Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 205

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 200 ← Archive 203 Archive 204 Archive 205 Archive 206 Archive 207 → Archive 209

Gerald Fox

Syed Sadique Hussain is a promotional and dishonest editor (with qustionable English skills [1] that creates articles with flowery prose).

Syed Sadique Hussain declares they were paid for four of the above User:Syed Sadique Hussain but it's unlikely that's all.

See the quote (identified at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameh Al Tawil) "body of work is distinguished by its thought-provoking exploration of themes, notably freedom, religious identity, artistic identity, and human rights," not supported by sourcing.

See [2] "creating a page by following the Notability guidelines of Wikipedia. i have written the Information with keeping neutral point of view in my mind and following the Wikipedia: notability organisation and companies' guidelines. apart from that i have added categories list and short description and other important things." (which was deleted as G11).

For dishonesty see Gerhard Richter (The South Bank Show) at [3]. Sources were checked and of those i could read all but the one primary source did not even mention the film. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Together we can: South Africa’s Youth against AIDS where someone else saw the exact same issues "almost all of the sources do not even mention the film."

Other promotional/refbombed articles created include Sameh Al Tawil (afd), NeeRain, Savage Humans (afd), Ryan Tseko (belatedly declared paid despite earlier knowing the requirement), Jeffrey Ampratwum (declared paid).

duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment Even if Hussain declared correctly that they were a paid editor, it is unacceptable to post such highly promotional content on Wikipedia that clearly breaks the terms of use. He warned by me just now and was by warned by @BoyTheKingCanDance: clearly and multiple times on 14 May 2023, yet carried on abusing the rules. He should be really indef blocked. The editor is a time waster and completly disruptive. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    Hello Scope creep, On what basis should i be blocked ? I have followed the guidelines of Wikipedia strictly and as a matter of fact, i haven't even worked on any of the Wikipedia pages of Gerald fox's page more than 9 months!
    This is big accusations against me! i have been following the rules after getting the warning from the administrators from a very long time!
    I have also declared the articles in which i was paid and i have added only those words which i thought is written in neutral point of view, i haven't done any kind of disrupting editing or did any vandalism ...so, on what basis am i getting banned for ? Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
No you didn't. You would have went back and fixed if you were in earnest. I do intend to review the rest of your articles over the next week or so. scope_creepTalk 13:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, if you want me to fix those articles...definitely i will do it right away! and i thought those article where fine since it was reviewed by editors so how am i going to know whether it was correct or not ?. and anyone on Wikipedia can do the edit so, i thought someone else has fixed it Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Duffbeerforme Hi, with regards to Gerhard Richter (The South Bank Show) - Wikipedia , you can procced with nominating it for deletion if you want, just for your information i created this page about 10 months ago and as i said earlier i was a rookie in Wikipedia who didn't understand the guidelines, terms and conditions of Wikipedia correctly at that point of time, and i didn't know the law on how the Wikipedia guidelines worked and which sources where reliable you can check the edit history to verify my records of edits.
With regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Savage+Humans this page was written from my perspective in a Wikipedia language best to my knowledge but i respect the decision for its deletion since now i understand why it was deleted but at that point of time i thought it has a very common name that is the reason why i was just justifying my point that when it was nominated for deletion that the news articles are not visible in search engine due it's name and nothing more than that .. there was no intention to getting the vote in favour and also those who voted where senior editors who have years of experience so, they also understand it quite well. i hope you get my point Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Mr Duffbeerforme,
I am 100% sure that you are giving just one-sided examples of pages i have created and that too more than 9 months ago! particularly with regards to Gerald fox's Wikipedia pages where i made mistake since i was new in Wikipedia at that point of time!
but what about other pages that i have created are you not going to give examples for that???
Khuda bakhsh
Anees Fatima
Ela Area Public Library
Tarikh e Khandan e Timuriyah
Taking examples of selected articles that was created by me more than 9 months ago(gerald foxs wikipedia page) that too when i was a rookie and at learning phase of Wikipedia is not a right way of judging me. i am not a dishonest editor.

Please note with regards to sameh al tawil's page i was just defending my point of view and i thought his page could have been created but i was wrong since, he doesn't have significant amount of coverage that is the reason why i backed out.

i have contributed good amount of articles by following the correct guidelines of Wikipedia whether it is by following the general notability guidelines or COI or any law of Wikipedia Have i made mistake at past ? Yes i did , and i regret that alot !..that's the reason why i dont want to make mistake now Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough dude. I still intend to review your articles as I'm article reviewer. It is common to go back and fix articles that are considered broken, promotional, out of date, missing references, bad grammer, spelling, wrong kind of structure, section needing renamed, adding new stuff that has been found, people coming in and making suggestions, all that kind of stuff. You should have done that. Leaving a mess like that in mainspace isn't cool. Folk won't put up with it. scope_creepTalk 13:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I really apologize for the inconvenience, i will not repeat the same mistake again !
Having said that please find the attached Wikipedia articles that i have tried to fix it also as you said i have removed IMDB references out of these articles, also would be glad if anyone can help me fix these articles,
  1. Janine Jansen: Falling for Stradivari - Wikipedia
  2. Gerhard Richter (The South Bank Show) - Wikipedia
  3. Johnny and the Dead (TV series) - Wikipedia
  4. Thomas Ades: Music for the 21st Century - Wikipedia
  5. Opening Shot (TV series) - Wikipedia
  6. Leaving Home, Coming Home: A Portrait of Robert Frank - Wikipedia
  7. The Fundamental Gilbert and George - Wikipedia
  8. Force of Nature Natalia - Wikipedia
Please note - After learning the guidelines, terms and conditions of Wikipedia, i have created good amount of quality articles and edited more than 100+ Wikipedia pages so, it is very difficult to navigate across all the articles and to update all so, that's the thing and at the same time, i am also a working professional as well so, need my fellow Wikipedia colleagues help as well!
Also for your information with regards to creation of my articles it was reviewed by senior administrators. and some of my page where reviewed twice! also to not get COI i even created some of the article through AFC, as i don't want to flag any wrong work. so, the articles that you have seen are those ones which i created a very long time ago and i do admit i did a mistake while not creating those with correct format but i will try to fix it with regards to updating it with new links. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support block. Editor is wasting our time. My experience at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameh Al Tawil is that they ref bomb articles, forcing other editors to wade through 40 supposed sources, some of which do not even mention the supposed subject, misleadingly cite those sources by attributing promotional text to them which does not remotely exist, and then respond with walls of meaningless text, further wasting multiple other editors' time. When I requested they stop responding to me and tagging me in their responses [4], they, just continued to respond to me and tagged me.[5]. It required half a dozen editors over 10 days to cleanup just this one mess this editor made. I see from duffbeerforme above that this editor is still, four months after I had to deal with them, refbombing sources that don't even mention a topic, and this has been ongoing long before I discovered the issues. I am appalled and disgusted to now learn that this is a paid editor, making money for wasting our time and forcing us to spend hours of unpaid labor when we could be doing literally anything else here to build this encyclopedia. They are clearly here for promotion and to get paid. Let's please block them so they can no loner waste our time. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    let me clarify one thing - the refbombing you are mentioning is from the articles that where created more than a 10 months ago ok? and that too for 3 articles as compared to the 12 articles i have created please note about that and i don't have any involvement in those articles that @Duffbeerforme is referring to from the last 9 months but now upon the request from my fellow editors ..i am clearing the problem which are present in those articles.
    the 2nd thing it is my job to add references to prove the notability of the work with regards to Sameh al Tawil or any article.. A person who creates an wikipedia articles knows about that - the references where added with regards to his art and video installation exhibition! not him personally, and that's the only mistake i did that is not able to prove the artist significant coverage about himself with with regards to other significant news coverage. i have already explain you before and i am explaining you again. that's the only mistake happened from myside. Also just to clarify this editor @Elspea756 has only created a single page in main space! that too a stub one so, you have no right to judge me I also work very hard to create articles, and btw you were only involved in only one of my article for deletion project that is the sameh al tawil project which was an level C category detailed page that took me alot of effort to make. so, it was my instinct to defend that page and to justify my points.
    Also just to clarify i just replied you personally back once... the other replies where for other editors check this it was not to you personally [62] after which you message not to reply to you for which i wrote a message and that's it.
    also just to clarify i also backed out once the administrator told me to [63]
    Also, Majority of the page i have created are unpaid and i created those pages for passion some of the examples i have already given above in the chats. and i will also addi some more here in the chat , my domain of research and study is writing biography of famous people who deserve to be recognised.
    1. Syed Ali Imam - Wikipedia
    2. Shayesta Bedar - Wikipedia
    3. Syed Hasan Imam - Wikipedia
    4. Adele De Berri - Wikipedia
    Apologise for writing this paragraph this long but, i am quite shock with response i am getting from my fellow editors Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Duffbeerforme and @Scope creep please find the attach reference message i made to @User:BoyTheKingCanDance - [64] after knowing from him that IMDB is not a reliable source in Wikipedia ...it is an evidence to prove that that i truly didn't know much about the Wikipedia guidelines at that time that is around 14th may 2023 when i was creating the Wikipedia articles of Gerald fox.. it was a small mistake from myside, from which i will be fixing all the pages i did from now on Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I just went through Janine Jansen: Falling for Stradivari and found that you used Apple and AllMusic[6] to erroneously reference the claim that it was broadcast on Medici.tv. Neither supported this. You also used two references to claim a rave review by The Times [7] neither mentioned The Times or the quote you included. You also had a quote from Camilla Long that doesn't appear to exist and wasn't supported by the completely unrelated source you gave. [8] You also gave a two false quotes from the Guardian review. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for pointing this out, I recently did the edit on that Wikipedia page on the request from my fellow editor although not in detail you can find it here [55] Also, the errors you are referring to it was done by me more than 8 -9 months ago! so, i didn't created this page precisely...as i was new in Wikipedia at that time and didn't have the experience for detecting the errors... i thought that someone might has fixed it as it was reviewed by some editors as i got a notification , but anyways thanks for correcting my mistake! Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
There was a time when I was new as well but I didn't make up quotes and use fake references in articles. I feel like you are evading responsibility by pointing out that it was 9 months ago. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
With regards to The Guardian quote - i quoted exactly what was told by Peter with respect to the primary source and here is the evidence for that [56] both the quotes where true here is the 2nd quote evidence from peter - [57] ..With regards to the Times, yes the review does exist - i quoted that from the primary source as wellt [56] ..which was given by Richard Morrison of the times not only that there was a interview conducted by Richard that was publish in the article of the times - [58] to give some more evidence from the times here is the some more proof - [59] if you are not able to open the link you can check the official twitter handle of the production company that made this documentary. that is Asterisk Films [60] you can find the proof review there as well, so whatever quote i have made those are not false , but i think they lack evidence and all of them are true Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The article from The Guardian you used is here and it has none of the quotes you ascribe to it. Using the trailer for the film itself is not a reliable source. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, i do know that the trailer is not a reliable source, if you see Gerald fox's website you may find the quote my only intention was to prove that the quote existed [56] and for the secondary source the 2nd quote evidence from peter - [57] .. as said earlier only to prove that i am not writing any falsified work from myside. although i do admit that i made mistakes and i would humbly like to apologize for that Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I first encountered this editor seeing them comment in an unrelated AfD, and thereafter finding the Ryan Tseko article. Then after checking the page history there I found that this is the IP who "caught" the editor. Manoj Sharma (voice actor) and Adele De Berri are two articles that probably deserve extra scrutiny, because even assuming the editor is correct that they weren't paid on those two articles, where there's smoke there's fire; the editor has created 31 articles and the IP only tagged four, so there must be a reason. As for the editor, I'm on the fence about calling for a block, but we're definitely in WP:ROPE territory by now. Left guide (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    Hello @Left guide yes, on the basis of that only i disclosed my payment term for Ryan tseko and for some other pages, i wasn't caught editing on paid undisclose .. i didn't know that i have to disclose the payment term, here is also the reply to the same person - [61] who let me know about it,
    With regards to Manoj Sharma page it was created through AFC creation [62] that i thought would be the best way possible to create this article that is getting it reviewed from multiple other editors
    With regards to Adele de Barri's wikipedia page i picked this topic up from Wikipedia request for article. she was the inventor of silver screen and in some Wikipedia page i found that someone gave the credit for the invention of silver screen to other inventor, which was not true so, i created a page for her so,that people know about her and her legacy and work is preserved.
    With regards to Ryan tseko page i indeed did a mistake, i didn't know that these news articles which i used for references where paid and publish in Nigeria and Ryan was based in America , i got to know after i made this article from other editors but it was already too late ...i thought that since the guardian, the sun is a reliable source an article about this person can be created but i didn't checked the source location where it was publish correctly.

wikipedia has a alot of guidelines, terms and conditions so, in the initial stage alot of mistakes did happen from myside, but i always try to improve myself so, that i can limit and minimize my mistakes and when i am not confident about some article whether it should be created or not ..i go through AFC creation that's the thing i found the best and efficient way of making good articles and not doing wrong editing Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Still a current problem: This can't be dismissed as a "9 months ago" problem. For example, the article Adarsh Iyengar was created by this editor on Dec. 9 (two months ago) and last edited by them on Jan. 4 (one month ago). The second sentence says the subject won the "Proud Indian Award presented by the Smruti Sadhana Foundation at the City Central Library," and is sourced to three links [9] [10] [11]. As far as I can see, not a single one of these three sources contains the words "Proud Indian," "Smruti," "Sadhana," or "Library." The next sentence says the subject was "born on 13 September in Shimoga, Karnataka," attributed to two sources [12] and [13]. The words "September," "Shimoga" and "Karnataka" don't seem to appear anywhere in these links. That is five citations in a row in just two sentences where none of these supposed sources say anything close to what is attributed to them. This looks like either gross incompetence where this editor does not understand proper sourcing well enough to be creating or editing articles, or this is a conflict of interest editor who, as duffbeerforme puts it, is "a promotional and dishonest editor." Elspea756 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    Are you serious? you want me to even prove that where this person was even born ...seriously dude?, here is the link from the primary and secondary source - [60] [61] the problem is you are checking every words and pointing out. instead you could have just put those links and get it sorted and you are telling that there is no mentioning in the 5 citations about where he was born ?... dude his date and where he was born is mentioned in the 1st citation posted in his Wikipedia page itself [61] and that too secondary source and this article was created through AFC process. and on the basis of that you are telling that i am promotional and dishonest editor where is the logic in that ? .. do you have a problem with me ? because i see you have a COI against me. i created this whole article from scratch get it through AFC creation and there was a small misplacement of references and you are concluding that i am a dishonest and promotional editor ? seriously ? btw Shimoga is a city located in Karnataka, you want me to prove that as well ? Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Dear colleagues, i can see that i had made some mistakes in my existing articles, so, from next time if i want to create any new articles..i will go through the Article for creation method (AFC) so, that it only get approval if it passes the guidelines and after minimize the mistakes as much as possible. by that i will also be safe and the articles i will create will not have much mistakes when it enters the main space. having said that, i would like to apologize to my fellow editors for any mistakes i have done with regards to my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I checked that "Camilla Long" quote. I found it on here: "https://archive.ph/WheBQ". You need to be careful your doing a proper lookup. scope_creepTalk 08:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Syed Sadique Hussain has the Camilla Long quote sourced to this which doesn't mention her at all. Nor did any of the earlier sources in that paragraph. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Yip. Yes. The first time around I couldn't find it anywhere from the available refs. I thought I'd made a mistake and left it. It took real effort. I suspect the editor is mixing sources in a kind of compositive sentence, which may be accurate in terms of where it comes from, i.e. from the source, but by time they write it, its composite, multiple stuff mixing and its not necessarily sourced correctly, by the time they finish. I've seen it a few times in the past, not for ages though. I don't think it's malicous but it could be WP:CIR by definition.scope_creepTalk 15:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)

Resolved
 – Agreement has been made to remove the unsourced content and only add the new content once it has a reliable source in the correct format. Shadow311 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User keeps adding unsourced information to the article and has been warned multiple times. User has claimed that another church denomination was vandalizing the page and they are fixing the vandalism.. Shadow311 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

i’m literally posting the sources in the change.
https://www.mormonstories.org/truth-claims/the-books/the-book-of-mormon/book-of-mormon-witnesses/
U.S. postal records from two cities along the mail route confirm that a letter was in fact mailed to Strang from Nauvoo.
Lucy Smith (Joseph’s mother) wrote a letter on May 11, 1846 upholding James Strang as a prophet, while Emma Smith testified that Joseph held a council of trusted advisors before penning a letter to Strang. WarBishop (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Read WP:CS Shadow311 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User disclosed a COI with this edit. This editor states they are a senior member of the clergy. While I do not know how their Church is organized this statement probably means they are fairly high up in the Church and not just a regular member. --VVikingTalkEdits 16:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

While I am clergy, there is no conflict of interest, as I am only seeking to remove unsupported opinion statements WarBishop (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but then you pretty much automatically have a conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
that isn’t what the policy states. I suspect this page is being gatekept by the rival LDS church members. You deny you are a member of the LDS Church. WarBishop (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
That's literally what the policy says, in the first sentence: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." As for "rival LDS church members", I don't even know what that means. BTW yes I deny being a member of the LDS church, or any other church for that matter, and it's none of your business anyway to speculate this way, violating WP:AGF. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
i’ve contributed nothing about myself, my family, my friends, my clients, my employers, or my financial relationships WarBishop (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Without really looking at the COI, I think that this should not be used as a source. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

But what was the source for the “critics” with no citation? WarBishop (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Just because the previous information does not provide a source, does not mean you should do the same. Shadow311 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
That isn’t what I said. I removed opinion statements without an RS. http://www.centerplace.org/history/ch/v3ch02.htm Has no authority WarBishop (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes however, you were also replacing said statements with even more unsourced information. Shadow311 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, let’s remove the unsourced opinions statements, and I will learn how to properly cite WarBishop (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Jeri Westerson

Other than a handful of minor edits (changing B.C. to B.C.E.) Mystwriter has only edited Westerson's article or added Westerson to other articles[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

It has been going on for years and ever after having a COI notice on their talk page with a followup warning they still continue to edit Jeri Westerson without disclosing the obvious COI. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

OneTaste

User has made repeated attempts to insert URLs promoting a business web page and its events page (also on the talk page), after (back in September) "reviving" the Wikpedia article of a defunct business written in the past tense, now claiming it still exists on a different website. Although they claim not to be affiliated, they for some reason feel the need for legal threats? See [22]. Skyerise (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

{{uw-legal}} issued. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Skyerise, are you or are you not affiliated with the Onetaste organization of one of their off shoots? Your behavior and reticence to answer that question seems to mirror behavior of their various members that I've encountered in the past. Rectitudo (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh, that and the constant referring to yourself as "we". It's really vain and irritating. Rectitudo (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the user is also engaging in attempted outing. It seems they may have an emotional involvement with the subject. Perhaps a topic ban would be in order? Skyerise (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

George Mason University

Despite all efforts, editor(s) from George Mason University – to which the IP is registered – are still editing the article directly rather than proposing edits at Talk:George Mason University under Template:Edit COI.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

A requested edit on the talk page was responded to with: "According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself...". It's hardly surprising that the IP then did exactly that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Z

Rachel Z Hakim admits to being the article subject but claims that since she "has a masters in music" she should be able to edit her own article and that men shouldn't be allowed to edit it.[23] None of which follows any known Wikipedia policy so I am bringing it here. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

ThaddeusSholto is harrassing me. He could simply research the things I wish to add and support me- bit instead seeks to humiliate me.

I said that a man who wishes to diminish a woman should not be allowed to edit.

please have wiki use a female write to add important details to the page. Rachel Z Hakim (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rachel Z Hakim In regards to He could simply research the things I wish to add and support me: When you're presenting material to be added to any article (but especially one where you have a conflict of interest), you should also be presenting independent reliable sources to support the edit. You shouldn't be relying on other editors to do that work for you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Dear Fred C. Thank you - you are all respected writers. I understand you want the journalism to be accurate. I assumed that I was in control of my own information. Rachel Z Hakim (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Rachel Z Hakim you are in control of whatever you want on your own personal website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- it reports on what has been credibly recorded in journalistic and credible sources. You should be able to see how otherwise anyway could claim to the be the person that an article is about and control the narrative without any scrutiny or proof. If you want to add information to any article, whether its about yourself or someone else, it should always be verfiable from third-party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, free SEO or any other kind of promotion for anyone. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect.
I added well know documented facted my friend.
the FACT that Omar Hakim is a jazz, rock, pop, funk, and electronic drummer.
Look at his wiki page…
I added that I have a new single out whoch is a cover of the Foo Fighters song These Days.
these are facts
Honestly- i really need to understand what documents you would like to see. Rachel Z Hakim (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

, firstly, you need to WP:AGF. Clicking through to another wikipedia page to verify what you've added to your own page isn't acceptable. Wikipedia is not a source for other wikipedia pages. Those references/sources that state the information you added about your husband need to appear on every page that information is contained on. It's great that you've released a cover today - but again what's the encyclopaedic value and what's the source that a new song has been released? Read WP:V and WP:RS which explains the answers to all of your questions. If you can't appreciate this then you shouldn't be editing any pages let alone your own. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok! I’ll try to provide the proper documentation. I have a full album coming out on Dot Time Records March 29th so I’ll have my publicist Lydia Liebman properly submit a proper requst to update. or I’ll check in on the update page. This is a bit complicated bit I understand the need for accurate wiki!
fyi
These Days
https://open.spotify.com/album/61X6UhkBRRwCHDz156ZDbc?si=wi8pWDKKR1G1tJxp2ABFlg
Regarding Omar Hakim here is a link. The article neglects to add the rock category…but does state alot of credits like Weather Report, Miles, David Bowie, Dire Straights,Foo Fighters and Sting are all rock bands - so that is evidence that therefore Omar is a rock drummer as well.
https://www.moderndrummer.com/drummers/omar-hakim/
with respect
rachel z Rachel Z Hakim (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"I said that a man who wishes to diminish a woman should not be allowed to edit.". No you did not. What you wrote was "Men should not be writing or correcting women regarding our work as in fact-". You followed up that false claim on this page with "please have wiki use a female write to add important details to the page". This is not how Wikipedia works and we do not quiz editors about their gender before they are allowed to edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Added user's previous account, User:Sickoflies22 (last active 2020), for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

hirewikipediawriters.com is a paid editing agency which claims to be able to create, release, and translate sources. I'd try to dig up more info but I'm not too eager to go down that rabbit hole ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We track this companies at Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies. These websites are run of the mill, there are hundreds of them. Unless there's a connection to specific editors, there is not much point in reporting these domains to this noticeboard. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness‎ and DIKW pyramid‎

小弓 has edited these two articles, multiple times, with edit summaries that explicitly reveal their clear conflict of interest e.g., "Dear Reviewer: I am a doctoral student of Professor Duan. At his request, I would like to add the concept of DIKWP proposed by Professor Duan to Wikipedia. Could you please approve it. Thank you very much!" Their edits have been reverted several times by different editors and warnings have been left on their User Talk page to no avail. ElKevbo (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They continue to make these edits with no attempt at discussion or communication with other editors outside of their edit summaries. I think that a block may be necessary to prevent further disruption and get them to begin communicating with us. ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ankush Kumar (Ansh)

User who's entire editing history is to promote his movie. Despite his draft being speedily deleted several times, they are still remaking it without any improvement at all. Clearly not here. ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What user, what article, did you inform the editor? There is standard format for reporting. Are we to guess the article the editor is working on. Why are you not using it. scope_creepTalk 13:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Meant to add that but forgot ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Flux55: Good work :) scope_creepTalk 13:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Neva blyad and Tox (protocol)

A few days ago, another editor correctly removed a bunch of content from Tox (protocol) which was cited only to self published sources, blogs, github pages and the like. That included a list of mostly nonnotable software clients which implement the protocol, and a couple of lines about the author of one of those clients. A person who's Wikipedia username matches the username of that author's github account (a github account which was cited as a source) has been edit warring to keep this information. Their response to user talk warnings has been more edit warring, with personal attacks in the edit summaries. They have not used the article talk page. We could use some more eyes and action on this. MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The text you are trying to delete is based on various Web sources, not GitLab/GitHub only, but many news, software blogs, official Tox resources, etc.
WTF, you'd deleted the almost all the article. These paragraphs are full of links to official Web sites, not only git. This article is the only one in the Web source containing FULL list of GUI/console Tox clients.
This article is the only one source on the Internet where anybody may see almost all the Tox clients formatted as list. It is very useful information which needed for anyone who has interest to Tox. Please, do not delete it! Do not put your dirty hands on it! Neva blyad (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Based on this response and other edits they have made recently after having been warned about personal attacks, I have given a 31-hr NPA block. No prejudice against continued analysis and subsequent blocking based on COI (which they do seem to have and have not denied), EW (which they have definitely been doing), or content concerns (which I have not looked at). DMacks (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yoncehc

User who has created several drafts, nearly all speedily deleted due to promotion. They seem extremely keen to promote their book in the site. ''Flux55'' (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I created a draft this morning and it was deleted before I could even add in the factual logic & reason to support it.
Metaphysics isn't a product it is a branch of philosophy that deals with questions about the nature of reality, such as the nature of existence, causality, time, space, and the relationship between mind and matter. This work is exactly that. All I have provided is logic, reason, & universal truths which have been uncovered through years of hard work. Where in this article am I selling anything - what would I even be advertising? I do not have a book - so that is factually incorrect - the intent here is to leverage Wikipedia as my publisher to give this information to the world for free rather than write a book. If anyone is able to disprove anything that I have written then I'll stop defending my stance on sharing these universal truths.
Yoncehc (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Yoncehc Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own ideas, full stop. Your intention to "leverage Wikipedia as my publisher" goes entirely against the purpose of this project. Start your own website if that is what you want to do. But doing so here is in breach of both the conflict of interest guidelines and the No original research policy. Please just stop. Melcous (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay - I will not share my work with wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Yoncehc (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
  • avoid editing or creating --> This isn't about me it is about a valid theory of everything.
  • propose changes --> If anything that has been written can be proved as factually incorrect then I am open to changes.
  • disclose --> I have no conflict of interest in selling or advertising anything. I do not have a book. In fact I decided to use wikipedia because it is one of the only ways I could provide this valuable factual non-bias information to the public for free.
  • avoid linking --> I don't link to anything. The beauty of metaphysics is that in metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things. thus I do not need link to anything the logic of the relationships of these particulars creating universal truths stands on it's own.
  • do your best --> I have done my very best to but am being bogged down with false claims and assumptions.
Yoncehc (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Yoncehc When you say "In fact I decided to use wikipedia because it is one of the only ways I could provide this valuable factual non-bias information to the public for free.", I beg to differ. There are many ways to do that, over which you would have full control (unlike here). You could, for example, go and build yourself a free website or a free blog; you could create any number of social media accounts, or you could stand on a street corner and shout it out to the world. All those options are open to you. But what you cannot do is use Wikipedia as a publishing route for your ideas until they have been written about and reported upon, in depth, by reliable mainstream media. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree - thanks for the help nick 96.228.37.198 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Joyce Borenstein

The usual--multiple COI notices have been ignored without any response or engagement. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Made a report to WP:UAA. Possibly dodgy editor handle. Asked them to use edit requests. Don't think there is any doubt. scope_creepTalk 13:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, and thanks to Melcous for cleaning up. Given the edit history and refusal to engage, it's possible this will continue, at which time a report can open at ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Is it unreasonable to request a topic ban from these biographies? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Revisiting my block, or at least topic ban request. More of same. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B5B5:46AC:4F0D:7F08 (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please help me!

Hello, I have absolutely nothing to do with the EGOV.PRESS project. As a resident of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I wanted to write on the English-language Wikipedia about a site that allows freedom of speech in our country. Most likely, because of my patriotic goals, you thought that I was related to the project. I would be grateful if you remove COI. Please be understanding. Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zzremin: What "COI" would you like to have removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential paid editor

This user clearly has a conflict-of-interest and judjing by their username and the absence of any sources in the draft they put in their userpage, they may be paid to edit. When I notified them about the problems with paid editing, they didn't respond.''Flux55'' (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flux55: He was blocked indefinitely 2.43 hours ago as an advertising only account. In the preferences there is setting that puts a line through an editor who had been blocked, and provided a tooltip telling you when he was blocked. I suggest you turn it on and it will help you identify blocked editors. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Thought it was days, its hours. Good work :) scope_creepTalk 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly where in Preferences is this tool? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC).
Under Gadgets->Appearance (Strike out usernames that have been blocked). scope_creepTalk 08:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC).

NYT editorial assistant

According to this difference's edit summary they claim to be the subject's "editorial assistant at the NYT" and they collaboratively edit "to more accurately reflect her life and work". MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 22:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

WHOIS comes back to "The New York Times Company". Graywalls (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The IP has only ever made two edits, one of which was declaring their COI.
At the top of this page is "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." You posted here eight minutes after posting a CoI notice template to the IP's talk page. Did they edit during those eight minutes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ryan_Tricks

magicmantv is Ryan Tricks himself. There has been no attempt to edit any other articles. This article violates the wikipedia COI as it's a self promotion article 86.182.79.230 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Here he refers to himself as magic man [24] 86.182.79.230 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Convert ref to link. scope_creepTalk 09:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
At the top of this page is "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue...". Where was this done? Your link does not prove that the user is the same person as the subject, as anyone can create an account using that name. In any case, user has not edited since 2019. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Mark Batterson

Editor evidently works for the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing section blanking in the contribs, but what makes you suspect paid editing over some other conflict? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The chosen username happens to be the same as Batterson's executive assistant at the National Community Church.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be true, as a quick Google search will confirm. If the editor isn’t an employee or paid editor, he/she does have a clear COI. Go4thProsper (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib

The article was created by Backlashblues1976, about himself, as he admits here. He is also the creator and main author of the article about his movie, Game Over (2013 film), and is likely the IP that created the page about his other movie, White Paper (film). Owen× ☎ 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Left the standard offer. Plain as a day really. See how it goes scope_creepTalk 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Please give me a shout if any admin action is needed. Owen× ☎ 16:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi
It is corrct. Did I do something wrong?
In another discussion, a professional editor explained to me about COI and asked me to use edit requests for future edits. Should I do something more? Backlashblues1976 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Over (2013 film). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Backlashblues1976: Follow the instructions in WP:ER and don't edit the article please. scope_creepTalk 06:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

John Albers Comment

I recently had an edit on the John Albers reverted by an IP address which appears to have only edited that article and further appears to have admitted to being John Albers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:47.39.190.24

Moops - this is all my website: senatoralbers.com
Thanks, John 47.39.190.24

Brad (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

RationalWiki moderator whitewashing LTA entries

Simon Peter Hughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is whitewashing entries on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse belonging to people who also contribute to RationalWiki. For example, I edited the entry for Mikemikev because I noticed that it mentioned the numerous sockpuppets he has created on RationalWiki. That entry is a WP:BLP, and while I have no doubt that he does create sockpuppets to unleash mayhem there, I thought it important to note that RationalWiki has a history of falsely accusing people of being sockpuppets. User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver of all people, who held A LOT of power on the site in the not-so-distant past, convinced others that I am Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis (who was also editing the site) and in turn a lot of innocent bystanders were blocked as being socks of me (including during a time when I was on a ventilator in a hospital, allegedly editing from a Comcast range in California), Mikemikev, Conservative from Conservapedia, and numerous other people (see this post by one of their own former moderators), so it's certainly justified to note that not every account accused of being Mikemikev on Rational-Wiki is in fact Mikemikev. More recently, I noticed that Andrew5 of Rational-Wiki is listed as an LTA on Wikipedia, and they were really whitewashing his involvement there, trying to act like he is no longer active there when he is, so I edited it. Simon Peter Hughes reverted my edit, and then proceeded to remove the mention of Rational-Wiki altogether when I provided a link showing that their site acknowledges that LACNB threats are rarely followed through. Part of me is in agreement that what LTAs do on other sites is irrelevant, but it could be useful in analyzing behavioral patterns. In case someone notes I am involved with Conservapedia, I am barely even active there, which is why the site owner wouldn't recognize me as a "Senior Admin" several years ago despite having access to almost the entire toolset including CheckUser; I'm more of a tech geek there. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

See note at top of this page: This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. As far as I can see, nothing in the above relates to the WP:COI guideline, or even to article content at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
It also looks like a collection of petty potshots from at least your side, so I'd suggest that this doesn't belong on any noticeboard, and that you drop it and leave well enough alone. Filling out LTA pages is largely pointless anyway, other than for scoring said potshots. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
It's funny because the user filing this case has a conflict of interest against RationalWiki, given that they are banned from that website and are effectively a LTA there with dozens if not hundreds of banned socks. Pay them no heed. 50.29.218.72 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User:TindDIrving at North Highland Way (again)

Following Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 200#User:TindDIrving at North Highland Way, we have further additions of unsourced, apparently COI commentary and external links. Time for a block? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe www.northhighlandway.com has a conflict of interest. I started the NHW Project not them. TindDIrving (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that they've been editing the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
TindDIrving's response to the copyright explanation on their talk page (after they added copy/paste from their cited source to the article) was:"The copy right is mine.. Source materials have been sent." I think that clearly indicates they have a conflict-of-interest with the article topic, and need to comply with WP:COIEDIT. I suggest a page-block from North Highland Way. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Writing whatever you want featured on Wikipedia off-Wiki, uploading to your website, then releasing the contents as Creative Commons is not such a clever attempt to circumvent WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Your original contents do not become "reliably" published in Wikipedia idea of WP:RS simply by uploading it online for public view. This happens from time to time. In one example which I'm not going to name as the effort to track down the diffs is excessive: the editor wrote about his extended family and their business activity using papers and documents within his family and generally unusable sources like FindaGrave and FamilySearch. He released a section of his family ancenstry research website as Creative Commons and copy and pasted that section into Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
After a Teahouse conversation, TinaDIring says they're quitting their attempts to edit wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Skyler Cassity

User has not responded to a COI notice. These are drafts, so it's no big deal yet. But they're written by a new WP:SPA account, whose sole intent thus far has been to promote the Cassity family. The drafts are fairly dreadful, with lots of promotional fluff, name dropping, external links and non notable family histories. Even some copyright violation in the Braden draft, which includes the sentences It was not uncommon for the Oklahoma media to ask Cassity about his adventures. (I could tell you my spots quote on YT) and noodling pic. Skyler may be notable, which complicates matters, but that can be remedied with the attentions of non-involved editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The CIO will be addressed for both. These are drafts that will be fully annotated..Both are notable. Please allow the drafting process with COI to be completed. Thanks for your concerns. I respect the platform and the rules. SportsGoldaSocial (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
{{edit COI|R}} as these are new biographies. Apologies for not understanding Template:Edit COI/Instructions. Thank you for the welcome. I'll take any help that I can get as I learn and contribute. I think my notations now on each page are there correctly, right?
SportsGoldaSocial (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
SportsGoldaSocial, thank you for responding. The content and tone of both drafts are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If your respect for the platform and its guidelines is genuine, then you'll refrain from continuing to write about yourself or your family on Wikipedia. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Rovos Rail

I would appreciate some more eyes and feedback here. Recently an IP editor was adding promotional, copyright-violating material to the Rovos Rail article. The IP was warned for this behavior by Broc (courtesy ping), only to promptly restore the objectionable content, after which I explicitly requested the IP to cease doing so. The IP responded by asking me on their talk page to assist them in creating an account to facilitate further promotional edits, which I refused to do. The same day as my refusal, the Liezl Maclean account was created, and quickly began editing the article in a favorably biased manner; again, some of these edits needed to be revdelled for violating copyright. Just within the last 15 minutes or so, I have twice reverted changes which altered existing content to skew it towards a commercial bent. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Jishnu Raghavan

Previously discussed at COIN here. A UPE sock farm continues to attempt article creation for Jishnu Raghavan. A new sock has appeared (account created same day as a previous was blocked). I filed a SPI report here but hoping an admin or CU can take a quick look and block per DUCK if they see fit in order to avoid further attempts at this creation. Note that user has now blanked the draft page. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

See I conclude that I'm not a SUCK. Never ever I'll not FUCK anyone's page and Goodbye to Wikipedia. This platform is such an insulting pedia. Jishnu Raghav (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Siddharth Menon (singer)

Both accounts are claiming to be the article's subject and/or the subject's team and claiming ownership of the article, despite several warnings between both accounts that there is a conflict of interest. Both accounts' sole purpose is to edit this article. NJZombie (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor Siddharthmenon2121 seems to a direct conflict of interest, by his own admission in an edit summary. I left the standard offer. The other editor I'm not sure about. I've removed all the unsourced content from the article. 70% of it was unsourced. scope_creepTalk 16:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Editor 202.191.65.246 seems to be claiming they are on the team of Siddharth Menon. So clear coi there as well. scope_creepTalk 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
An obvious third account, User:Vidhyasuja, started editing the article today and also claimed to the know the article's subject, on my talk page. NJZombie (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep:, this is concerning. I don't even know where to begin addressing it. I had already reported Siddharthmenon2121 to ARV for yet again editing the Siddharth Menon page. Seeing this message causes great concern. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I guess wait and see WP:AIV does. If nothing happens I will take the editor to WP:ANI. Soliciting is beyond belief. I've not seen it ever. Its beyond belief. It just taking the mick out of everybody here. scope_creepTalk 07:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I was looking at it from a different perspective. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@CNMall41: What perspective? scope_creepTalk 10:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Atakhanli, a sysops from Az.Wikipedia

User:Atakhanli's self-described name on their Az.Wikipedia userpage matches that of a "Marketing And Public Relations Specialist" employed by Innovative Technologies in Education. The user created the article for Innovative Technologies in Education, some kind of education company or consultancy in Azerbaijan. The user has egregiously spammed English Wikipedia with article creations for lots of clearly non-notable Azerbaijani academics, which may be related to their paid position. Thenightaway (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Thenightaway! I came here with the intention of reporting this myself.
There is currently a group of Azerbaijani COI/SPA authors translating pages from az-wiki about mostly non-notable Azerbaijani people and organizations. There are currently 48 such articles in AfD, and many more that have recently been deleted. In addition to Atakhanli, the list of authors includes:
Older accounts with a similar editing pattern include:
I'm not convinced everyone on this list is necessarily a paid editor, but the pattern certainly suggests undisclosed COI for these SPAs. As a minimum, I would suggest a temporary topic ban, or at least enjoining these editors from creating new Azerbaijani related pages until the situation is clearer. Owen× ☎ 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In addition to those already mentioned, the following editors have a track record of importing very poorly sourced (solely sourced to state communications), often poorly written and often very pro-government articles from Azerbaijani Wikipedia into English Wikipedia:
* Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Active 2007–)
* Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008–2012)
* Cekli829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2009–2019)
* Daydreamer2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2016–2019)
* Coneyislandqueentobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2022)
* Selen578 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2020)
* LadymooN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017) (blocked)
* Investigation11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2017–2021)
* Acdc88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2022)
* Jeyjey444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2019)
* Leila1717 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2019–)
* LeilaGva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2018–2020)
It's hard to conclusively tell if they are COI or sockpuppet accounts, but their editing all follows the same pattern. Thenightaway (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
You are questioning your own account by tagging so many people, are you aware of this?
Tagging so many people and making serious accusations is vandalism in itself. The remaining paid articles etc. I am ready for any inspection regarding this. And I advise you to learn about Azerbaijan, because in the official article I added the institution mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Azerbaijan and the references are the website of the president of the country and the website of the ministry. itself, but you call it secondary or something, of course it's just your option to withdraw from the Negotiations.
I hope the admins will investigate the issue and make the most appropriate decision on the issue and take into consideration that you have tagged so many people and accused them of such a topic.
good luck. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Johsgun Aliyev: if you believe listing your name here amounts to vandalism, you are welcome to report it on WP:AIV. And if you'd like to bring this to the attention of additional admins, you can report it on WP:ANI. Please let me know if you need any help. Owen× ☎ 22:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much because this person is making a very big accusation. Johsgun Aliyev (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. The article of that educational institution is the first article I created on English Wikipedia. Yes, I worked in that educational center. For the reasons I mentioned in the discussion, I considered that educational institution notable. If this violates the rules, I apologize for that. I just created it because I thought it was noteworthy. I have no other interests. As I mentioned, the discussion should be deleted if it is not noteworthy. I respect the opinions of administrators. Any article can be deleted directly. I have no interest.
Other articles are completely unrelated. If you find any article not noteworthy, delete it directly. I am not interested in any case. I have also created articles for the minister, deputy minister and other persons. That doesn't mean I'm interested.
I have also created an article about medicine in Azerbaijan Wikipedia.
Sklerodermiya, Emil Qabrielyan, İrəvan Dövlət Tibb Universiteti, Emili Barringer, Tofiq Kənan, Qızılca peyvəndi, Asim Hüseyn, Şəmsəddin Əhməd
Medicine is my field of interest. There are many sources about those people in the Azerbaijani media. I can justify why those articles deserve notable. But I don't want to be misunderstood. Delete whichever you want.
Thanks. Atakhanli (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
OwenX and Thenightaway your baseless accusations in sockpuppetry or paid editing and any other accusations based on our country of origin or our interests seems to be a sign of vandalism and xenophobia. The discussion you started here is a good example for WP:APF, if not stated there yet :).--Wertuose (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
This is neither vandalism nor xenophobia. It's concerning that an admin (in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia) is so quick to make such WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Whatever is or is not wrong with the reported edits, or the report itself, none of it is vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVANDAL, and don't send people to the vandalism noticeboard for issues not related to vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment; I hope I'm not too blunt here, here goes; Wasn't there an news article in Wikipedia some (many?) years ago that stated something like the government of Azerbaijan was interested in investing in people to edit in Wikipedia? I'll try to find it (EDIT: Here it is [25]), but here's a similar one meanwhile [26], written by political scientists. If the listed users are indeed connected to the Azerbaijani government, this is extremely concerning considering the long history of history falsification/negationism/revisionism and irredentism by the both the past and present governments of Azerbaijan [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Non-notable articles like this [33] (linking the revision before I removed some POV) filled with poor quality irredentist and pro-government sources reek of such stuff. Looking at the edits of the listed users (which is probably incomplete, I've see non-listed users with extremely similar editing patterns) as, these are clearly not a traditional starting journey in Wikipedia [34]. There was a similar case like this just a few months ago (though the users were not paid as far is known) [35], which Wertuose was also involved in [36]. Let's also not forget this mess regarding the admins in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia some years ago [37], I don't think that changed much. And before I also get a cheap "you're just racist/xenophobic" card thrown at me, let me emphasize that I am talking about the government of Azerbaijan here, not it's people. If it helps, Iranian government = bad, though that's no secret. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment There are two more users I've noticed with similar editing patterns of translating articles to the English Wikipedia at an irregularly high rate.

Qızılbaş in particular shares the behavior of creating articles for non-notable Azerbaijani academics (Zarifa Budagova, Rafig Gasimov, Huseyn Hasanov (neurophysiologist), etc.) and seems to intentionally be filling "People from Yerevan" categories with as many Azeri articles as they possibly can. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, now that the cat is out of the bag, those two were among the users I was thinking about when I said when I've see non-listed users with extremely similar editing patterns. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have discovered Wikimedia participant lists for several Wikipedia events, which prove a connection between Atakhanli and several of the other accounts that have been listed.

KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OwenX With all of the evidence presented over almost two months, will any action be taken? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I really hope so, just had to clean up more stuff... HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, HistoryofIran and KhndzorUtogh, we have admins who specialize in taking action on COI cases, but I am not one of those admins. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that this discussion needs to be brought over to ANI where it will get more adequate attention. The initial, limited report concerning Atakhanli was appropriate for COIN, but now that this is a sprawling report concerning a dozen different editors with varying degrees of evidence, and particularly given that it now includes credible accusations of government involvement in relation to a CTOPS topic, I don't think that COIN is equipped to take care of it. signed, Rosguill talk 00:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Rosguill: you seem more familiar with the process than I am. Can we leave this in your capable hands? Owen× ☎ 00:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    On second thought, after reviewing the discussion more closely, I'm comfortable blocking Atakhanli and Wertuose. Atakhanli, because while their response concedes that they have worked for the institution in question, it does not adequately address the accusation that they specifically worked at the institute in question as a PR professional, which makes their claim to have simply innocently been of the opinion that the it was a notable company less than credible. While the evidence of paid editing by Wertuose is less clear, their description of the accusations as baseless is clearly false; regardless of whether one agrees that all of the listed accounts have engaged in UPE, the allegations made in the report have a clear, rational basis. To suggest otherwise, and accuse the filing editors of vandalism and xenophobia at the same time, is the definition of tendentious. Note that while Johsgun Aliyev's response here was also indignant, it does not cross over to the same level of tendentiousness, hence no block at this time. For them and the rest of the listed accounts, editors are encouraged to raise this at ANI, where more editors will be available to investigate diffs and contribution histories. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you, Rosguill! I knew I could trust you to handle this better than I could. Owen× ☎ 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    OwenX, HistoryofIran, Thenightaway, I've also opened a discussion at metawiki notifying the broader community of the actions regarding Atakhanli and Wertuose, as Atakhanli in particular is clearly in violation of wikimedia-wide policy that should impact their ability to remain an admin on az.wiki. signed, Rosguill talk 13:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Absurd claims and surprise decision. If there is an allegation against a user, there must be significiant evidence to prove that the allegation is true. Is the evidence that proves the allegation to be true and serves as the reason for blocking of the user the fact that the user admitted to working at the mentioned institution but did not disclose working as a PR professional? The allegation already stated that the person worked as a PR professional, and the user has not denied it.

Atakhanli admitted that he worked at that institute. And he said that although he worked in that institution, he created the article because he thought that institution is notable. As a piece of information, let me say this: The mentioned institute is one of the biggest institutes of Azerbaijan. 25,000 graduates a year, can you imagine? It is also a private organization that is not a public institution. The chair of UNESCO operates in this institution. He said that he had no other interest here and he did not know that this violated the rules. And most importantly, he apologized for it. He also said that if the organization does not meet the conditions of Wikipedia, it should be deleted. That is it, he did not denie working at that institution. Is there anything unusual here?

And when it comes to claim, such allegations can be reported for any user. If you look at a user from any country, you will see that they have created specific articles about their country or expanded on existing articles. What could be more normal than that? Azerbaijan is a small country. Anything can be associated with anything. But this is just a claim. The Azerbaijani Wikipedia community is also a small community. You have blamed the whole community. Every claim need a strong evidence.--Sura Shukurlu (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

The user received a COI warning for creating "draft:Gohar Vardanyan". In response, they stated that they are not receiving any form of compensation for their edits related to this page, either directly or indirectly. When asked if they have had any professional or personal contact with Gohar Vardanyan, they replied, "I have, via comments on her performances on YouTube..." However, they uploaded File:Gohar Vardanyan 1250x1939.jpg and File:Gohar Vardanyan performing at age 8.jpg today, claiming it was "provided by the subject with the purpose of CC-licensed publication on Wikimedia Commons." So, if they do not have a conflict of interest, why were they asked to upload this file? GSS 💬 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not asked to upload this file: that is flatly incorrect. I found both photos online, but they did not have clear CC licensing, or attribution. I wanted to upload them to Wikimedia Commons with proper CC licensing and attribution, if possible. So I asked Vardanyan about them via social media PM, and she confirmed that they were her own photos, one taken by her ex-husband (who does not wish to be separately attributed) and the other taken by her father (who I have attributed). Therefore I say that she "supplied" them to me on Wikimedia, since supplying CC licensing and attribution is much more important than simply grabbing the photo from a website, which was trivial. Sammyjava (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The source on the images reads "provided by the subject with the purpose...". Could you kindly share the link to the original source? I've been unable to locate it online. GSS 💬 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Sure thing. And that's my mistake for saying that the subject provided the photo; I had licensing and attribution in mind. Here's the photo I found of her performing as an 8-year old:
https://voyagehouston.com/interview/meet-gohar-vardanyan-houston-classical-guitar-festival-competition-houston
(scroll to the bottom). I did crop that photo, which I think is acceptable under the CC licensing. (Otherwise I can replace it with the un-cropped version.) No significant content change happened with the crop, just a better format without the back of the guy in the background. She provided the CC licensing and attribution via social media PM.
And here's the other one used in the artist Infobox that I found:
https://www.goharvardanyan.com/gallery?pgid=k8i0ik3j-e602f197-dd56-445f-b697-953012e21315
True, it resides on her public website (perhaps other places as well), but I found it on my own and I was provided the licensing and attribution as the owner via social media PM.
I really tried to do things the right way with those two images that I found for the article! Sammyjava (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
And not to pound this into the ground too much, but the high-res version of that photo is provided with the "Download High-Rez Photos" link to a Dropbox on this page: https://www.goharvardanyan.com/gallery which I downloaded. Sammyjava (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

George Devol

Bangthedash101 has identified themself as the grandson of George Devol. They've been editing the biography based on primary sources such as patents. They've also been adding mentions of Devol to other articles, again using patents to claim credit for inventions - and doing some edit warring to maintain these additions. In at least the two articles listed above, this conflicts with a plain reading of the secondary sources that are already cited. I opened a discussion about this at User_talk:Bangthedash101#Managing a conflict of interest, but they do not see any problem with their use of patent sources and would like additional input. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Dharampal Singh

I've worked on the two articles I named above. They've created 23 articles and 8 of them have been deleted. Of the 23 created, four of them are on people containing the name "Singh". Please look into the edit pattern. This appears to be an abandoned account from a farm of professional editing accounts Graywalls (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Are you aware that every Sikh male uses the name Singh? That's like saying someone has a COI because one-sixth of their articles are about someone called "Mr." You have made no attempt to discuss this on the user's talk page (and the user has not edited since July 2023). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Review a COI article?

Hello folks, I need your help. I'm a long term Wikipedia editor, 18 years, wrote over 100 nontrivial articles, as listed here, uploaded over 4000 free licensed images for other people's articles, as listed here. Out of those 100+ articles, four are conflict of interest articles, as detailed here. The first three, written by me as drafts in 2016 and 2018, went fine, reviewed by uninvolved people (including an author of the WP:COI guideline, and an Arbitrator and Wikipedian of the Year!), pushed live, not touched by me since. This last one, Kessel Run, I wrote last year (and clearly forgot how to do it in the meantime!). I also got it reviewed and pushed live by an uninvolved person, but User:Legoktm tagged it with COI and POV tags. When I asked what the issues were, so I could deal with them, he said that the specific issues weren't what mattered: I had a COI, so it had a POV, and needed the tags because it still needed review by an uninvolved person. But he says he won't do it himself, I need to find someone else. That was in October 2023. I've been looking for that someone else since. I asked several admins, and a relevant WikiProject without result. So I have landed here.

So:

It appears that this is a tagging dispute, and tagging disputes are essentially stupid. I occasionally see a tagging dispute at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and I will not deal with them as tagging disputes, but only as disputes over article content. The purpose of both dispute resolution and tags should be to improve the article. Either identify the non-neutral aspects of the article and edit them, or agree that the article is already neutral.
I reviewed it twice, once on 26 August 2023, when it wasn't tagged for conflict of interest and was in draft space, and again on 15 September 2023, after the issue of the conflict of interest was raised. I said that I would have accepted it if it had been tagged for COI. While employment by an agency of the United States Government is a conflict of interest, it is my opinion that it is a less significant conflict of interest than employment by either a non-governmental organization or a business corporation. Either identify the non-neutral language and reword it, or remove the tag. If this is a tagging dispute, then it is stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
User:Quetstar removed the COI/POV tags. Hopefully that's the resolution. Thank you very much Robert McClenon and Quetstar! --GRuban (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Robert and others, it's not simply about whether the article has neutral language. That is a small part. More importantly what does the article say. What doesn't it say. If I were a PR agent for a fictional doctor I could write Hannibal Lector is a Forensic psychiatrist who consulted for the FBI on serial killer investigations. No non neutral language there. I can even provide references to support it all. But that is clearly not a balanced and neutral article. So it's not simply reading the article and saying it sort of sounds neutral. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This is absolutely true and an important point in general, but that's something that has to be specifically raised, not merely tagged. Legoktm did not properly outline issues when adding the tag. If someone asks "hey what are the issues" at that point you can't just say "I mentioned a couple, I don't need to cover anything else to keep up the tag indefinitely", and Lego didn't even specify issues beyond puff language (so the question of "what doesn't it say" has not been broached.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I put them back as I thought it was bit premature to remove them, now a discussion kicked of. I read it last night but haven't reviewed. On the first look it seem kind of breathless, i.e. "breathless with excitement" but not necessarily balanced. Some obvervations: They were still using VBScript in 2016 and hand't introduced agile. Crazy in big way. Its destroyed my illusions, almost hero worthip, of miltary software and capability. I plan to review it over the weekend. scope_creepTalk 15:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @David Fuchs, maybe I'm misunderstanding where the burden of responsibility is? I feel like I pointed out enough issues to justify the COI/POV tags, but I didn't expect it was my responsibility to outline for a COI editor every single detail that I felt was inappropriate. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I took a look. I don't see anything that merits a COI or neutrality tag. But IMO it does have a bit of a subtle issue. It's written more like "The Story of Kessel Run and why it's needed" rather than a typical enclyclopedic article. Later on (after the discussion is over) I'd be happy to go through it if desired and if you ping me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Does that satisfy you? --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Legoktm: We now have multiple uninvolved experienced editors who say they don't see anything that merits a COI or neutrality tag. Is that what you were asking for? Does that satisfy you? --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Legoktm: ping. Sad, hopeless ping, crying out into the wilderness. Is your condition met? I'd really like to meet it. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@North8000, Robert McClenon, and Legoktm: and anyone else on this noticeboard: it has now been 4 months since Robert McClenon approved the draft to go to mainspace. It has been another 12 days since North8000 didn't see anything that merited a COI or a neutrality tag. (He saw a subtle issue that I would love to discuss and deal with, but presumably we should steer away from the iceberg first, and rearrange the deckchairs second?) I think Legoktm's condition of having a reviewer without a COI has been met. Legoktm has not responded despite 12 days of repeated pings. If he has some other conditions that have not been met, then I would love to know what I need to do so they can be met. I do not think that the state that the article stays with tags of shame on its page, forever, with no way to remove them, is acceptable. Can someone either say "I will remove the tags", or "I won't remove the tags yet, but I will when X, Y and Z are done"? Surely that is not too much to ask? --GRuban (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
User:GRuban - It isn't so much User:Legoktm's concern at this point as User:scope_creep's concern, because they reapplied the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
User:GRuban - You are the wrong editor to be asking about the COI tag. As long as you ask about the COI tag, you are acting like an editor who has a conflict of interest. Let neutral editors argue about whether the article is neutral or should have a COI tag or has subtle issues. There is an issue about your involvement with the article. I don't think it is much of an issue, but it is an issue. If a declared paid editor were repeatedly asking about a COI tag on "their" article, we might tell them that they were acting against their own interests by being too persistent. You have far less of a conflict of interest than a paid editor, but you have a conflict of interest, so it is unseemly to continue asking about the tag. Let the neutral editors do the arguing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I admit that I was afraid this would fall off of people's radar, and people would be willing to let the tags remain indefinitely without action. But I will trust that is not the case. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
First, some editors do think that it is all right for tags to remain on articles forever, and some tags do remain on articles forever. Second, if you continue to ask about the tag, some editors may, with some reason, think that is evidence that the tag should stay on. Third, I have asked at Village Pump what the policy or procedure should be for dispute resolution of a {{coi}} tag. I advise you to observe the discussion without participating. Fourth, by continuing to ask about the tag, you are providing a reason for some editors to think that the tag is appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Tags should never remain on an article indefinitely. Tags are there for the sole purpose of alerting readers to issues with the article content they need to be aware of (c.f. WP:NODISCLAIMERS). If specific, actionable issues cannot be articulated by the person placing the tag, and/or neutral, uninvolved editors assert that there are no (remaining) issues then the tag must be removed.
GRuban asking for independent editors to review an article to determine whether a tag is or is not still needed is absolutely not providing a reason for anybody to think the tag is appropriate. They are providing a reason for people to believe they have a COI, but as they are upfront about that this is irrelevant. We want editors with a COI to be open about their COI, we want them to communicate with editors who don't - indeed we require that they do that. However the corollary of that requirement on COI editors is that editors who are in a position to review their edits/requests must be required to communicate with the COI editors, review their edits/requests and either action them or explain why they will not be actioned. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Thryduulf. If removing a tag is appropriate, I don't see why GRuban raising the matter is a problem. Telling GRuban that now that the COI is acknowledged further participation is somehow prejudicial against the article is unnecessarily punitive and discourages COI disclosure. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The tag has been removed and I believe it should stay off unless someone provides a strong rationale for putting it back on. IMO now it's time to move on to the more subtle problem which might have fueled this. The article is worded more like "the story of Kessel Run" than an enclyclopedia article and includes somewhat "I'm impressed" type way of telling various elements of the story. It's a subtle problem which I think should be worked on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Would love to. I admit, as a writer, I'm a software engineer; I do the best I can, and welcome review to improve; I think I've gotten better over my 15 years here. But I think at least a few people think we've taken enough of their time here with this one article; if you are correct and the tag stays off, want to move this discussion to either article talk or personal talk? If you give a couple of examples there of the sort of subtle changes that you want, I'll try to write up a complete rewrite in user or draft space that follows the model you suggest throughout. Then you can take a look at it, maybe make more suggestions, and we'll iterate. When you're happy, you'll push it up. Good? --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I went through it with the intent of tweaking it but couldn't find anything glaring. I think that the issue is so low key and so pervasive that I couldn't find anything to easily change. One think that I think that the editor (but not me) can easily do is there are many places where there is a positive value-laden claim which appears to be well sourced. I'd recommend rewording those using attribution type wording. The other issue might be too pervasive but minor to fix. The entire article is structured like "The story of Kessel Run" and "The story of modern US Military software development" (including related needs and techniques) In that context it's well written and good reading but maybe less of an enclyclopedia article structure. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Herculaneum papyri

The user VitoMocella68 has recently been making edits to the article on the Herculaneum papyri. The edits emphasize the importance and primacy of the contributions made by physicist Vito Mocella, in relation to that other researchers in general and to that of Brent Seales in particular. (Example: Special:Diff/1206186206/1208399489.) According to Seales, there is a history of conflict between the two scholars. The edits were questioned on the talk page by the undersigned, but the discussion has not been leading to any resolution.

When pressed about the potential conflict of interest and the user's identity, VitoMocella68 claimed to be "someone who knows and appreciates the work of Vito Mocella" (Special:Diff/1209403659). The edits of VitoMocella68 contain technichal language related to tomography (see e.g. Special:Diff/1208397537, containing the prases "synchotron source" and "X-Ray phase contrast imaging technique") which is an area of expertise of Vito Mocella. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

User VitoMocella68 did not hide behind a nickname, as St. Nerol does and clearly says that knows Vito Mocella. VitoMocella68 user argued with factual data that the primogeniture of the use of the experimental phase contrast technique to Herculaneum is clearly that of a 2015 article in which Vito Mocella is first author (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6895). This is a fact attested by a publication in a leading scientific journal and widely reported in the media (see for instance https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6895/metrics or https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-invisible-library). In fact, some of Vito Mocella's statements made in 2015, when there was the wide media echo, were taken up and included in Uroll's section of same wikipedia page. For example, the page in Italian "Papiri di Ercolano", made by someone else supposedly a long time ago, clearly shows the correct primogeniture in the use of the technique. User St.Nerol , on the other hand, claims to quote a generic phrase such as "several group proposed and used phase contrast technique ... " in a chronologically random order and without any factual corroboration.This is not about a conflict of interest, but about restoring a clear and unambiguous truth. Does St.Nerol have any factual argument to quote, other than an interview by Seals which is clearly not factual but simply the Seals opinion? VitoMocella68 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that I have not made any contributions to the article myself; my edits have been partial or full restorations of this version. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you able to answer, I don't say in detail, but with a simple sentence, how you can justify the sentence present in the versions you restored "several group proposed and used phase contrast ... " with the chronological factual sequence reported by the user VitoMocella68? VitoMocella68 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
​ If you want to ask the user who wrote those words, that was User:Artem.G on 7 May 2023 at 12:59 UTC -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The article should summarize the published papers, and it's not a "timeline of virtual unrolling". I saw no need to chronologically mention all published papers, especially if the quotes used included buzzwords like "this pioneering research opens up new prospects". It should be condensed even more, given that all these proposed methods failed, and the first papyrus was read by three students for the Vesuvius Challenge who didn't publish anything and are only briefly mentioned in the article. Artem.G (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for discussing whether specific users have a COI and whether they should be editing the article directly or via suggestions on the article talk page. It is not for discussing content. Axad12 (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
the work of 3 students should be and is emphasized. But students works is an AI application using scans coming from some experimental technique that is sensitive to ink. Until 2015 all attempt to prove the capability to detect inks failed. This is clearly the first step to the virtual unroll. Indeed I agree that there are many things completely out of topic, as a work on En-Gedi scroll that is completely different from Herculeaneum papyrus, but St.Nerol having some conflict of interest, still put such topic. Also the section on technique is completely exaggerate and outdated but, again St.Nerol like that for some reason... Philodemous (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
As I have also replied to Philodemous on his talk page, I have no conflict of interest regarding the scrolls. I do not know anyone who works with anything that relates to them, and I did not know about their existence until I read about them in the news and on Wikipedia a few days ago. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 07:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I feel a certain discomfort in having a dialogue with people who refuse to discuss, who bring no arguments, only unfounded and unjustified personal accusations. The 2015 article is clearly a turning point, it is not an opinion, it is a fact, just look at the echo it has had. Why is that? Because up until then, ink detection had been considered impossible, and every other attempt had been abandoned for several years. The demonstration that it was possible to read instead, albeit with the difficulties then associated with unroll, was a fundamental step. And it was published in a very prestigious scientific journal. Nobody had the arguments to challenge this result, so much so that a few years later another group used the same technique, on the same synchrotron source, and independently confirmed the result Bukreeva I, et al. (2016). In science, if you want to challenge a result that is more than legitimate, you produce another scientific paper or a commentary in the same journal. Surely the Nature group would welcome any comment if it was scientifically argued. This is not the case; Some quotes a simple interview with B. Seals in which he expresses his views. This is opinion and not scientific result: in science, this interview counts for nothing. B. Seals, as a computer scientist, knows this very well, and if he has not commented, it is because he has not been able to do so. It seems to me to be exactly the same kind of dialogue that you (St. Nerol user in particular) have. You have no argument, not even to counter the evidence of chronological sequence, and then you start with personal attacks. This way of doing things is very suspicious. Philodemous (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I've added Philodemous (talk · contribs), as their edits make them come across as a possible WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:MEATPUPPET. --YodinT 23:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Yodin: That is fine, but I understand that users must be notified of this on their talk page. I added a notice at User talk:Philodemous. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 00:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
It's possible that the previous user did as asked and created a new account not using another person's name. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
True; I'd read User:Philodemous' comments as if they were saying they were new to the discussion, and not User:VitoMocella68 (e.g. at User talk:Philodemous: "i don't have any conflict of interest, I followed the discussion first, and I found that a correct reconstruction is needed"), but rereading them it's not clear, so I should assume good faith. @Philodemous: please can you confirm whether or not you are the same editor as User:VitoMocella68, or if you know them, and/or Vito Mocella? --YodinT 01:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
User Yodin, I already replied above. I started from that version because it seemed to me to be a better reconstruction, for clear reasons.Everyone minimises the work, so I made an edit and not a rewrite! Everyone has their own way of telling things, so I added some details, for example about the role of papyrologist Obbink (Dirk Obbink), which readers deserve to know and which were missing in all previous versions. Could you please at this point explain and state your connections and possible conflict of interest with the user St.Nerol as well as with B. Seals, of whom you and St. Nerol also seem to be a supporter? Philodemous (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I have no connection with Seales or St.Nerol. My edits are generally in completely different subjects, but when I found out about the Herculaneum scrolls a few years ago, I added the article to my watchlist in case there was progress in reading the scrolls. I've just made a few gnomish edits there (from 2019 on), including initially fixing User:VitoMocella68's bad formatting, before St.Nerol flagged up the COI concerns, and had a series of argumentative replies from User:VitoMocella68/User:Philodemous. --YodinT 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting that both accounts User:VitoMocella68 and User:Philodemous have now been blocked. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 16:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like another possible WP:SOCKPUPPET account has just been created: User:LeLouptPierre. --YodinT 18:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Also another brand new account User:Svartox, whose very first edit was an (admittedly minor) edit to this article. Melcous (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I'm Leonardo Scabini, I was in one of the runners-up teams. The article stated that 2 teams won runners-up, but it was actually 3, so I made the edit. Leonardo Scabini (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying and congratulations to your success! You're welcome to keep contributing to Wikipedia! —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 21:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Toyota G Transmission

12Dionne had their drafts declined numerous times and finally rejected, as they just list technical data about Toyota products with no significant coverage from reliable sources. After I informed them that AFC is voluntary, they elected to move the drafts into the encyclopedia themselves. It then became clearer that the user has said they were a Toyota Master Tech for a Toyota dealership. Four editors (including me) have said this is a COI, but 12Dionne rejects that(and edit warred to remove the COI tag from the draft). The question is, is working for a Toyota dealership installing Toyota parts a COI with regards to Toyota parts? 331dot (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@331dot mind withdrawing this? Granted, they have not helped themselves but I think the WP:AFD process will handle it and to repeat in part what I said at Talk:Toyota C Transmission, they do have a COI but I think it is COI-lite. The bigger issue is they do not understand notability and exhibit strong WP:IDHT behaviour because it has been explained to them several times by several editors, yet they forged ahead with moving the drafts to mainspace. S0091 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I would at least like to see them concede that they have a COI. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
If this was a page about the dealership 12Dionne worked for, that would be a COI. But I'm not so convinced the interaction between tech and transmission rises to a financial or legal relationship. One might well put a COI tag on Wikipedia. Nominating the unsourcable articles for deletion is the best next step. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any COI, any more than I'd have a COI editing ukulele because I teach and play ukulele. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't directly related to the purported COI issue, but on the content side, it might be worth noting that Toyota C transmission was previously deleted via AfD community consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Toyota C transmission. The new version of the article Toyota C Transmission appears to be an alternate capitalization. Left guide (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor now block for various reasons. S0091 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Milan Knežević (Montenegrin politician)

Hello, I need some help from a more experienced editor. Please see the recent article history, and discussion on Jovanadnp's talk page. I am not well versed in conflicts of interest. Jovanadnp does not seem to understand that COI is a real problem, nor interested in editing the page in Wikipedia-acceptable ways. (Additionally, on top of COI, the recent edits have substantially worsened the article. Please correct me if this issue should be posted elsewhere.) Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, Jovanadnp is now threatening police action if their edits are changed... please let me know if this escalation means I should post elsewhere for help. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I have also posted this request on the incidents board, here. I'm leaving this request up as well, in case someone wants to help with the COI issue. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The editor has been indefinitely blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible COI

User Nwachinazo1 appears to have a conflict of interest. They created "draft:Christopher Ononukwe" that was declined multiple times and uploaded File:PhotoRoom-20230708 111353.jpg as their own work from a different account (Nwachinazo2). Despite my efforts, I couldn't locate the same image online. When I asked them about it, they declined to provide an explanation, stating, "...On this note, I can't answer whatever questions you may offer here." Since they are unwilling to address this issue or adhere to the policies, I am bringing it to the attention of this forum for further discussion. GSS 💬 04:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Now, I know you are being selective in your quote of my words. I wish you could cull all words instead of few ones which you cited subtly to justify your witch-hunting mission. There is nowhere in Wikipedia policies that says a content creator should not disagree with a review and rejection, even politely. With all sense of respect, I have disagreed with rejections of my submission on the point of fact that the draft's references adequately support the subject based on the improvement I have made. I have also explained that I have no conflict of interest in the draft, and that the image is available on Google. A search on the name Christopher Ononukwe on Google is enough to say that the image is in the public domain. Yet GSS didn't do enough job but came up with a hasty accusation of CoI, after I have proved to him that I have added adequately reliable, third-party, independent, sources that significantly treat the subject. I simply told him that no amount of explanations will change his/her preconceived mindset. Wikipedia administrators should not be stereotype in views. I am of the view that GSS simply does not want beginners like me to make valuable contributions on Wikipedia, hence his block tag he placed on my user talk page. Does an accusation of conflict of interest warrant a block tag? His tag and hasty review has influenced multiple rejections of my content. On this and many more, I disagree with his hasty and unfounded accusation. Nwachinazo1 (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Once again, you have not addressed my question, which is the primary reason for this discussion. So, I'll ask it once more: Could you please explain how you obtained ownership of File:PhotoRoom-20230708 111353.jpg and where did you get this image from? GSS 💬 07:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I rejected the draft after having declined it previously, to be fair I have reverted my rejection and will leave it for another reviewer to to take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I do believe I see your point, I went through it and the editor made the same mistakes I made in their language and using the source material wordings in Verbatim rather than maintaining a neutral point of view tone, however, the subject matter warrants an article page, because for those who are Nigerians currently, the subject matter is a driving force, post the 2020 protest in our country. While I understand your rejection of said draft, communication on the problem and actual conversation and not witness box/suspect questioning approach to resolve the matter would have gone a long way. In other words, guidance rather than punitive stance would have gone a long way to correct and make sure the editor doesn't do a repeat of the highlighted flaws in their future contributions. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the author of "A fundamental to Government....", I'm sorry quick question to editors involved here if the image is not properly sourced wouldn't it just be removed. I'm sorry being that I might be banned just like this editor here, it does kind of show a routine of banning accounts who bother on topics unique to our demographic and/or domestic country. I mean I have a COI as well and I am yet to be blocked, but it seems like that's the next step to happen. I will ask this, besides editors within the community what is the voice that makes sure that bias isn't the case; sorry to say but this is the 4th Nigerian based editor that has been banned since the four (4) months I've become a Wikipedia editor. Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Tom McMakin - Conflict of interest report

A person claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator reached out claiming that he approves and publishes articles, and that for $1200, he would publish this Tom McMakin article. He reached out to the subject on LinkedIn then moved to email and sent a communication from what appears to be a spoofed address. The communication is posted below. If this is a real Wiki administrator, this behavior is unethical. If this is a fraudster, it should be reported and documented.

Mike Blas <mike.blas @ wikiadmin.org> Greetings from Mike Blas, part of the esteemed Wikipedia admin team!. I approve Wikipedia pages and publish them. Additionally, I offer a comprehensive six-month maintenance package to ensure your page remains pristine and up-to-date. I charge 1200$ for page publishing. To kickstart the process, a 50% advance is required and rest after publishing.

Here is a link of declined page: Draft:Tom_McMakin

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.51.106 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No evidence of CoI editing; more likely a scam. See WP:SCAM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
It is definitely a scam. They are not admins. This is going on with various domains that look similar to wikipedia.org but are not affiliated to the project. Avoid any communication with them and do not pay anything. MarioGom (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Wiffen (world champion swimmer)

Hello, I'd be grateful for any input to the issue of nationality and the short description here: Daniel_Wiffen

Many thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. For content disputes, after proposing changes at the article talk page, follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

National Logistics Corporation

Enough tolerated already, this is a single purpose account. 194.55.43.139 (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to follow the instruction at the top of this page, including
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
In this case, I've done this for you. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_205&oldid=1214178092"