise made to me. Now look where I am as a consequence. Given a prestigious academic publisher, in the USA, is so excited about publishing my work, stop and ponder that one too. Ask yourselves, who knows more about the subject of this article. Or does expertise count for nothing on WP? Anne (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Expertise in editing per policy, researching, summarizing content, and writing content counts for a lot. Subject matter not so much because, as a tertiary source, Wikipedia only reiterites what's found in secondary sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is quite clear as which sources are acceptable and which not. As for the "scandalous" removal, it's in this diff. For the record, it was trimmed out only because it was cited to an 1879 book - because here Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Age matters. If a current secondary source mentions that point, it can be reinstated, but it shouldn't be reinstated by anyone associated with the writing of the source, which is citing oneself. This has been explained again & again, and frankly blaming someone for not doing your editing in itself goes against policy. We are responsible for the edits we make and shouldn't ask others to edit for us. Victoria (tk) 17:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Not even when they volunteer? Should WP introduce an Ageist Policy, where people (some people at least) struggle with the technology involved, however simple that technology may be to others, even those of my generation? Should such people be prevented from editing from the outset? I can't do it and, if WP wants the benefit of what I happen to know, as factual, then I come with a bundle of inadequacies. There is no way I would have been able to do what needs/needed to be done, so some kind people (thought WP was a collaborative organisation) have helped me out. I doubt I am entirely alone on WP in that regard. I have said before, we all have talents, just not the same talents. How boring the world would be if we were all good at exactly the same things. I have no intention whatsoever to create more content. Once I am released from this nightmare, I have no intention of further interaction. Nevertheless, I cannot abide knitting, and don't want to be reduced to that level of input. Anne (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Vis-a-vis the conflict of interest policy, no it's not collaborative to ask others make edits which infringe on that policy. In this request to have an interview hosted on Wikipedia you write, "Naturally, I cannot create this link myself," which shows a understanding of COI, but an intent to have others circumvent it. When requesting the video be included in the George Washington in this edit you write ("It is not possible for me to upload this edit myself, since there would be a COI given I am heavily involved in this"). Nothing else is relevant to this discussion. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
What is relevant is that you have deliberately gone against another thread's conclusion, that my interview could be placed on, at the very least, 3 pages, but you decided that the other editors, who brought the closer to that conclusion, could be ridden roughshod over, so you have removed it from everywhere. I have no idea what gives you that authority, other than not liking the evidence presented. As for making the link, I can't remember who put it on first, but I did what I always do, copy and pasted it on to other pages (for which authority was given). Of course I understand the concept of COI, but it has turned into a "this woman must be banned at all costs" issue. As has already been noted, as per the rules, I have confined myself to the Talk Pages - not editing articles. I'm busy - my working day started at 4am in order to do what had to be done. I resent this constant need to keep on responding. Anne (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Anne, there is absolutely no need for you to keep responding. You have said multiple times here that you you have no intention of continuing to edit here, and then you have kept on editing (and yes, I am including talk pages, even this one, when I say "editing"). Can I gently suggest you take a deep breath, log out of your account, and simply stop looking at wikipedia for a while? It seems like that might be the best thing for you at the moment. Melcous (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
If people keep addressing me, how am I supposed to ignore what is being said, especially since nobody is listening to what I have to say, much less respond to the clear evidence that others have ridden roughshod? I would love this to draw to a close, but not by slinking away as though I am the guilty party. Anne (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Anne, people have been listening and responding. I just read this COI section, including the given links. It is clear that you are upset by others editing ('ridden roughshod'), but other people are allowed to disagree, they are allowed to make their own edits, and they are allowed to remove things. I know it is sometimes difficult to walk away and let someone else have the last word, but that is the only way that some arguments can end. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that people are allowed to override decisions made on previous threads - and unilaterally decide that those decisions can be ignored? There is no way I will stand by, meekly, and accept this kind of abuse of a system in place regarding Closures. What did I go through all that for then, for it to be totally meaningless? Anne (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I am saying. This concept is built into Wikipedia: WP:CCC. Nothing here is necessarily permanent. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Whether a topic ban or a p-block is better for this case, one or the other should be done here. Just trying to read through walls-of-obfuscation here makes it easy to see how hard it must be to deal with this on article talk pages. Why is there no COI declaration on this user's page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Struck as the subject has agreed to step away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
As an FYI all edits made to clean up Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet have been reverted [11]. Victoria (tk) 14:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Frustration, your own, is not a good reason to revert all your (150 perhaps) recent edits to the CA article. Drdpw (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Why are you one minute restoring and rewording the interview in External Links, and the next removing it again, Drdpw? Anne (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I saw that I had, and, before reading your above comment, restored it. Drdpw (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Drdpw, in my view, it's best the clean isn't unilateral. Hence the revert. Everything's still in history. Also a couple of posts above are concerning. Victoria (tk) 17:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
In case anyone has missed this post, Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC), which is hidden away far above, I would like to draw your attention to it. Anne (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
A thought provoking post. Given the way Cordless Larry describes the problem, it does appear that Anne has become trapped by poorly articulated or understood rules and procedures. Even so, the question remains however, What is the best pathway (action) to get out of the Catch-22? Drdpw (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
My own suggestion is that Anne volunteers to step away from Wikipedia for a period and to resist the temptation to comment on each individual edit to the articles about Asgill, giving a group of other interested editors the opportunity to make progress with ensuring the articles are more compliant with Wikipedia's rules. Once we have stable, revised versions of the articles, Anne can comment on the relevant talk pages and make reasonable suggestions for further edits (as per WP:COIREQ). If her book is out by then, all the better, and we can consider how to incorporate material from it at that point. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This sounds like an excellent plan. Bottom line, it sounds very appropriate to me that Anne's book could be a source for the article, but that should be a call for editors other than Anne to make. Also, the articles shouldn't be essentially summaries (and not brief ones at that) of the book. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, from the peanut gallery: I just read the Asgill Affair article (in this version before some cuts were implemented) to be utterly fascinating! The fact of random draw selecting which British officer is to be executed, and the fact of this being documented and fairly negative-about-the-great-George-Washington, are things I had never heard of. And I think it is great that Wikipedia can introduce these types of things to general readers such as myself. It is very random that I found my way to this COI noticeboard discussion (following another editors' contributions), which I read with interest. Seems like a complicated situation, and that you folks here who may be regulars at the noticeboard, and User:Anne Ammundsen, are all very well-meaning and intelligent people. Offhand to me it seems a break would be good, then I do hope the book mentioned gets published and that editors reconvene to make suitable edits. I dunno, maybe the "AA" article should be cut down somewhat, and I gather that it is going to be cut down, but the whole topic and so much of the detail is really interesting, including to the level, say, of explaining about Asgill having barely missing a boat and then getting assistance to chase it down 12 miles out to sea. Which maybe some think too detailed, but I think it's poignant and relevant and okay to include. I do think it should be said that while Wikipedia is supposedly supposed to be tertiary, that in many many areas of Wikipedia primary and very-nearly-primary materials are used, and are in fact demanded, by the editing processes as they happen to work out. Note that entirely original research is in fact allowed in Wikipedia, in the case of photographs.... I happen to sometimes take new photos of historic places and I am fully allowed to use them to state fairly-obvious-from-the-photo observations in text. Anyhow, y'all seem to be good people! Good luck with your endeavors. I won't watchlist here, am going now, ta-ta. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

In reply to Doncram - well, thank you. It is because this story is so fascinating that I have invested so much of my time, and $35,000 researching it. For the record, it is James Gordon I fell in love with. To offer to go to the gallows in place of Asgill is special. So much of his role in this story has been culled - especially "Only One Hero". I found George Washington to have been duplicitous, and that is the real problem here. People cannot handle the truth. So far as Cordless Larry's comment is concerned, I would love to get my life back, and have said many times that I want to disengage here. I will never, ever, create more content for Wikipedia. My book will be my legacy, not Wikipedia. I really couldn't care less, any more, if Wikipedia wants to be biased and inaccurate by removing so much of value from this "suite of articles" as it has been called. I will never spend my life rebuilding the articles. In 2019, when I was incredibly busy getting the Journal published, the CA article was demolished - at the most crucial time. I made the mistake of trying to fight that decision; dropped the ball and missed things when I proofread before publication. For instance, they have Asgill in the wrong regiment. They have him in the Scots Guards - so does Peter Henriques, too. A lack of understanding, mainly on the part of Americans, of the subtleties of the British army is the reason. Exactly the same thing has happened to me again. The day before yesterday, I had to work a straight 23-hours-on-the-trot to deal with my current publishing commitments.
The only thing which has brought me back here is when I see the truth being demolished. But the way I have been treated leaves me not caring. There are some here whose hatred of me is seriously palpable, and that is their driving force for wanting me to be banned, and as one suggested - totally blocked from WP. I will give an undertaking to "step away", but most want to see my hands tied so that I only have articles of no interest to me whatsoever permitted. I gave knitting as an example. If some respect could be afforded to me, and my undertaking accepted, then it can be over. To Drdpw, if you have "seen the light", well thank you to you too.
Finally, should my advice be worth listening to, both articles should be returned to how they were - made Wikipedia-compliant - trimmed down in size considerably - but all facts retained. Even the "Swindler Asgill" - for which there is a whole chapter in the book. Quite something to be the victim of a scam artist on your deathbed. There will then be no need whatsoever to change anything when the book is published. You read it here first! Anne (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
You don't seem to be taking on board that while you fill this page with walls of text about how hard you have to work to Right Great Wrongs, and how incredibly busy you are, and want to get your life back, the rest of us are volunteers working to conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines across many articles. If you could be more brief, and gain some perspective, perhaps some mutual respect would come in to play.
What does "give an undertaking to 'step away'" mean? Are you definitely agreeing to step away or not? Whether I strike my Topic ban declaration depends on your answer. And how long it is. And whether you can do it without emotive language like hatred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I have had my say. I have said I will "step away". I have said I will never create more content. Why do I have to repeat this? I have explained what I personally think needs to be done to the "suite of articles" - by someone else. End of. Anne (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Struck my T-ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I support Cordless Larry's suggestion which is this: My own suggestion is that Anne volunteers to step away from Wikipedia for a period and to resist the temptation to comment on each individual edit to the articles about Asgill, giving a group of other interested editors the opportunity to make progress with ensuring the articles are more compliant with Wikipedia's rules. Once we have stable, revised versions of the articles, Anne can comment on the relevant talk pages and make reasonable suggestions for further edits (as per WP:COIREQ). If her book is out by then, all the better, and we can consider how to incorporate material from it at that point. The post is here. Anne do you commit to all of these conditions? Step away, resist commenting on individual edits, and in time perhaps make reasonable suggestion per COIREQ? Victoria (tk) 14:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
It sounds horribly like a wedding service, to say "I do", but in return I would ask that the final paragraph of my post at "Anne (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)" is taken into consideration. Anne (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This is progress (a response that fits in to two lines). I hope this works out for all concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
here This post?. Victoria (tk) 14:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Hang on, Victoriaearle, the link you have given does not include my final paragraph. I will assume good faith, for the time being. Anne (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The link has to be retrieved from history and that was the one for 7:40. A subsequent post was then added at 10:33 with another paragraph tacked on, which I hadn't realized. So you will step away per Cordless Larry's suggestion, but wish this request (that the articles be returned as they were) be taken into consideration? Victoria (tk) 20:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Doing that would rather negate the point of my suggested course of action, and returning them to how they were contradicts the aim of trimming them down. Anne, I suggest that you step away, turn off e-mail notifications and leave others to work on the articles (which might involve adding material that's been removed back in). You can then see what you think of them after a few months, when that work's been done and we have stable versions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, if Anne is not stepping away, or is putting unreasonable conditions, I stay at needs a p-block or topic ban. Victoria asked a good faith clarifying question; Anne responds with the wholly unnecessary "I will assume good faith, for the time being", rather than just answering the query. So five posts later, we are still going in circles. This needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that the link did not give the final paragraph, there was absolutely no way I could know whether it was deliberate, or not. I gave the benefit of the doubt. I have been misquoted. The articles have been decimated, with huge swathes of the story eliminated (making them non-neutral and inaccurate), so I suggested, should my advice be worth listening to, then they should be: "made Wikipedia-compliant - trimmed down in size considerably - but all facts retained." It is the latter point I hope will be addressed. Could editors please note that an unknown number of readers may well have agreed with Doncram's viewpoint. I would never have had the outside help I have, had not all those I sought help from not found the story so fascinating. I hope we can leave it there, and I will not have to either repeat myself, or explain myself, again. Anne (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Re there was absolutely no way I could know whether it was deliberate, or not; yes there is. WP:AGF is Wikipedia guideline. If this continues, I'm escalating this to WP:ANI. Enough; there is nothing fascinating about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
It would help if you did not alter the facts, since you have accused me of not responding to the 2nd person to ask me to repeat my undertaking, you being one of them. My third undertaking was given here: Anne (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Anne (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The advice given—that the various articles be returned to as they were prior to the recent season of trimming / cutting-back—is an unreasonable request. The belief held by one editor that their work in several articles has been decimated is not a valid reason to summarily revert hundreds of good faith edits made with the goal of improving the variolus articles. Also unreasonable is the expectation that, after all previous content is restored, all facts will be retained when future trimming is undertaken. This contradicts the aim of trimming, which, in part, is to remove facts deemed trivial or tangential and details deemed fascinating but not noteworthy. Drdpw (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Phillips Academy

IP is registered to Phillips Academy. However, these IPs (which are the same) are engaged in an edit war in which they want to blank the section "The Phillips Academy Poll" and replace it with a redlink to "The Alex Shieh Center for Gender Studies" for the sake of "relevance". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a bunch more IPs in the 198.140.203.x range editing the article. SVTCobra 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This seems to just be a case of some kids making a joke about their classmate—albeit with the unusual twist that their classmate has significant RS coverage while still in high school. I would handle as routine vandalism, p-block the /24 if necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There has been a long-running edit war on the Phillips Academy article around the Phillips Academy Poll content. It is likely to continue until COI issues are addressed.

The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phillips Academy Poll was to merge it to Phillips Academy. That lasted about 6 months, until NCD2004, who has an undeclared conflict of interest, figured no one was watching. It may also be useful to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pallster/Archive. Round and rounder (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I re-redirected the poll to the school, per the AFD. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi DMacks, I undid your edit your edit to The Phillips Academy Poll, as the org has received significant, independent media coverage since the merge. As mentioned above, there has been a lot of vandalism recently on the Phillips Academy/The Phillips Academy Poll wiki pages, including the edit war mentioned by @Aaron Liu (see: Talk:Phillips Academy#Alex Shieh Center Controversy), where a Phillips Academy-based IP was blanking the Phillips Academy Poll section of the article and adding unsourced material about the Alex Shieh Center. I noticed that @Round and rounder’s account was created yesterday (possibly to evade the semi-protection), and has been engaging in similar behavior by trying to delete Phillips Academy Poll related content, as Alex Shieh has been verified to be one of the poll's founders and leaders. All of @Round and rounder's contributions pertain to this one specific topic, suggesting it is a single-purpose account. Nicholas D. (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@NCD2004 Hi, Nicholas. I have never edited either article and I have no conflict of interest with either subject. You and TheLonelyPather, on the other hand, have not declared your conflicts of interest. Would you care to do that now? Round and rounder (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rounder and rounder,
I have declared a COI on my user page, using the {{UserboxCOI}} template. I think my issue is addressed. TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@TheLonelyPather Thank you. I appreciate your honesty and I hope NCD2004 will do the same. Round and rounder (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi. No, the proper course of action, as per normal processes is for the article to be created in AfC after such a recent AfD, and go through the AfC process. Especially in light of the COI issue. Onel5969 TT me 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Hi Onel5969,
    I do not intend to create any articles related to the Phillips Academy Poll at this point. Thanks for mentioning this for other folks who may want to create such article. TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks: It might be worth considering a range block of Phillips Academy IPs (User:198.140.203.0/24). It doesn't look like there are any productive edits coming out of that range. Round and rounder (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's too early for that. You can't block an entire school just because some of its students are doing disruptive stuff. And there are clearly useful contribs from this range. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to second the opinion of Aaron Liu. It seems that the faculty of Phillips Academy uses Wikipedia to teach and host activities. Please see this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Phillips Academy 2021. TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@TheLonelyPather If such an event ever happens again, I'm sure that the block could be lifted temporarily. Round and rounder (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Not only that, we can't just block an entire school just because some students decided that polling is unrelated. There are a lot more people in a school. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Ousley and Andrea Baccarelli

Both were created by a UPE. Need an independent review so they comply with BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:347:8000:f0f0:e807:a54:2f68:b87f (talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alessandro Monterosso

Clear indications of UPE/COI, refuses to comply with the procedures as outlined in WP:COI or WP:UPE. Even admits its COI, without complying with procedure.Onel5969 TT me 13:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Blablubbs has blocked them after finding CU evidence that they had another account (Harttyny). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here's some more, per CU:
It seems very clear that none of these were their first account, but CU can't really tell what was. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Powerfultample is one of the stronger candidates for a potential previous master, but I'm very far from certain. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_195&oldid=1149802231"