Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
(Redirected from Wikipedia:COINB)
Latest comment: 3 minutes ago by Epicgenius in topic User:Macgirl
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    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. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • 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.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:American Council on Education
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Black Diamond Equipment
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Sujit Choudhry
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Collodion process
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Rebekah Dawson
    Talk:Louis DeJoy
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Vladislav Doronin
    Talk:Drama Juniors
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Orit Ishay
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Chris Kubecka
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Bruce M. McLaren
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Space Capital
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Traton
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Xavier University
    Talk:Panayiotis Zavos
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Laureen Oliver

    edit
    Latest comment: 13 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    Editor added unsourced statements which were not neutral in tone - Oliver's accomplishments were highly recognized across the country among all third parties - in June last year. I reverted and posted on the editor's Talk page about CoI, given the edit contents and the username. Editor edited the article again in March this year, and I asked them directly about CoI. Haven't had a response to either post. Editor has now edited the article again - diff - so bringing it here. Tacyarg (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Agreed. The material being added seems to bear a close resemblance to material [1] previously added by an SPA IP [2] back in 2015 (not the first SPA IP to have edited this article). Also concerning, the almost complete lack of sources in this article, first flagged as long ago as 2011.
    Presumably the new user will be blocked for the username violation (at least). If they return with a policy compliant username they would be better off declaring a COI on their user page and suggesting sources for the existing material on the article talk page, rather than edit warring over the inclusion of further unsourced text. Some of the claims in the article ("was fundamentally responsible for" / "is widely recognised for") are presumably relatively straightforward to source if correct. Axad12 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hmm, yes. Only one good source in article (the other is not independent). I've searched and can't find more. Wondering about tagging for notability, but will leave it to those more familiar with notability of US politicians. Tacyarg (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For those interested, AfD here [3]. Axad12 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    2024 Sri Lankan presidential election

    edit
    Latest comment: 11 days ago24 comments5 people in discussion

    This user seems to be connected to one of the minor candidates in the race, Oshala Herath. Account was created in 2009. He doesn't do much except make edits to the article to add more information about himself and put more emphasis onto his candidacy. Nevertheless, this would be a violation of WP:ADVOCACY. Not Wlwtn (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Certainly seems to be some form of COI there.
    However, with regard to the difference between (a) "seems to be connected to one of the minor candidates" and (b) "he doesn't do much except [...] add[ing] information about himself", please take note of WP:OUTING. Axad12 (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am afraid, when candidate's name is Oshala Herath and the username in question is Oshalah, I don't think it is much of an outing to be honest. Chanaka L (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's hardly unknown for individuals with a COI related to a subject to use usernames related to the subject in some way. Even when usernames exactly replicate those of a subject it may be an attempt at impersonation. Hence "seems to be connected to" was sufficient. Ultimately, whether the end user is the subject, or just someone with a close connection to the subject, is irrelevant in terms of what action will end up being taken. The issue is the effect of the edits and whether there is a plausible COI, not the exact identity of the user. Axad12 (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In regards to personal information, the most he has added is his age and past records. Not Wlwtn (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My post above was a request that you stop claiming that the editor is the subject, not a request for the personal information that the editor has posted about the subject. Axad12 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The COI user continues to edit the 2024 election page and there seems to be some back and forth editing with another editor on whether Herath's photo should be in the info box or not.
    Given that he's failed to respond to COI notes on his talk page, or to make any comment here, might some action be taken to prevent further editing?
    Not sure if this would best be achieved by blocking the account or by protecting the pages concerned. Any thoughts?
    (The election is due to take place on 21st Sept, so it's probably fair to say that the disruption will continue for some time unless it is prevented.) Axad12 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I guess taking some action would be best. Perhaps we could prevent the account from making edits to the article until September 21st. Or something else if that might be too drastic. Not Wlwtn (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've asked the user at their talk page to stop editing the pages concerned until they have responded to the conflict of interest concerns. If that doesn't do any good then it's possible this may have to end up at WP:ANI unless an administrator intervenes beforehand. Alternatively WP:RPPI is the place for page protection. Axad12 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, thanks. Not Wlwtn (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There are no minor and major candidates in a elections race, specially a presidential election. there may be rich and poor but not minor and major. the results will define that. Every candidate should have equal rights to and presence any forum. Oshala Herath equally qualified as any other candiate who is being nominated. Oshalah (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Could you please clarify the nature of any connection you may have to Oshala Herath? Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    An update: user Oshalah was blocked for username violation, then changed username to CitizenLK and declared a COI as a volunteer working for the candidate. The user's userpage [4] appears to me to be in violation of policy as it is being used to host material that had previously been deleted as "unambiguous advertising" when the article for Oshala Herath was previously deleted.
    Prior to the renaming of the account the user had mentioned on his talk page the possibility of paying somebody to write and install an article on Oshala Herath (he actually asked me to do it, but I of course declined!).
    Apparently not coincidental to this, yesterday a new SPA, user:Janakaraja appeared, immediately created a draft article for Oshala Herath [5], denied being a sockpuppet here [6] in language appearing to closely resemble ChatGPT or similar, and began directly editing the 2024 Sri Lankan presidential election article. Oshalah/CitizenLK has also continued to edit the article, despite having promised not to do so on at least one occasion, and has added a further photo of Herath to the article after uploading it to Commons as "own work".
    While user Oshalah has declared that he is a volunteer working for Oshala Herath in the 2024 election, I would note that he was using this username 15 year ago.
    Can I suggest that some form of action is taken in relation to what is clearly COI editing and plausibly also UPE.
    Copying in user:331dot who authorised the username change. Axad12 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I highly doubt that user Oshalah creating an account in 2009 with that exact username was a coincidence. Regardless, I do hope some action is taken against this user, this is starting to become quite a nuisance. Not Wlwtn (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Looking at your comments it appears that you are being nuisance. When you stated discriminating candidates saying major and minor, it was obvious you are the one being bias. I feel you have a COI towards some candidate who is thrented by Oshala entering the elections. CitizenLK (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have been editing Wikipedia for 2 years now and I can confidently say that I am not working for any of the presidential candidates. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks. Not Wlwtn (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    May be you are one of those people who work for hourly payments on places like fiverr.. That could be the reason your work is random for either to make entry or demote others
    My case I have clearly declared my COI. NOW I am very cautious about my entries which only carry information and relevant references that anyone can verify. Even the images copyright have been relased by the owner as per wikipedia norms.
    What I wrote on my page is so that anyone intrested can easily grab and verify the relevent information so they could do their own entry. First of all the person I support may be minor according to your discrimination but he is not rich like the people who may be paying to hound on him. Guidelines on Wikipedia is for a purpose that is to make sure articles are not bias in nature or advertising. So I make sure that interest is safeguarded in my entries. First find a single entry I have done which is false and then point finger.. CitizenLK (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    CitizenLK, I would suggest that you do as follows:
    Delete the promotional material from your userpage. Userpages should not be employed to host that sort of material.
    Instruct your associate Janakaraja to declare their conflict of interest on their own userpage, as you have correctly done yourself, and to stop using ChatGPT (or similar).
    Tread very carefully in terms of editing the election page (which I note is an article that you promised to stop editing on your talk page 3 days ago, but subsequently returned to editing).
    Also, stop making allegations that anyone is a paid editor.
    I don't believe that you are in a position to throw stones in relation to any COI that others may have - but throwing stones is contrary to Wikipedia policy in any case.
    The broader issue in this thread is not in relation to whether information is correct, but whether it has been added with promotional intent by individuals with a conflict of interest.
    You have already been blocked once. If you continue to refuse to abide by Wikipedia policy it would be a very simple matter for you to be blocked again. Axad12 (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @CitizenLK, Saying "you are one of those people who work for hourly payments on places like fiverr" is clearly a personal attack. Please stop making such claims immediately! You declared your COI after a several editors coerce you to reveal the truth. It is only your behaviour is questionable here. Chanaka L (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'd assume that the user's recent return to this thread is an attempt to deflect interest away from the coincidence between the facts that...
    (a) his 2009 edits under previous username Oshalah were all on the article for the Institute of Technical Studies (e.g. [7])
    and...
    (b) the Oshala Herath draft article [8] created by user Janakaraja records that Oshala Herath "worked as a consultant at the Institute of Technological Studies from 2009 to 2012". Axad12 (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Interesting indeed. There are far too many coincidences for them to just be "coincidences" at this point. Not Wlwtn (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also, with regard to the ChatGPT issue, Janakaraja's responses here [9] and here [10] on the SPI discussion both score 100% AI generated when put through https://gptzero.me. Axad12 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hello,
    User Janakaraja is not my associate. So I am not in a position to instruct him. You all have to deal with him separately. Even though I edited the Election page it is not with promotional meterial. I have done so to update the image and sort the copyright issue ONLY. No more details to be added to that page as long as the basic information is kept without being deleted. If someone falsely accuse me I will have reasonable doubt as to why, and that is not throwing stones. I have no intension to purposely violate guidelines or community standars of Wikipedia. I am new and I am learning on the go. I apologize for any inconvenience I had caused any other user. I didn't intentional make any disruptive editing. It happend I didn't knew how to do. I may still make mistakes as I am still learning. I apologize for it in advance. Thank you.. And I will edit my user page as you have suggested. CitizenLK (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The result of the sockpuppet investigation was Janakaraja blocked "for obvious undisclosed paid editing" [11]. Axad12 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    edit
    Latest comment: 7 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion
    Articles
    Editor
    Related discussion

    Rvsingh12, from their very first edits, has extensively edited articles related to the Khanna family/clan, and appears to have access to materials (especially images [12]) that indicate a relationship to members of the family.

    Rvsingh12 has indicated they are concerned with their privacy. Is there a private means that they could use to explain their relation further, if necessary?

    Regardless of the outcome here, the articles need major cleanup to meet content policies and guidelines. I've held off on looking closely and tagging them, but my impression is that at a minimum all the BLPs need trimming and removal of poor references. --Hipal (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    So, if I understand correctly from the talk page discussion, the user claims no conflict of interest and states that his independent wealth allows him to pursue interests such as... writing Wikipedia articles about many related individuals to whom he personally has no relation?
    Normally it works the other way, i.e. an individual writes articles about lots of people and this provides the individual with independent wealth.
    Are we sure we have this the right way around?
    Also, I'm not sure why someone would need to clarify their situation in great detail in private if they had no connection whatsoever to the individuals in question. And if they had no COI, why would they be so against this being referred to COIN?
    Maybe we'll get some clarity if we consider the edits themselves. I've not looked at the articles. In your opinion are they written from a neutral point of view or do they appear promotional? Axad12 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The articles are highly promotional, Navin Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) especially so. As I said, regardless of the outcome here, the articles need major cleanup. --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Are the subjects actually notable? If not, AfD would avoid the need for laborious cleanup.
    What this all resembles, of course, is a situation where there is a family historian who has created lot of articles for past and present members of his/her family. In those situations the likelihood is that the individual is either related to the family or is someone who is being paid by the family.
    Obviously it is possible that neither of those situations are applicable here, but if the articles are highly promotional then the likelihood of that being the case would appear very low indeed.
    Please proceed carefully here as we do not want there to be any WP:OUTING. Axad12 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Tagged Navin Khanna for AfD as clearly not notable. Haven't looked at the others yet. C F A 💬 03:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not across all the details of commons, but isn't uploading pictures as "own work" the same as declaring you took the photos rather than that you have somehow "acquired" the copyright? Something definitely feels fishy here. The user says I obtained these through various methods. One is public domain and archival collections. Two is estate sales and auctions. Three is amateur photography. Four is acquiring rights and developing historical ones. For one example, I'm not sure how any of these can account for this 2022 portrait uploaded as his own work, or am I missing something? Melcous (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:Mammadli99

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    The user Mammadli99 is engaged in undisclosed paid editing. It should be noted that, as a result of research conducted on azwiki, it has been revealed that this user is a puppet account of User:Memoli13, who is globally blocked due to undisclosed paid editing, and Mammadli99 is also blocked locally. All of the user Mammadli99's edits are related to articles that were previously targeted by globally blocked users engaged in undisclosed paid editing. He has worked on 3 articles:

    1. Zaur Darabzada – This article was deleted on azwiki in 2020. "MrTaghizade" applied for the restoration of this article, which was not restored. Shortly after, the article was recreated on enwiki under the name "Zaur Darabzadeh" by MrTaghizade and a second request for restoration was made on azwiki, which was also not accepted. Later, "User:Onyeddi," who would be globally blocked due to undisclosed paid editing later, applied for restoration again but it was not accepted. Recently, the article has been recreated again by Mammadli99 with another name ("Zaur Darabzada") on enwiki. The style of the article also indicates it was created for promotional purposes. The account Memoli13, also created this article on Hungarian and Ukrainian (for twice: deleted once, then recreated) Wikipedia.
    2. Mehrali Gasimov – This article was also created through paid editing in multiple languages. It was created on enwiki by User:KhosrovAO, who is one of the accounts of Elshadiman, who is globally blocked due to undisclosed paid editing, then deleted, and later recreated in other 8 language sections (3 of these were deleted) by User:Mirola9, another confirmed and blocked sockpuppet of the same globally blocked user. Recently, this article was created on enwiki by Mammadli99. And the account "Memoli13" created this article on Macedonian Wikipedia (deleted), and edited it in Hungarian, Turkish, and Ukrainian Wikipedia.
    3. Rauf (Kiglsey) – Created on enviki and later moved to draft status. This article was also created on Russian and Crimean Tatar Wikipedia, but it was deleted.
    4. And also, Mammadli99 uploaded the photo of Farhad Garashov, whose article also has been target of paid ediiting by Elsahdiman's accounts in several language sections.

    Besides these articles, the user's contributions have been limited to minor edits. All of these articles have been created through paid editing before in multiple language sections and are linked to users who have been globally blocked due to UPE. This account might be used to recreate these articles after the other users being blocked. Or it is just a account of another user who also have interests with these articles. It should be noted that the user's engagement in paid editing was previously suspected by the enwiki community, and they had been warned. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Rosguill, OwenX, could you please take a look? --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Even without thoroughly investigating the cross-wiki issues, the lack of communication in response to prior COI concerns (or for that matter, anything at all really) is enough to justify a block at this time.   Done signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Jim Gamble

    edit
    Latest comment: 14 days ago7 comments2 people in discussion

    Not entirely sure what's going on here, and could use others' eyes. IP editor has several times over the last couple of years added content to Jim Gamble which is poorly-sourced - search results, external links in the body of the article, primary sources, YouTube. Most recent edit today calls Gamble by his first name a couple of times and has removed CoI template. I asked the editor in October whether they have a COI, but didn't get an answer. Not sure whether this is someone with a CoI, or an uninvolved editor struggling to understand what sources are reliable. Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Hi Tacyarg. I've reverted the recent edit (including replacing the templates) and requested long-term page protection against editing by IP addresses (here [13]).
    Looks like there is a very large amount of self-serving promo fluff to be removed. Will you do the honours or shall I? Axad12 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've removed the majority of the 2nd half of the article. It mostly consisted of nonsense such as (a) an extended self-justificatory quote, (b) nonsense like why he thought he didn't get a job, (c) the fact that he had joined a political party, and (d) an excuse to link to imdb. Axad12 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    COI editing on this page seems to have had a long history, via various SPAs (or similar) working on the article. In more recent times COI editing in 2020 and 2022 originated from user:Hannahpaul42 who was blocked in Sept 22 for being a promo only account. Similar promo edits followed in Nov 22. From May 2023 onwards SPA/promo/COI editing has occurred via the IP address mentioned above, who has also spammed images of Jim Gamble (and wikilinks) onto the articles of various better known individuals, e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18] Axad12 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    One of the spammed images was previously added to the Jim Gamble article by the Hannahpaul42 account (here [19]), so I think we can plausibly assume block evasion. There is also off-wiki evidence suggesting some form of link between the blocked account and the subject. Axad12 (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    12 months "pending changes protection" now applied following RPPI request, diff here [20].
    That ought to resolve the issue. Axad12 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Many thanks, Axad12. That looks much better. Tacyarg (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Robert S. Tucker

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    A reporter at Crain's New York Business posted on X today that the Wikipedia page for Robert S. Tucker, the newly appointed Commissioner of the FDNY, was "significantly expanded a few years ago by an IP address affiliated with his company, T&M Resources." Photo evidence is provided in this tweet: https://x.com/nick_garber/status/1823002404289142909

    The company article probably fails GNG as well.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    IP has not edited since January 2021. The article has been heavily edited since then. A COI notice was left on the IP's talk page... yesterday. What do you expect to achieve here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Flagging it here got eyes on the article, which resulted in a lot of the recent cleanup (including mine), so worth doing. IP COI notice probably won't do any good. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Since I noted the apparent COI, about a dozen edits have been made to the page that have made it more neutral, and, most critically, a COI tag was added. (Additionally, your edits to the T&M Protection Resources page were helpful.) If I did not follow proper COI reporting protocol, please let me know how I should escalate next time. I'm always trying to improve and learn from the community. Zxm92 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, at the time you made your original post about 90% of the article text had been added by just 4 single purpose accounts devoted solely to editing that article (and perhaps also editing the article for T&M, I forget). That presumably explains why the content was as it was. Axad12 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I'll remind people that this noticeboard is for dealing with editor related issues; as the page header says: "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." Other avenues exist for requesting assistance with article cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Committee for a Workers' International (2019)

    edit
    Latest comment: 10 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    An individual is removing sourced information (information sourced to the organisation the article is about) and has asserted that he is a member of the organisation (" I am a member of the International,")][21] and said in the same edit note: "Like I said before it isn't your International and you have free to say anything you want about us but not on our personal page." His edit note for an earlier edit asserted " stop making our International look like we're an awful association"[22] Hence, a classic example of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing and WP:OWN . Wellington Bay (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    It seems the Ministry of Truth is still hard at work on this article [23]. Clearly they should have declared a COI on their user page and should only be suggesting edits on the article talk page rather than directly editing the article. Still, at least they seem to have stopped alleging that those reverting them are members of a rival Trotskyist organisation. Axad12 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Now raised at ANI by the original poster, here [24]. Axad12 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Result: User blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, COI, copyright violation and abuse of editing privileges. Article up for deletion here [25] Axad12 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:Exerciser87

    edit
    Latest comment: 6 days ago20 comments2 people in discussion

    I believe that user:Exerciser87 is Khashayar Farzam or at least has some close connection with him. The users on contributions have been to the page Khashayar Farzam or Khashayar Farzam to lists. Examples: Ontario Tech University (Special:Permalink/1216287003), Pickering High School, Ajax (Special:Permalink/1190314500), Ajax, Ontario, (Special:Permalink/1186661997) and others that you can see at Special:Contributions/Exerciser87. He also updates the article Khashayar Farzam every time a new article gets written about him resulting in each claim having a rediculous amount of citations (which I recently fixed but you can see the old version here). The article Khashayar Farzam was nominated to be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khashayar Farzam and multiple sockpuppet accounts were used to vote which could also be user:Exerciser87. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Edit: User:Marcusamour seems to be apart of this problem as well. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    If this went back to AfD, would you anticipate the result being the same? (i.e. the decision to delete, not the sockpuppetry). Axad12 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know enough about the policies for BLP and notability requirements to make any strong opinions, but based on what I have read about WP:GNG, I would think the result would be different just because there has been more coverage on Khashayar Farzam since the original AfD happened in 2017. But again, I'm not super knowledgeable on the notability guidelines or the AfD process. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I'm in the same boat but those were also my own concerns.
    It seems exceptionally likely that the account you point to is an extension of the sockpuppetry previously investigated in 2017 here [26]. If so, the user is evading a block. Axad12 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    how would one go about bringing this to the attention of those who could deal with that? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The issue you've raised here ought to be spotted by an administrator. If not, WP:BLOCKEVASION suggests that pages created by users evading a block are eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G5 - so that may perhaps be another way to handle the situation. The 7 year remove may complicate matters but it seems pretty obvious that the current activity originates either from the same individual or somebody very closely associated with them.
    I'm not sure if setting up another WP:SPI would do any good, given the 7 year remove.
    Some input from others would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for your help, do you know if there is a place I could bring this to the attention of an admin? I'm very new to this and I've never had to do this kind of thing before so I dont really know where to start. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think for the time being you are probably in the right place. This kind of small-time COI violation doesn't tend to get raised at WP:ANI. Hopefully we will get some further input from others over the next few days. Axad12 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Regarding the other issues (the evading block) would it be appropriate to bring it up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I would leave it here for a while. The situation isn't urgent. Let's see what happens. Axad12 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Sounds good! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In the meantime I have requested speedy deletion under WP:G5. Axad12 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Following on from the confirmed sockpuppetry that occurred in relation to this subject back in 2017, it seems to me that recent edits to this article (re-adding previously deleted citation overkill) by SPA user:Marcusamour are indicative of further sockpuppetry. Similarly, the previous addition of citations by another SPA, user:California767676. These users would seem to be linked to the 2023 creator of the article user:Exerciser87, who was themselves responsible for significant citation overkill.
    The subject of this article is clearly obscure, that there would be 3 completely separate SPA users all intent on citation overkill does not seem plausible.
    I wonder if someone with familiarity with the SPI process might raise this for investigation? Axad12 (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not familiar with it myself but I do think it's important to note that User:Marcusamour has admitted to having multiple accounts on their talk page. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Sockpuppet investigation here [27] Axad12 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The result of the SPI was that all of the users were blocked. I've re-nominated the article for speedy deletion (as it was created by a user evading a block). And then guess what happened? A newly created account popped up out of nowhere to contest the deletion. I wonder who could be behind this new account. Surely not the same person who created several socks to try to influence the AfD when the same article was deleted back in 2017? Axad12 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I saw the results and I'm glad that you nominated the page for deletion as I don't really know how. Hopefully this will be a cut and dry deletion. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Let's hope so. I've reported the new sock to the admin who blocked the other socks.
    (Nominating for speedy deletion is very easy. It's just a few words in double curly brackets placed at the top of the article text. That automatically brings up the relevant text on the article itself. See the relevant edit for the exact format.) Axad12 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Article now deleted. Axad12 (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Alpha Motor Corporation

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 days ago14 comments6 people in discussion

    Submitting this after being directed over here from folks at WP:RPPI. I have a suspicion that these three editors plus the IP editor are probably either sockpuppets of the same editor or are all individuals being paid by or are affiliated with the subject company Alpha Motor Corporation. The registered users sprung about around the same time between April and July of this year and the majority of their edits to the article have been promotional in tone or have inserted external links throughout the article, while using very similar edit summaries about removing outdated information as if they have some inside knowledge of the company. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I have p-blocked T.simons0623 from the Alpha Motor Corporation article as an interim step. Unfortunately my on Wiki time is too limited to do a deep dive here. Star Mississippi 15:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    WaddlesP13 is preventing edits for Alpha Motor Corporation page, the proof is that he has deleted any edits made which are factual and replacing it with his own writing and then make false accusations of sockpuppets to prevent further edits. Please monitor his actions which speak for themselves. You can also see that WaddlesP13's agenda is not only to prevent edits on Alpha Motor Corporation page but to also discredit the company and then preventing others from editing his statements which are opinions and not fact based, the statements made by WaddlesJP13 are not backed by proof. 98.185.164.204 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This (and IP edits at the article) appear to be WP:LOUTSOCKING to evade the page block. - MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The new IP address is also from Rancho Santa Margarita, and the complaint is the same as those detailed below. Any chance that you could start an SPI for the non-IP socks? Axad12 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User: WaddlesJP13

    edit

    The user repeatedly is deleting new contributions to the article Alpha Motor Corporation, essentially preventing other users to contribute to Wikipedia articles, despite providing factual citations. The user WaddlesJP13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is accusing multiple contributors for "removing outdated information as if they have some inside knowledge of the company," (quoted from the user's submission for conflict of interest) when the new edits were properly sourced with third party links for citation. The user also falsely accused other contributions for being "possible paid editing," (quoted from [edit summary]) preventing new contributions and corrections based on a personal hunch without reason. The user ignored a warning and continued to deleted other contributors' edits to largely maintain its own article entry made 2 years ago, leaving the article with out-dated and false statements without sources. The user stated on its [talk:WaddlesJP13], "I'd rather leave it as a encyclopedic albeit outdated article with a hatnote stating so until an experienced editor comes by and updates it rather than let you all effectively turn it into a billboard," showing an agenda to prevent Wikipedia from welcoming newcomers and diverse range of contributions, despite the information being factual and correctly cited.

    The user Catfurball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has never made contributions to the article in question however, has left a warning message on the talk page of a contributor targeted by the forementioned user. Which alludes that the two user accounts are personally associated or even a sockpuppet, used to support one side of the view in a conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.simons0623 (talk • contribs)

    I see absolutely no evidence or indication that either WaddlesJP13 or Catfurball have any conflict of interest with this topic. On the other hand, you, T.simons0623, are a single purpose account who is edit warring to put clear promotional content into the article. Are you associated with Alpha Motor Corporation in some fashion? - MrOllie (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I would say that the submitted users' conflict of interest is in an agenda to prevent new contributors from making edits to its last entry from 2 years ago. Though I have made contributions with fact-checked and updated sources, they have been labelled as 'promotional' without any real reason. How is information that is publicly available and sourced from third party outlets not related to the subject of the article, Alpha Motor Corporation, promotional? I am not associated with Alpha Motor Corporation, I just did extensive research to provide ample information that is dispersed around online news outlets but, missing on the wikipedia page because, it hasn't been updated for years.
    I am a new account user, that should not define a SPA. Not everybody contributes to multiple articles 24/7. I am left to assume that you also have made a decision based on the 'experience' users' previous opinion without reviewing or verifying the viability of the new content. Wikipedia is supposed to source information from various users who are providing factual information from viable sources. Not keeping a closed door to newcomers. T.simons0623 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The 'real reason' is this: They are very obviously promotional. If everyone else comes to this conclusion, you should consider the simplest explanation: That your edits actually are promotional in tone. There is no conspiracy or 'agenda' to prevent new contributors from making edits. We welcome newcomers, but not to the detriment of a neutral encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The "tone" is promotional?? Does Wikipedia's detriment of neutrality depend on subjective tones, rather than verifiable facts and sources? Help me to understand for example, would a whole section on public recognition/ awards be a no go, even if it's factual? But, sports teams list all of their wins and awards on the wikipedia page since, it's a part of the subject's history. In this case, what defines promotion and historic events? T.simons0623 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The promotional tone of those edits is not a subjective matter, it is clear to any non-conflicted user.
    T.simon0623, you say that there is no link between the recent SPAs who have been editing this article, and their edits are not promotional in intent. If so, please explain why the IP address that made this long and obviously promotional edit [28] resolves to Rancho Santa Margarita, just a stone’s throw from the company’s address in Irvine, Ca.
    Also, are we to believe that it is a matter of coincidence that large elements of that 13/8/24 IP edit duplicate large elements on your own recent edits, and earlier edits made by other SPA users Scrittura23 and GionParch?
    Evidently the conclusion to be drawn from the above is perfectly obvious, but it can be easily proven one way or the other via a sockpuppet investigation.
    Given the above, do you stand by the allegations you have made against non-conflicted users and your claims that you have no conflict of interest in relation to this company and that all of the above accounts represent separate users (who all presumably just happen to have an identical agenda)? Axad12 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For 2021 evidence of sockpuppetry, edit warring and COI editing in relation to this article see…
    SPI here [29]
    SPA blocked for sockpuppetry, where numerous unsigned talkpage comments [30] make identical allegations to those above re: editors preventing others from editing the page. [31]
    Other blocked SPA, interestingly, is user:Alphamotorcorporation.
    Further SPA edit warring user from 2021: user:WsK5132, account started editing 9 minutes after the accounts above were blocked.
    Further IP SPA [[32]], editing 2021-2023, who again made similar allegations and resolved to Irvine, Ca.
    Further IP SPA, editing 2021-2022, same allegations [33], resolves to Rancho Santa Margarita.
    What is the best way forward here, an SPI for the 2024 activity or some kind of WP:BOOMERANG sanction against user:T.simons0623? Axad12 (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, would it be possible for somebody with familiarity of the SPI process to open an SPI for the 4 accounts listed at the head of this thread, ideally linked to the 2021 SPI here [34]? Many thanks. Axad12 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Since the IP address is back at it, SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alphamotorcorporation. MrOllie (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Update: the IP address recently decided to blank the great majority of the article (and then edit warred over that version). This led to them receiving at 31 hour block. Axad12 (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User: EtobicokeSpeedDemon and Pasha Patriki

    edit
    Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Dear administrators! I would like to flag EtobicokeSpeedDemon as a potential single-purpose account. It seems that the user is solely focused on re-adding legal issues information to Pasha Patriki article. The information is negative in nature and violates the policies about adding information to articles about living persons. This information was first added by anonymous user and was removed by me, which was cited as correct removal in this Noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § User:HardTimez4000 and Pasha Patriki). On August 9, a new user EtobicokeSpeedDemon user emerged and added the same "Legal Issues" information. It is my understanding that the user has already been flagged as a potential COI or a single-purpose account, therefore in order to dissolve the appearance of single-purpose, user added some constructive information to the same article, although also the re-adding the Legal Issues section, citing a source that looks like a personal attack site rather than a credible source. On August 13, user re-added the same information yet again, using this as an explanation: "Undid vandalism and removal of relevant information. Pasha, please stop editing your page." - Seemingly referring to me as the subject of the article, which also shows a personal connection of some sort to the subject and/or the topic of what is being added.

    It is therefore my suspicion that EtobicokeSpeedDemon is related to the Legal Issues case that is being added, and is likely also the author of the attack site that is being cited. This would violate WP:COIBLP as well as several other guidelines about conflict of interest and posting information about living persons. I am also somewhat new to the community of Wikipedia editors so I welcome any feedback, but it is my understanding that at the very least Administrators should further investigate the posts by this user and consider removal of EtobicokeSpeedDemon as a single-purpose account. HardTimez4000 (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The SPA is clearly WP:NOTHERE and hopefully will be blocked.
    Page protection requested here [35]. Axad12 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've given that editor a final warning. Let me know if they add the content again; if so, I will block them. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Gordon's School

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    This user has made edits to this school article since 2017. They have recently said that they work for the school. I have asked them to follow the CoI process and not edit the article directly, but they have done so since that request; those edits are factual but unsourced. Would be grateful for some eyes on the neutrality of the article. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    It looks to me as though this user has been editing the article since 2013, and that before that various SPAs and IP addresses were pursuing a similar agenda - essentially curating the article. Over 25% of the current text was installed by conflicted SPAs.
    Some of the current user's deletions suggest that their purpose in editing the article is not neutral.
    I've responded to the user's note on the article talk page, asking them to follow the COI edit request process in future.
    I'm not convinced of the neutrality of the current article but I don't have time to look into it in detail today. Would suggest a COI template in the short term? Axad12 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Goodness, I hadn't realised it went back that far. That's dedication, of a sort. I've tagged the article and will have a more thorough look through it, though probably not until next week. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Having had the opportunity to look into this further it's surprising just how little there is online about this school.
    The more recent activity of SPA user Lottiegordons seems to be centred around padding out the Notable Students section, primarily with individuals where no sourcing exists, or where the only sourcing is non-independent (i.e. it derives from the school's own website).
    The effect (not necessarily the intention) appears to be to de-emphasise the fact that one of the notable former students currently listed in the article was a spree killer.
    The user in question has, however, previously tried to remove any mention of that former pupil, here [36].
    Similarly here [37] the same user removed properly sourced material in relation to a controversy in relation to fees and also re: some very serious criminal charges which resulted in a custodial sentence for one of the teachers.
    There seems to be a history of users (some of whom are SPAs) removing properly sourced adverse material about the school, e.g. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].
    To be honest, it seems doubtful that the current sourcing in relation the spree killer conforms with WP:RS. The info used to be (presumably) reliably sourced to The Times, apparently to an article which no longer exists. A quick Google search suggests that sources conforming with WP:RS could be easily located. Axad12 (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    2024 2.147.7.203 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    DingDongHey and livehdtv.net

    edit
    Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    The only activity of DingDongHey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been to add links to the website livehdtv.net, which provides live broadcast streams, to articles of various broadcast channels. This editing to be seems likely to me to be promotional in nature. The website for livehdtv.net looks unprofessional which makes me suspicious. I am unsure what the legality of hosting live broadcast streams like this is and I am concerned that they may be copyright infringement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I have reverted his addition of links to livehdtv.net because they look like WP:SPAM. JimRenge (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:HardTimez4000 and Pasha Patriki

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    HardTimez4000 seems to be solely interested in highlighting Pasha Patriki, the films he helped produce, and his companies PurpleDOG Post Production and Hangar 18 Media. He solely focuses on projects he's involved in, awards won, film summaries, and meandering references to famous people involved in said films. User keeps undoing edits that include relevant and properly cited information. Hardtimez4000's sole focus on Pasha Patriki is a strong indicator of a conflict of interest. EtobicokeSpeedDemon (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    (Not an admin) the site that you're using to try and add controversial information to Pasha Patriki is highly unsuitable for the claims you are making. I would urge you to read through WP:BLP in its entirety. Knitsey (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You also need to inform them of this your addition to this noticeboard. Knitsey (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Dhanendra Kumar and User:Gargtu

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    User:Gargtu has been edit-warring to add massively excessive resume content to Dhanendra Kumar despite warnings. They aren't quite an SPA on that article, but they've added a large amount of unreferenced, promotional content to the article over the years. I'm looking for suggestions on how to handle this other than just reverting the additions over and over, since the user has basically never used a talk page. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Abdullah Al Nuaimi

    edit
    Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion


    This user removed a paragraph from the article which should be noticed as a violation of COI per username and editing pattern. The username read as Dr.Abdullah al nuaimi. -Lemonaka 20:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I've given then a final warning. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User:Macgirl

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 minutes ago81 comments7 people in discussion

    The general editing pattern with huge amount of ref bombing, and how they'd do one article and articles directly related to that article. They go away for a while, come back and do major edits on a different company. The very flowery and flattering tones and great focus on architects and firms rather than on the topic of architecture despite what the user profile is strongly indicative of public relations editing. What do you all think? Graywalls (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    If this is not WP:UPE, it certainly resembles it.
    Interestingly the user has only ever cleared material from their user page twice, both times specifically removing only discussions about the apparently promotional nature of their edits.
    I understand that the user intends to reply here, so no doubt we will soon hear their version of events. Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Correction: the material that was removed from the talk page was broader than simply discussions re: promo, but the removals did include the removal of those discussions. Axad12 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't recall specifically removing items from my Talk page. Despite being on this platform for nearly 20 years now, I am by no means an expert, which should be obvious from my contribution history. Whatever was deleted was inadvertent and had no bad intentions. Can you show me where I can see what content was deleted and when? macgirl (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just go to your talk page and select "View History" (top right). Large scale removals took place on 5th May 2020 and 25th Sept 2020. Axad12 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you, this is helpful. I see these two, which were labeled as "Archived" and "moved to history", yet not deleted (unless archiving and moving to history is the same thing as deleting?):
    15:25, 5 May 2020‎ Macgirl talk contribs‎ m 2,381 bytes −41,031‎ Archived. undo Tag: Replaced
    13:36, 25 September 2020‎ Macgirl talk contribs‎ 3,805 bytes −24,136‎ moved to history undo
    It looks like I was trying to keep my Talk page clean, but it's hard to recall clearly something I did without knowing its full meaning four years ago. macgirl (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hi Graywalls. I'd like to respond to this message point by point.
    1. "The general editing pattern with huge amount of ref bombing, and how they'd do one article and articles directly related to that article."
    I don't know what "ref bombing" means. If you are referring to my practice of researching subjects thoroughly and collecting ample independent sources to prove notability, then I was under the impression that ample independent sources is the preferred approach and am confused as to why you are citing it as a negative. Please clarify what you mean by "ref bombing" in relation to my articles.
    Similarly, my understanding is that Wikipedia's goal is to expand, and so whenever I've noticed where a new article could be written, and I've had the time to write it, I have written it. I also do not see this as a negative. Please clarify why you think adding articles where I think they are needed is a problem.
    ///////
    2. "They go away for a while, come back and do major edits on a different company."
    I edit Wikipedia in my spare time and have a narrow focus of interest: design and the Dominican Republic. I contribute where I see there is a need. General architecture knowledge is well covered, in my opinion. Where I see the need is in creating pages for designers and firms doing work I consider significant for one or another reason (size, style, LGBTQ advocacy, impact on certain underrepresented neighborhoods, etc.). Once my page is created, I return if and when I have time to add more. More often than not, I simply move on to other subjects. Because I do this as a hobby in my spare time, it takes me a LONG time to create a new page from scratch. This is why there aren't more frequent contributions: Wikipedia editing is a hobby for me. One page a year is all I can contribute, and I make sure that my contributions are valuable.
    ///////
    3. "The very flowery and flattering tones and great focus on architects and firms rather than on the topic of architecture despite what the user profile is strongly indicative of public relations editing."
    Please indicate examples of the specific contributions I made that are "flowery" and "flattering" in your view. I would be glad to receive positive feedback on how to improve this aspect if indeed the tone is found by the majority here to be "flowery" and "flattering". Also, please note that every article I've created has been reviewed and approved by an Editor, except for the very last one, which was awaiting review for months.
    ///////
    More generally, though, your accusation that I am being compensated for my edits is unfounded. If you have specific criticism about the pages I've created, I would be glad to listen and implement, as I have implemented the suggestions of several other editors who have weighed in on ALL my new page edits over the years. macgirl (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Three questions:
    In what sense in raising a topic at this noticeboard a personal attack?
    Are you aware that according to WP:PA making an unsubstantiated allegation of that nature is itself a personal attack? [Edit 19/8/24: allegation subsequently removed here [44]]
    On how many occasions has your work been labelled as promotional or as reading like an advert? Axad12 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Answers below:
    1. In addition to this message, the original poster left a message on my page accusing me of being a paid contributor. Perhaps this is standard practice, but I consider it a hostile approach, as I have never been accused of such before. As I said above, I can retract this if I have misread Graywalls's intentions.
    2. No, I was not aware of that. I am referring to the combination of this noticeboard and the message that Graywalls left on my page. Combined, they seem awfully hostile and not constructive. Please let me know if I've misread intentions here.
    3. I recall a "promotional language" issue arising only once. The criticism I received was very specific, which helped me not only correct that one article but improve future ones. I am very open to making edits and improving, and have never been accused of being a paid contributor. macgirl (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    1 & 2: Those are standard messages. You should withdraw the allegation of a personal attack.
    3: I've already counted three occasions and I've hardly started looking. I'll get back to you when I have the full count. Axad12 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Could you list the three occasions? macgirl (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I will have to provide the exact diffs tomorrow, but Looking at the articles you have created...
    Roman and Williams was tagged as reading like an advert [45] (and much puffery was later removed [46]).
    Michael David Kirchmann AfC was rejected for reading like an advertisement [47]. (Reviewer's note: "The whole thing is written as if to promote him”[48]).
    Jessica Rich (designer) AfC was rejected for reading like an advertisement [49].
    After these it seems you stopped referring your new articles to AfC.
    This resulted in Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects having to be moved back to draftspace due to being "too highly promotional" [50] [51].
    And then today promotional material was removed from 4 articles which you had placed directly into mainspace: Eduardo Brito National Theater, Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects, Rene Gonzalez Architects and DXA Studio.
    So that makes 8 occasions.
    Plus there are the various articles created on buildings designed by Kirchmann: Marcus Garvey Village, 25-27 Mercer Street, 500 West 25th Street and 177 Franklin Street.
    All of this is going back over a period of 10 years, so there seems to be a longstanding issue with promotional text here. Axad12 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for summarizing these.
    I only remembered one of these instances, but you are correct that there are four preceding today, since 2012. *Twelve* years is a long time. Roman and Williams was my very first article, so it is not surprising that it had issues. As for the remaining three you listed, they were all reviewed by other editors at the time and whatever objections they had were resolved to their satisfaction. You also failed to mention the several other articles I created that did not have any issues.
    Today's removals were all made by the same person who originally made the accusation. They include these articles: Rene Gonzalez Architects, Marcus Garvey Village, Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects, DXA Studio, Eduardo Brito National Theater, and Michael David Kirchmann. I would hardly chuck them into the same category as the above, as there seems to be an effort here to go through my history to find a smoking gun of some sort.
    That said, I am more than happy to start this conversation over with a constructive critique involving as many articles or edits of mine as you wish to review in order to improve them and remove any language that may seem promotional. My general goal isn't to antagonize anyone but to contribute the best way I know how within the rules of Wikipedia. A new goal that just emerged today is to defend myself from these unfounded accusations and stand by my work, so please excuse any defensive tone: I am defending myself indeed.
    "Plus there are the various articles created on buildings designed by Kirchmann." Is this not permitted? Please clarify. See my previous point about expanding Wikipedia and try to see my contributions through that lens (instead of seeing some dark ulterior motive). I have added whenever I've had time to add and wherever I see a need. If this is not acceptable, please let me know.
    Another issues is the "paid editing" tag that was incorrectly added to several of my articles. Most were removed but one is still live. See here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Byrd_Woltz_Landscape_Architects
    This is what I was reacting to before when I said "hostility". I was not given an opportunity to defend myself before the original poster went ahead and added this tag across several articles of mine. And now that I have denied the allegation, tags remain. It seems to me that the least disruptive and more collegiate way to address this would have been to wait until I respond before adding tags across my contributions. Then again, I have not been accused of this before and don't know how this protocol works. macgirl (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm an uninvolved editor who stumbled upon this case while looking for something unrelated on COIN. I looked back thru macgirl's creations and some of the deleted items on her talk and found at least two warnings about promo by DGG, who was probably the most highly astute spotters of PROMO, COI and UPE and defenders against using the encyclopedia for promotion, advocacy, and the problematics of paid editing. I have to agree with both the OP and with Axad12 that there is a strong promotional tone to macgirl's articles. Whether UPE is occurring, the articles appear that way having multiple indications, however they are adamantly denying this, so until more evidence is gathered it's unclear. In the meantime, the promotional tone should be cleaned up in the articles. I also wanted to ask macgirl how is it that you obtain photographer's permissions to use their photographs if you are not in some way connected to the subjects? Netherzone (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am not connected to any of these subjects.
    Whenever I've wanted to use photos, I simply reach out directly to the photographers of the images I like. It is not difficult to find out who they are, as they are often credited in the design publications or websites I frequent. More often than not, they decline or ignore the request. When they accept, the images make it onto the page.
    This is one of many reasons why it takes me a long time to build these pages. If I'm working on a page is because the subject interests me, so I try various avenues to create a good quality article out from the start. Obtaining image rights is one such way, though it often fails (they won't release credit).
    If this is a matter of promotional tone, I am happy to review any pages you wish in full and edit as needed. Please note these pages were reviewed by editors back when they were made and all objections were resolved to those editors' satisfaction. These pages have also been edited by others since. So I am quite surprised at all of these comments arising years after the fact.
    Please note my comment above about the deletions. macgirl (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I’ve now added the relevant diffs and wikilinks to my post above.
    In response to your various recent comments:
    a) The events cover a 12 year period and *Twelve* years is a long time. Yes, it is certainly a long time over which to not take into consideration the concerns made by other editors about your work.
    b) The 3 cases after Roman & Williams were all reviewed by other editors at the time and whatever objections they had were resolved to their satisfaction. Yes, but the issue is that you tried to introduce promotional material onto Wikipedia, not that other users prevented you from doing so. The fact that you then stopped using the AfC process looks rather like an attempt to evade further scrutiny, given that you would have been aware that issues had been raised with previous articles.
    c) Re: the various articles on buildings designed by Kirchmann and Is this not permitted?. It is permitted, but when it occurs 2 years after you tried to introduce an article written as if to promote [Kirchmann] then it looks rather odd.
    d) The tags that were recently placed on the articles said that the articles may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. Not that they “were”, but that they “may have been”. The user involved then started a conversation here for that issue to be discussed, which is surely more appropriate than simply adding the tags and doing nothing. I really don’t see that that is hostile, it’s just a perfectly straightforward activity when there is room for concern.
    e) Towards the end of your response you again said these pages were reviewed by editors back when they were made and all objections were resolved to those editors' satisfaction. That is not true, you ceased submitting articles for review at AfC back in 2019 after encountering repeated difficulties in including promotional text. The fact that similar issues have now arisen on articles that you didn’t submit to AfC doesn’t seem particularly surprising because it is evidently a repeated issue that you have, despite having received consistent advice on that matter.
    Three other points:
    All of the above thread relates primarily to the articles that you created. I’ve not looked in any detail at your edits on other articles but those edits do seem to frequently relate to adding mentions / wikilinks to articles that you created.
    I note that you removed some tags from the Kirchmann article, here [52], despite apparently not having resolved the issues, or having sought any consensus, or having discussed with, say, the editor who had placed those tags on the article.
    And there is a rather unusual question that you asked of another editor here [53] re: why one of your articles didn’t appear on a Google search. That seems an odd question, although one that would certainly be of interest if one was engaged in, say, Search engine optimization.
    Looking at all of the above, and the diffs and links in my earlier post, I agree with Graywalls that there is room for concern on the matter of WP:UPE, or, at the very least, there are certainly repeated breaches (or attempted breaches) of WP:PROMO. Axad12 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for adding the links, that is very helpful. Point by point reply below.
    a) My "Twelve years is a long time" comment refers to what I think is an unreasonable expectation that I remember every single Wikipedia edit or contribution I've made over such a long time, particularly when I contribute so infrequently. I also wonder how many Editors's contributions over the same period of time would withstand this level of scrutiny. Everyone learns and grows and improves as best they can, no? "Yes, it is certainly a long time over which to not take into consideration the concerns made by other editors about your work." Respectfully, I disagree that I haven't taken these concerns into consideration. I believe my Wikipedia writing has improved over the years, with several articles not drawing this same criticism. Whenever concerns have been raised, I have always responded in the same way I am responding now, which is to ask for guidance and try to improve. Writing for Wikipedia takes a lot of effort to master, demonstrated by the sheer number of poor articles all across the site, and I have expressed repeatedly an openness to improve. However infrequently I contribute, I try to make the contributions valuable in the realm that I know and interests me.
    //////
    b) "Yes, but the issue is that you tried to introduce promotional material onto Wikipedia, not that other users prevented you from doing so." I wrote each of these articles in the best way I knew how at the time I wrote them, and improved them when others pointed out flaws. What may sound promotional to some may sound neutral to others. On my end, there was no intention to promote but simply to write about subjects that interest me, and I wrote about them how I thought sounded best. My work was reviewed and I stood corrected multiple times, after which I made every attempt to follow the recommendations given. "The fact that you then stopped using the AfC process looks rather like an attempt to evade further scrutiny, given that you would have been aware that issues had been raised with previous articles." Sorry to say, but you are reading far too much into my actions and are assuming negative intentions when there were none. The reasoning behind this is quite pedestrian: I simply forgot how I had done these in the years before, Googled it, and started the more recent ones as you see them. To be clear, I have NEVER been opposed to having my work reviewed. Even now, when I feel as though my work and my ethics are under attack, I am still open to receiving specific feedback to improve all the contributions I've made.
    //////
    c) "It is permitted, but when it occurs 2 years after you tried to introduce an article written as if to promote [Kirchmann] then it looks rather odd." It shouldn't look odd. As I said before here, I don't edit Wikipedia frequently. I only do so when I have the time AND when a subject is of interest to me. For example, I had planned to write about this subject of interest a long time ago and even started a rough draft around 2015-16. I was too busy at that time to take it further and then someone else finally beat me to it in 2018. I saw nothing to improve in this article, so I've since moved on to other interests. In short, there is nothing odd about me taking forever to make these articles, as this is a side hobby for me that I do in my limited spare time.
    //////
    d) "Not that they “were”, but that they “may have been”." For the purposes of this discussion, "may have been" is just as damaging as "were". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the worst possible accusations to receive as a contributor to Wikipedia? Surely you can understand my concern and my vigorous defense of my work. Or am I overreacting here?
    //////
    e) "The fact that similar issues have now arisen on articles that you didn’t submit to AfC doesn’t seem particularly surprising because it is evidently a repeated issue that you have, despite having received consistent advice on that matter." The advice I received in the past was limited to specific articles, which I then corrected. If I had more time to practice, perhaps you would see more improvement over time. The "repeated issue" is a matter of me writing in a style that sounds acceptable to me but does not to you (and the others who have responded here). It is not some sneaky attempt to get this by anyone, as I am well aware that any contribution anyone makes can be removed at any time. You are again reading negative intent where there is none.
    //////
    f) "[...] but those edits do seem to frequently relate to adding mentions / wikilinks to articles that you created." Well, of course they would be. I only edit things I'm interested in, so it shouldn't be a surprise that I'm contributing to and expanding my own work. It is also a problem when articles exist without being linked to, so I sought to resolve those in my own articles whenever I could. None of this is odd to me.
    //////
    g) "I note that you removed some tags from the Kirchmann article, here [58], despite apparently not having resolved the issues, or having sought any consensus, or having discussed with, say, the editor who had placed those tags on the article." The link you sent me shows a single edit to remove "Projects" as a subtitle. It doesn't show I removed the box. Are you certain I didn't address the concerns? Or is it that the editor never responded, and so I assumed the matter was closed two years after? See here: Talk:Michael David Kirchmann
    //////
    h) "And there is a rather unusual question that you asked of another editor here [59] re: why one of your articles didn’t appear on a Google search. That seems an odd question, although one that would certainly be of interest if one was engaged in, say, Search engine optimization." Now that is a huge leap. The vast majority of users access Wikipedia via a search engine. It concerned me that my article didn't show up when trying to find it to show a friend and I asked the editor for guidance. One would have to be really determined to see a sinister motive in that question.
    Given the tenor of this discussion, I am now wondering what the ultimate goal is. Is it to initiate an inquiry of my previous work in order to improve it or is it something else? I have already answered the initial accusation, have explained my actions as I recall them, and have expressed repeatedly a willingness to receive new critiques on my past already-approved work. How do we move forward from here? macgirl (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    g) (cont.) Upon further review, it seems that the editor did respond in 2020 and they indicated the issues that prompted the box had been resolved. The issues were notability, lack of focus, and orphan. All three were addressed in my edits.
    Note the quotes below:
    "I'll be honest and say this isn't my area of expertise, so you may want to get more opinions, but I'm satisfied that the subject meets WP:NARCH."
    "In general though, the article looks okay and my only note would be to mind WP:NPOV. Biographies can be tough because the line between factual reporting and non-neutral promotion can be thin."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Macgirl macgirl (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm afraid that I do not agree with very much of what you have said above, a large amount of which appears to be nonsensical [evasive]. However, I was about to post the following material re: your response to criticism of your article for Nelson Byrd Woltz. Other editors will hopefully draw their own conclusions re: the extent to which you take on board (and act upon) the valid criticism of your promotional work:
    For any readers wishing to see the issues in this thread in microcosm…
    The user had had articles knocked back at AfC for ‘reading like an advertisement’ in both Sept 2018 and Dec 2019 (both later accepted after alterations).
    Then in May 2020 they introduced a new article [54] directly to mainspace, bypassing AfC. The lengthy ‘History’ part of the article is apparently promotional in intent and reads like advertising copy. See also the very long list of notable projects and list of awards.
    This article was then objected to by user DGG as being too blatantly promotional and in this post [55],
    that user makes two specific suggestions which are clearly described as a start for improving [the article].
    The first of these suggestions was to remove material like [specific example], in actual fact only the specific example was removed.
    A name-dropping list was also removed upon request.
    I would suggest that (a) in relation to the first of those 2 points, the text removed could not reasonably have been interpreted as anywhere near to the scale of removal requested by the objecting editor, and (b) although macgirl states above that all objections were resolved to the [objecting] editor’s satisfaction, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the objecting editor expressed their satisfaction over the relatively minor changes made to an article which they had previously described as too blatantly promotional.
    So, the claim that you dealt with the objections to the objecting editor's satisfaction is untrue, and the changes that you did make were presumably the minimum that you thought that you could get away with.
    However, as a more general observation on the broader issue, I think it would be useful if you were to acknowledge that there are elements to your edits, and your general editing pattern, which would give the impression to other editors that you are editing for pay. Without that I don't really see how we go forward. If you only intend to post lengthy self-justificatory material, repeating previous comments, then I don't see any likelihood of the problem going away. Axad12 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "I'm afraid that I do not agree with very much of what you have said above, a large amount of which appears to be nonsensical." Not agreeing is fine. Calling my words nonsensical is an uncalled-for escalation.
    "Then in May 2020 they introduced a new article [60] directly to mainspace, bypassing AfC." I've already explained this action.
    "[...] there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the objecting editor expressed their satisfaction over the relatively minor changes made to an article which they had previously described as too blatantly promotional." I addressed the concerns as I understood them each time. Since there were no further concerns after that, I assumed that the issues were resolved to the editors's satisfaction. You seem to have new concerns. Could you point them out specifically so we can address and resolve them?
    "[...] the claim that you dealt with the objections to the objecting editor's satisfaction is untrue [...]". It is not untrue. Can you show evidence that there were further concerns that I did not address?
    "[...] and the changes that you did make were presumably the minimum that you thought that you could get away with." You are assigning nefarious motives without proof.
    "However, as a more general observation on the broader issue, I think it would be useful if you were to acknowledge that there are elements to your edits, and your general editing pattern, which would give the impression to other editors that you are editing for pay." I acknowledge everyone is free to believe whatever they like, but I will not admit to doing something I didn't do just because a stranger believes it so.
    This has not been a constructive critique held in the spirit of collaboration. You are making assumptions based on conversations you did not participate in to impugn my motives and present mi actions in the most negative way possible. All of my explanations have fallen on deaf ears. Also, the inaccurate "edit for pay" tag is still on the Nelson Byrd article, despite my repeated denials.
    At this point, I would like to explore other avenues to help resolve this dispute. macgirl (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Let’s try to boil this down to its fundamental core…
    When an editor has been asked on several occasions to remove promotional material from their newly authored articles it is reasonable to assume that they would learn from the experience and stop trying to install promotional material into future articles.
    If an editor doesn’t stop doing so then the only reasonable conclusions are as follows:
    a) the editor is engaged in WP:UPE and the promotional material is the whole point of their activity.
    or b) the editor is genuinely unable to determine promotional text from non-promotional text despite having it pointed out to them several times.
    You appear to be a highly intelligent and articulate individual, so it does not seem as though (b) could be correct.
    The only question therefore is why do you continually seek to introduce on to Wikipedia material which you must surely be aware is promotional? Just a simple explanation please (rather than a further attempt to textually deconstruct concerns which several editors have now expressed). Axad12 (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't see how I can continue a civil discussion after having my words be labeled nonsensical. As you asked me to withdraw a previous comment, I would like to do the same now. It would be helpful if you withdrew that escalation so the conversation can proceed. macgirl (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think it would be more productive if you concentrated on the suggestion that your articles are promotional, rather than creating a very transparent diversion to avoid answering the central issue of this thread. Axad12 (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If it helps, I am happy to retract "appears to be nonsensical" and replace it with "appears to be evasive". Axad12 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for retracting. I'm not sure I agree withe "evasive" either, but it is an improvement.
    //////
    To address your question: "The only question therefore is why do you continually seek to introduce on to Wikipedia material which you must surely be aware is promotional?" I've presented the writing I thought was best each time and with the intention to showcase subjects I like, not to promote. Others gave feedback that it seemed promotional, so I implemented changes to resolve those concerns each time. With each page submission, I believe have improved on this point. You are free to disagree, though I would point towards articles I wrote that did not have this concern raised as proof that there has been improvement. Edit: I would also point towards this, at the core of which is the idea that everything here is a work in progress. Learning how to write consistently in the Wikipedia neutral tone takes time. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury to devote more time to editing, and only do so when I can. If I did, there would be even more improvement.
    //////
    You are making a lot of assumptions about my motives and every explanation I've given seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as you continue to accuse me of something I haven't done. The proof you have is circumstantial at best and is based on your interpretation of my intentions, which you could not possibly know, instead of actual facts. For example, you ascribed nefarious intentions to me cleaning up my Talk page, when this looks like a standard practice among editors, yourself included. No one is disputing it was cleaned up. But you immediately assumed I did so to hide exchanges about promotional language, when there is no possible way for you to know that (and when there are additional exchanges left posted). There are other examples, but I don't think it's useful to repeat all of them.
    //////
    Not only that, but my efforts to address these new concerns have been repeatedly ignored, as the focus seems to be on questioning my motives from more than a decade ago instead of helping resolve the concerns directly. Once again, if there are issues with any of my contributions, please point them out specifically so I can resolve them. It would be helpful if the feedback is specific, as "this sounds like promotional material" is difficult to interpret. We can go through every single edit I've made if you like. macgirl (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Whether something is promotional or not is not a subjective matter or difficult to interpret. It is very clear to any articulate person, especially if it has been pointed out to them in the past in their own work. If something "reads like an advertisement" or is "blatant promotion" (or any of the other terms previously used to describe your work) then the promotion is not subjective.
    Nobody would consistently produce promotional material unless they were trying to do so. Consequently I don't intend to get involved in an edit-by-edit analysis. The overall picture of promotional intent is clear from the evidence provided earlier in this thread, which involves consistent input from a range of different editors over a long period of time.
    The idea that promotional tone is subjective is a common line from paid/COI editors with a history of promotion. Unfortunately they find themselves painted into a corner by their own actions, and that is the only flimsy argument left for them to try. Sorry but it doesn't hold any water. Axad12 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I will ask again. Could you please be specific about which of my contributions today have a promotional tone, so that I can correct? macgirl (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "The idea that promotional tone is subjective is a common line from paid/COI editors with a history of promotion." That is your view. My view is that I am being put in a position of having to defend my work, and am responding as best I can. There is a recurring pattern here from you to see negative intent in my actions, despite having limited knowledge, and comparing my actions with others. This is quite unfair. macgirl (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    At this point it seems unlikely that we will resolve this impasse. As I said last night, I would like to explore other avenues to help resolve this dispute. macgirl (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Can I suggest a simple solution? How about if you agree to abide by Wikipedia policy by refraining from creating articles which appear to be promotional, or from otherwise making edits that appear to be promotional. That would work for me. What do you say?
    I'd also suggest that, due to past concerns raised by a number of editors, you voluntarily agree to submit any future new articles to AfC rather than placing them directly into mainspace.
    I don't want to be seen to be unfair here. These are reasonable suggestions that I think any reasonable editor would accept. Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "How about if you agree to abide by Wikipedia policy by refraining from creating articles which appear to be promotional, or from otherwise making edits that appear to be promotional." That seems fair. It is what I thought I was doing all this time, but others disagree and have seen promotion in my style of writing. I am happy to accommodate edits to improve.
    That said, without specifics, which I have been asking for since my very first response, it will be difficult to know exactly what parts of my contributions over 12+ years *still* sound promotional. I've asked you and the original poster for examples and neither have provided them. Instead, you have provided examples of other editors' feedback from years ago, all of which were resolved to their satisfaction, but you have consistently failed to identify specific issues with the articles *today* that I can correct so we can move forward. Remember that this entire thread was started by an editor who read one of my articles in recent days and decided to investigate my contribution history to accuse me of being a paid editor, an accusation that has not yet been retracted.
    "[...] due to past concerns raised by a number of editors, you voluntarily agree to submit any future new articles to AfC rather than placing them directly into mainspace [...]" This is perfectly acceptable to me. I will bookmark the page so I know where to start for future pages. macgirl (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, excellent. Netherzone has given some very good advice below and you may find plenty of useful material in the guidelines on writing in a "neutral point of view", which can be found here: WP:NPOV. See also WP:PROMO and various other guidelines linked to those 2 pages. Axad12 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have nothing further to add at this point, because the arguments presented by others essentially negate any need to do so. Graywalls (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You've removed the "paid editing" note you placed in most of my contributions, but the one for Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects is still live. Could you remove that one as well? macgirl (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not totally convinced, but since this discussion is already here, I will let someone else do it, if they agree it doesn't belong. Graywalls (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That doesn't seem to be consistent with your previous actions. Why remove some but not all? Is there anything in particular about that one specific article that requires the tag after everything I've explained here? macgirl (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm going to jump in here again to give you some examples, Macgirl, however I'm not going to go through all your creations, as that is clean up you should take care of yourself. In regards to the DXA Studio article, this: DXA studio emphasizes authenticity, sustainability, and originality in architecture is highly promotional and probably written by the principals at the studio themself. Same with this: The book explores DXA’s practice through 14 projects that consider New York City as a laboratory, embracing history as a constructive and critical influence. which sounds like content from a press release or DXA's book proposal. This sounds like advertising copy: it features two side-by-side towers with a faceted column and spandrel grid façade, with condo and rental units, including affordable housing as does this: sought the firm's expertise for potential renovation ideas for the imperiled. This sounds like it came from a project proposal for the development: proposed three options that preserved as much of the core structure as possible and added new apartments with a façade respecting the neighborhood context. More PROMO: rooted in health and wellness; and has also set records for condominium sales in the area; and renowned architect. This sounds like advertisement brochure copy: The six-story building consists of 16-unit condos attached to a glass lobby with a green roof surrounded by a landscaped entrance plaza and private garden. The façade features intricate masonry.. I'll stop there but could go on. It is clear that DXA Studio is notable and has done some very good work, so that is not the issue; the issue, to my mind, is that pretty much the whole article needs to be pruned from this sort of promotionally-toned writing, and cut back to the essentials - basically re-written; a complete overhaul. As do several of your other articles. I suggest you go back and read what user DGG wrote to you some time ago. I'm sorry if that is not the answer you want to hear. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    This is very helpful. I have to step away now but will return later today to digest these comments and start editing. macgirl (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I really don't understand why someone would even write in that kind of highly promotional hagiographic tone in the first place. Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've just noticed some close paraphrasing from the company's website.
    The Wikipedia article says: "The book [i.e. DXA NYC] explores DXA’s practice through 14 projects that consider New York City as a laboratory, embracing history as a constructive and critical influence."
    The company website [56] says: "The book presents 14 projects that embrace history as a critical influence; they use New York City as a laboratory to implement this approach that acknowledges context and constraint as constructive, rather than restrictive."
    It may be worth looking for more of the same, both on this article and others - especially given Netherzone's comments on existing text looking like advertising copy. Axad12 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Similarly...
    The Wikipedia article says: "Before DXA studio, Jordan Rogove worked with set designer Tom McPhillips, Lucien Lagrange Architects, and Morris Adjmi Architects in New York City. Rogove received his Bachelor of Architecture from Virginia Tech in 1998 and is a visiting professor there"
    The company website [57] says: "Prior to establishing DXA studio, Jordan worked with renowned theatrical set designer Tom McPhillips, Chicago-based Lucien Lagrange Architects, and Morris Adjmi Architects in New York City. Jordan received his Bachelor of Architecture degree from Virginia Tech in 1998, where he is currently a visiting Professor of Practice."
    That and my post directly above were just 2 random spotchecks. Probably safe to assume there is a lot more of the same. Axad12 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ditto for the elements of the article covering: West Park Presbyterian Church, 827-841 Broadway and Wayne Norbeck. I didn’t check the links to the other references in the article, but presumably those are where some of the rest of the text derives from. Axad12 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Reference to the initial version of the article shows the same origin for much of the extreme promo material which has since been removed, including this sentence which used to be installed in the lede: "DXA’s work combines art and the science of architecture, blending a modern outlook with a respect for history and context". (That was a direct steal from the second sentence of the 'About' section on the company website).
    Okay, that's enough of that. Axad12 (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also, the same phenomena can be seen on Rene Gonzalez Architects, where the current lede is ripped directly from elements of the 'Firm' section of the co website, here [58]. I didn't look any further, probably more of the article comes from the same source. I also detected signs of similar but more limited activity on Michael David Kirchmann.
    No more of that from me now, I think we have proof of the user's basic modus operandi. What is the best way of dealing with articles created like this? Are there WP:COPYVIO implications? Axad12 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I was alerted to this discussion from another page. Details like The six-story building consists of 16-unit condos attached to a glass lobby with a green roof surrounded by a landscaped entrance plaza and private garden. The façade features intricate masonry should be removed not because they constitute advertising—they should be removed because they're irrelevant to the topic. The design of the facade or the number of apartments in a building may be appropriate for an article on the building (and indeed might not pose any NPOV issues there, if worded properly). In an article about the building's architects, however, it really doesn't matter whether the building contains 16, 14, or 18 units, nor will the reader care what the facade is made of.
    I am, however, concerned about statements like DXA studio emphasizes authenticity, sustainability, and originality in architecture. This sounds like advertising because it tells us very little about the firm itself. Something like "DXA has designed several green buildings", on the other hand, would adhere more closely to WP:NPOV, since it sticks to the facts rather than using flowery language to describe the company. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Epicgenius:, Are you fluent on this subject matter? If so, would you say DXA easily passes the notability threshold for companies? Graywalls Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Graywalls, I haven't taken a close look at the DXA page, since my comment was meant more as a passing observation. I will note, however, that many of the sources on that page talk about DXA's projects, not the firm itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Macgirl in your response to my first comment about how you were able to get permission from professional photographers to upload their work that you use in your articles, one of the things you said in your response was: ...it takes me a long time to build these pages. If I'm working on a page is because the subject interests me, so I try various avenues to create a good quality article out from the start. Please understand that I'm not implying you are doing something incorrectly, but I just am curious how long it takes for you to write these articles by doing close paraphrasing such as the above, where only a few words are changed from the company's website? Netherzone (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Netherzone:, well I'm sure they took them a long time to make in the same sense it takes a lot of time to prepare photogenic food to use in menu photos and advertisement filming. Graywalls (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For new articles, I work on a few items of interest at the same time, with the bulk of the time spent locating worthwhile sources and saving them in a Word doc for future use. Once I think I have enough notability from good sources, I start formatting, which also takes me a long time (others are likely faster). I do this in my very limited spare time, so it may be weeks or months between updates to my Word doc and definitely months before I start drafting here.
    I was under the impression that sourced writing was preferred over original writing, that the content must be sourced from somewhere other than me, so paraphrasing seems to make the most sense to me. macgirl (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    After all these comments, my plan is to review all my contributions to proposed edits that address these concerns, starting with DXA and working backwards. Given this discussion, am I even permitted to make edits directly to these articles? Do I need to touch base here? macgirl (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I have edits to make to clean up the language in the DXA article. Am I permitted to make the edits directly or do I need to clear them here first? Please advise. macgirl (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I took a look at the three articles. (but did not analyze the sources from a wp:notability standpoint). There are a few areas of vague flowery language. The bigger vaguer issue is that the nature of the content is the type of things that would be in a self-description rather than what a third party would say about them. It's easy for an editor to accidentally do this, (and impossible to do otherwise if they don't have GNG sources) so I'm not a fan of any accusatory type pursuit of the creator. IMO the flowery language should be cleaned up. If there are GNG type sources in there more material should be developed from them. If the article is an edge case regarding wp:GNG sources/wp:notability I'd still let in be. If they clearly fall short, AFD them. If desired and pinged I'd be happy to do a NPP patrol review of the sources.....note that I would only AFD if they clearly fall short. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    We've crossed path in BSA articles. I have to say I've gotta agree to disagree with you on notability threshold. Graywalls (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'll respond at your talk page because it would be a tangent from here. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    We now know that some of the articles here were created (to a significant degree) by stringing together direct steals and close paraphrasing from the companies’ own websites.
    I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on whether this sheds any light on the WP:UPE question.
    My feeling is that the user has been less than forthcoming in some of their responses above (e.g. it takes me a LONG time to create a new page from scratch) and What may sound promotional to some may sound neutral to others. On my end, there was no intention to promote but simply to write about subjects that interest me, and I wrote about them how I thought sounded best.
    It doesn’t seem to me that a good faith user would repeatedly deny that the material was promotional, and repeatedly ask for specific examples of promotional text, when they knew very well that they had derived much of the article text from the companies’ own websites.
    I’d be interested to hear other’s views on this point. When added to the other elements of this case it seems that there is now very strong circumstantial evidence suggesting UPE.
    The only alternative is that the user is exceptionally disingenuous and has intentionally wasted a large amount of community time by arguing ad nauseum rather than simply volunteering why so much of the material looked promotional. Axad12 (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Quick comment. @Macgirl:, Contents should be based primarily on secondary sources. That is, intellectually independent writing about the company. Award granting groups' pages shouldn't be used to justify including extensive awards/honors. Information from company related website should be used sparingly, such as simply saying it was founded by Founder in Cleveland, Ohio in United States in 1938 but stop before rambling on about the founder's life's story. We probably shouldn't have extensive AIA awards citing the AIA itself. If the regional/national newspaper talks about the company having received numerous awards, that makes it more reasonable to talk about it. These rules in place safeguards articles from becoming a canvas for boastful promotional contents. Graywalls (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I did a medium-depth look at the references for the three articles on firms. I could not find one solid GNG reference in any of them. And this is not being unusually strict; common practice is to follow N:corp strictly on commercial enterprises. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I looked here to understand what a solid GNG reference would be. I wonder if there is a category that is specific to architects and designers, as I think the sources I have used are appropriate. They are independent, reliable sources recognized in the industry, along with national publications covering the work and the people. When I review this article to address all these comments, I will take this into account. macgirl (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    North8000, if there are valid GNG concerns on these articles, would it be better if they were just sent to AfD for deletion (especially given the additional concerns over the origins of much of the text)?
    If the subjects aren't notable then I don't see much point in the user undertaking onerous re-writes (which would probably also involve a significant amount of community oversight).
    Or do you believe that the GNG concerns can potentially be overcome and it's just a case of finding alternative sources?
    I'd be interested in your thoughts here. Axad12 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    After seeing this thread I decided to look at the articles. Then I decided to give my thoughts on those thinking that it might be informative here, and I never thought any further than that enough to answer your questions. GNG sources (published independent sources discussing the subject of the article in depth) tend to cover the types of things that readers want to read. When an article on a commercial enterprise (or "people in the business") is built without these, it tends to just cover the things that a firm/the person would like to say about itself (even if not self-sourced) I'm an active NPP'er and tend to try to follow accepted norms regarding rigorousness of application of the wp:notability including it's guidelines. Which tends to be strict on commercial enterprises and commercial enterprise type people. If I NPP'd these and a search did not yield any GNG references I'd AFD #1, #2 and #4.(IMO N:geo does not cover #4) and would take a guess that #4 only got an article because #2 worked on it (and BTW there's another article 500 west 25th street with the same situation) #3 might be an edge case due to SNG influence due to the awards and I'd probably pass it noting that it's an edge case. Regarding here, I'd say give Macgirl a chance to quickly find and add GNG references and if none are found AFD #1,#2 and #4 (and the other building article). Not sure what to say regarding #3. Regarding this COI thread, I don't see this coming to any conclusion regarding UPE; there are many other common ways to have arrived at this without UPE. And I'm no fan of the broad vague net of other types of COI interrogations. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    North8000: thanks for this, it seems like a very sensible proposal. Would you be happy to check in on those articles in, say, a week(?) and then nominate for AfD any that still fall short of GNG? Axad12 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I’ve added notability tags to the articles for DXA Studio, Michael David Kirchmann, 177 Franklin Street and 500 West 25th Street, as per comments above by North8000.
    Ditto for two further Kirchmann building articles, Marcus Garvey Village and 25-27 Mercer Street, which I assume are affected by the same issue. Axad12 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'd be happy to do that if there is a consensus here for that. With the understanding that I probably would not nominate the edge case ones and if somebody disagrees on those they can simply handle those rather than debating my non-action. In my NPP work I try to learn and follow the norms and in the past and in discussions, Graywalls and I have sometimes seen things differently, with them advocating or pursuing a stricter approach. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Regarding Marcus Garvey Village, note that this building is a NYCHA property, many of which have their own individual article given their and the program's significance in the history of urban development and affordable housing. Also note that there is a separarate article listing all NYCHAP properties with a tag from 2008 requesting assistance to complete the list. I would kindly request that this page is not deleted. It is an important building.
    See here: List of New York City Housing Authority properties
    25-27 Mercer are historic properties with continued architectural significance and were featured in a popular television show. If that doesn't meet the threshold for notability in your view, happy to concede the point. I've looked for additional sources and have not found any better than the ones currently in the article. macgirl (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I would not AFD and would weigh in as "keep" on Marcus Garvey Village. Regarding 25-27 Mercer. There isn't much content on the building there or in any of the sources, including in the last pdf which I searched through. I'd AFD that one if there was a consensus for me to do what was proposed above. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    North8000, I can’t speak for others but my take is as follows…
    The promotional/content issues on DXA Studio and Michael David Kirchmann are going to be potentially rather complicated to work through due to the need to make sure that all direct lifts and close paraphrasing from company websites etc have been removed. That being the case I think it would be sensible to address the notability / AfD side of the problem first and then address the text issues only for those articles which avoid being deleted.
    I'm not sure that I can see a valid contrary argument here. Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'd agree but for an even bigger reason. Without the GNG or near-GNG sources which the wp:notability of the people and company articles is dependent on, there really isn't material to build a real article from which is a big reason for the GNG requirement. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think 177 Franklin (#4 above) might be notable not under NGEO, but under WP:NBUILD. The building does not have an individual heritage listing (which would make it presumably notable under NBUILD). However, it is a contributing property to a historic district, and has been AFDed once already. The previous AFD for that article resulted in a consensus that the sources prove GNG (if barely). I've removed the notability tag there, though it can certainly be sent back to AFD if it can be proved that the previous consensus was wrong. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    WP:WHATISCONSENSUS I believe that argument needs further evaluation. and is substantially covered in the LPC report, which by itself is enough for notability wouldn't be considered independent third party. https://www.nyc.gov/site/lpc/about/about-lpc.page You could have a handful of townspeople voting "the pink house is notable. pink is a great color and its importance has been noted in township committee report" and have numerically significant votes, but when policy/guidelines based arguments are applied, it would fail. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I would disagree that the LPC isn't a third-party source. It is indeed an agency of the NYC government, but the NYC government also doesn't own the building. Per WP:IS#Third-party versus independent, An "independent" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject. For example, the independent source will not earn any extra money by convincing readers of its viewpoint. A "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome. It might not be an independent source, since the landmark designation does likely give the LPC an interest in the building, but it is still third-party. The fact that the LPC is a governmental agency doesn't factor into this, by the way—if the LPC were not a city agency, it would still be a third-party source (albeit likely not independent, due to the landmark designation).
    That being said, I also don't have an objection to this being sent back to AFD. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    177 Franklin Street and Marcus Garvey Village are both certainly notable. If the issue is the mention of Kirchmann, just take those mentions out, as notability is in no way dependent on the renovations. Station1 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It would seem that if any of the various properties were referred to AfD there would be arguments made for both keep and delete, which is obviously a natural part of that process. However, the major issue in this thread really relates to the overtly promotional articles for DXA Studio and Michael David Kirchmann, in both of which cases nothing has been done to bolster the notability since concerns on that score were raised 5 days ago. Axad12 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The notability tag on 177 Franklin seems to have been a topic of some dispute (added 3 times, removed twice). Can I suggest that it stays for the time being, on the basis that...
    a) The tag says that the subject "may not meet the GNG" which is an accurate reflection of the discussion above.
    b) The past consensus at the AfD does not preclude the possibility that a new consensus may arise.
    c) The tag requests that users add any material which may help to prove notability. Given that the article may end up at AfD in the very near future the presence of that request can only prove useful to those who believe that the article should be retained.
    If I'm missing something here then please let me know, but I really can't see what purpose is served by two users continuing to remove the tag. Axad12 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, there's no consensus for that tag. It was added 3 times because you added it twice. Two editors added it and two removed it. I don't agree that the subject may not meet GNG. I agree consensus can change, but until it goes through AfD again, we don't know that it has. We won't edit war, but if it doesn't go to AfD in the next few days, and no other editors want it up, it should come down. Station1 (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    When there's an ongoing discussion taking place about whether a subject is notable, and a clear possibility of an article being taken to AfD where a consensus might be reached that overturns a previous AfD, removing a notability tag solely on the basis of that previous AfD result is obviously wrong.
    The tag was added in the hope that other users might provide new evidence that satisfies all parties on the question of notability. That is the purpose of a notability tag, so its use in this case was entirely appropriate.
    Indeed, it seems to have drawn your attention to this discussion (I linked to this discussion in my edit summary when I added the tag). As far as I can see, the more eyes that are made aware of this discussion, the better. I don't see any justification for you having then removed the tag on sight, thus preventing other users from following in your footsteps. Axad12 (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Since there's clearly a dispute over whether the notability tag should be in the 177 Franklin article, it should be sent to AFD so the matter of notability can definitively be settled. I'm not going to re-remove the tag either, but I agree with Station1 that the tag shouldn't be there permanently. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hopefully the correspondence here from approx the 20th/21st onwards makes it clear that the tag was only ever intended as a short term precursor to a 2nd AfD.
    In fairness, the timestamps suggest that in both cases the tag was deleted directly prior to yourself and Station1 arriving here, so presumably you both deleted it without being fully aware of the ongoing discussion (rather than out of disregard for due process). Axad12 (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, for me it was a matter of not realizing that you had just commented about the building's notability (or lack thereof) on this page. I had seen some of the other comments, but not this one, at the time I initially removed the tag. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    If there is a concern and the concern is under active discussion which has not come to a conclusion, that's plenty to meet the low bar of having a tag. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I'm not disputing that. However, I do think an AFD would allow the issue of notability to be settled definitively, rather than keeping the tag for an indeterminate amount of time. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Nuatali Nelmes

    edit
    Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    User:Wildhorse13992 has been slow-motion edit warring on Nuatali Nelmes to remove the "controversy" section and replace it with promotional fluff. Things got a bit more interesting today with the IP edit, which included a vaguely legal threat-like edit summary, while the Toolforge Whois tool says the IP address belongs to "Newcastle City Council". There has been no communication from the user in response to talk page messages.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Artsmith810

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

    This edit made by Artsmith to File:Nabil F. Grace.jpg might be worth taking a closer look at because Artsmith810 is claims the file is their "own work", but then list "Yellow Flag Productions" as the author. If you Google "Yellow Flag Productions", you get a number of hits related to a "brand management/marketing company" of the same name. This could be an indication of at least an WP:APPARENTCOI going on at Draft:Nabil F. Grace Ph.D., PE, FESD, particularly given the promotional nature of that draft. Of course, a draft can always be cleaned up if the subject is Wikipedia notable, but it still might be a good idea for others to take a look at this. I've posted a {{uw-coi}} at User talk:Artsmith810 and perhaps they will respond there, but I also decided to ask about this here to see what others think. The account was created in June 2023 and made a few edits to Specs Howard School of Media Arts before going dormant. It re-emerged in April 2024 for one edit to create this draft, and then went dormant again until the other day when it uploaded the aforementioned file. Just going to note that another attempt at creating a draft about Nabil F. Grace by Artsmith810 as Draft:Nabil F. Grace was deleted per WP:G12, but Earwig seems to indicate that the new draft is not likely a copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, I (Art Smith) was a photographer for Yellow Flag Productions. There are multiple photographers for the company. I no longer work there, but did when the photo was taken inside the studios. It is my work.
    Dr. Nabil Grace works for Lawrence Technological University. We believe that Dr. Nabil Grace is just as noteworthy for an entry with his work as anyone else. We took the advice given on the first draft and tried to clean every suggestion up. If there are further changes required, I can make them. Artsmith810 (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Artsmith810: If you made the image while employed then the copyright likely belongs to your employer, and we would need their confirmation of the licence.
    You have also made edits relating to LTU ( e.g.); what is your connection to them and who is the "we" to which you refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, they authorize the use of the photo - hense why it was submitted! How can we prove that to you? Can I provide an email address to an employee there or something? Would you rather a different photo? "We" I was referring to is a small group of people, Yellow Flag. They film sporting events for LTU and local high schools. Artsmith810 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hi Artsmith810. The use of "we" in talk page posts is often a concern because of Wikipedia's policy against WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs and you might want to stop doing so. The basic principle is "one user per account"; so, if the others in that small group of people you're referring to above want to also edit Wikipedia, they should create their own accounts. Accounts believed to being shared among multiple users are often treated as WP:COMPROMISED and can be indefinitely blocked by an administrator.
    As for Grace being just as noteworthy for his work as others, please understand that what matters is Grace's Wikipedia:Notability, and this is based whether the has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you're unable to clearly show that Grace clears that hurdle, the draft your working on is unlikely to ever be acceptaed as an article. Articles aren't required to have images, but the subjects are required to be Wikipedia notable; so, it might be better for your to focus on getting your draft approved and put off trying to upload images until after you've done that. Even though you might no longer work for Yellow Flag, WP:COI and WP:PAID might still possibly apply to your situation if you're acting on the behalf of them or on the behalf of Grace; so, you might review what's written on those two pages for reference.
    Finally, if you took that photo as part of a work for hire agreement with your former employer, then it's possible theｙ've retained either total or partical copyright ownership over the photo. If that's the case, you can't upload it to Wikipedia under a free license without getting their WP:CONSENT and there needs to be some way for Wikipedia to verify their consent. The easiest way to do this would be to ask your former employer or their representative to email their consent to Wikimedia VRT. Similarly, if you're the sole copyright holder or the photo, you should email your consent to Wikimedia VRT. You can explain in your email that you took the photo while working for your former employer and the photo was then subsequently used online by your former employer on websites you don't control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "We" is not other people using the same account. One person is using this account and submitting information to you. I have provided tons of information and sources and patents on Grace's work. I have listened to the advice given and attempted to fix some of those errors, therefore re-submitted. The only contact that has been made is regarding the image so far so that is what I have been responding to. Is there something needed to be updated on the text? Artsmith810 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Artsmith810 To confirm permission for the image, please ask someone at to follow the email process on this page. Given your relationship to Yellow Flag and LTU, you must follow the guidelines at WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Basem Al-Shayeb

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    It is my belief that the above article is a blatant example of abuse of Wikipedia for self-promotion. The accomplishments of the individual described in this page were, prior to my revision, inaccurately described in such a way as to inflate or deceptively exaggerate their significance. It is my suspicion that the article was written by the subject himself.

    Xerxescience has accused me of a conflict of interest and stated that my relationship to the subject should be investigated. I will state for the record (though I do not expect anyone to take my word for it) that I have no such connection, but that I do take a dim view of self-aggrandizement via Wikipedia article. I have taken action accordingly. However, I think further action should be taken by other members who the community can be confident are impartial on this matter. —Xardwen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.6.73 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Are you User:Xardwen? Please reply while signed in, to confirm. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am, my apologies- I was having difficulty signing in. Xardwen (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    And where has Xerxescience has accused you of a conflict of interest? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    From the edit log for the article in question:
    • curprev 23:53, 17 August 2024‎ Xerxescience talk contribs‎ 9,500 bytes −2,170‎ Undid vandalism. Xardwen seems to be a saboteur obsessed with character and relation should be investigated. Xardwen removed sources to add self-published materials inappropriate per Wiki rules. LinkedIn is not a credible primary source and other individuals’ education is irrelevant. Company funding is also no less relevant than company location or aims. There is no evidence of lack of affiliation, press release or otherwise. Individual is likely still a shareholder/founder per previous sources
    I will state again that I have absolutely no connection to Mr. Al-Shayeb and was simply seeking to correct what I viewed to be an obvious misuse of Wikipedia (though I admit I may have been enjoying myself a bit too much and overstepped). I also strongly suspect that Xerxescience is Mr. Al-Shayeb, though I have no evidence to support this hypothesis other than their apparent indignation, and the fact that their account did not exist before my edits took place. Xardwen (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Tuvia Tenenbom

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    Advertising tag repeatedly removed in Tuvia Tenenbom: [59] - I feel this article is highly promotional, with an excessive focus on accolades from the press. I don't have a proof for COI activity. Whizkin (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I've re-added the tag. In instances such as this, where the article is basically an extended compilation of positive quotes from press reviews, my impression is that such blatantly promotional sections should simply be removed (as happened recently in a similar example, Jon M. Sweeney) or replaced with an unembellished list of works.
    Please note that when raising an issue here it is necessary to inform the editor involved at their talk page, as stated in red at the top of this noticeboard. I have done this for you on this occasion.
    Hopefully the user concerned will give their side of the story and clarify any connection they may have with the subject. From their edit summary they seem to have been under a misapprehension that the tag was added due to the nature of the links, when of course the problem relates to the highly promotional nature of the article text. Axad12 (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It seems that there has been a long history of extensive editing on this article by SPAs, most of which are IP addresses. There has also been edit warring, re-insertion of promotional material, removal of critical material, and suggestions that the subject has been editing the article himself.
    Whether or not it was the subject, it is clear that an individual has been curating this article with promotional intent. Most of the issues seem to have been 5 - 15 years ago but there is still a need for an extensive tidy up. Axad12 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you, I agree. Whizkin (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    How is the article content "Like and advert"? I've never seen an advert that looked anything like that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just to take an example at random, text like The Jerusalem Post called the book "a gem," and Asia Times said that "If Kafka had written non-fiction, he could not have bested Tenenbom’s latest book" very closely resembles an advert. It's common practice for adverts for books, plays, films, etc. to take exactly this type of form. Axad12 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    UPE with autopatrolled and NPR rights

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 hour ago32 comments12 people in discussion

    User:Saqib's work is mostly related to the topics of Pakistani politics. But between 2018 and 2019, there was a surge in article creations about obscure and potentially non-notable business topics (most of them are still on Wikipedia because of their autopatrolled rights). It is a serious issue because they abused the autopatrolled right to write spammy articles like Tenderd, BigRentz, Deugro. They also created Ghias Khan bio likely after contacting the CEO – they uploaded a corporate style photo of Ghais Khan and then received permission from him via VRT (Saqib was a member of VRT), so there is clearly some WP:COI which they haven't declared. Now, they were defending an obscure business executive of Dawood family (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Samad Dawood (2nd nomination)) who's bio has been deleted/rejected multiple times (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Samad_Dawood, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samad_Dawood) before their account was locked. They also strongly defended a biography of crypto consultant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination). All of this is very suspicious given that they mostly focus on politics-related topics.

    For background, Dawood family is trying from some time to promote family members and their businesses on Wikipedia. The main editor responsible for this mess is Crosji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who should have been blocked for not complying with WP:PAID. Most of their work until June 2023 was related to Dawood family projects. They created/edited a lot of articles about non-notable topics like Sabrina Dawood, Inbox Business Technologies, Hussain Dawood Pledge, TDF Ghar, twice created Abdul Samad Dawood (suggests serious UPE), Engro Foundation, The Dawood Foundation, MagnifiScience Centre, Christine Dawood.

    Hussain Dawood Pledge, Reno Energy, and Inbox Business Technologies are the most spammy pages. UPE/COI couldn't be more obvious than upload of this photo captured by them - yes, they were present when Hussain Dawood Pledge were handing out a cheque to some organization and they captured the moment.

    I suggest to remove the advance editor rights of User:Saqib (autopatrolled, new page rights, AfC etc.) and indefinite block or topic ban from business-related topics for User:Crosji. Please also look check the editing history of both users and revert/delete spammy content. Thank you. 188.31.32.162 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    The issue seems similar to User:TheBirdsShedTears who was blocked after a report on WP:COIN. 188.31.32.162 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Incredible, This report is completely frivolous and this complaint seems very similar to one that was filed in the past at ANI. Anyway, it's pretty much clear you've been trying to T/BAN me and even canvassing other editors to target me and it’s evident you saw my locked account as a convenient opportunity to target me. But I suggest you stop your baseless accusations of UPE. If you have concrete evidence, provide it directly to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. But just because I've created some pages on less notable topics doesn't mean I was paid to do so. My background in business simply made these organizations interesting to me. It doesn’t imply any COI or paid editing. Feel free to nominate those pages for deletion if you must, but stop with the relentless wikihounding. If I had any paid editing, I would have voted to keep the BLP on Ghias Khan I created myself, like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghias Khan. they uploaded a corporate style photo of Ghais Khan and then received permission from him via VRT so there is clearly some WP:COI which they haven't declared. Many people still approach me to add photos to their BLPs - does that mean I have a COI with them? Use some common sense, please. Now, they were defending an obscure business executive of Dawood family Did I vote to keep this BLP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Samad Dawood (2nd nomination)? They also strongly defended a biography of crypto consultant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination) I have a good reason for defending to keep this BLP. If anyone wants to know, feel free to ask me privately. But if you claim I defended it because I was paid, you're mistaken. Also, you mentioned @Crosji - care to check this? It's quite unfortunate that out of the 2,000 articles I've created, you could only find fewer than 10 articles you feel were paid. I have nothing more to add on this. If anyone still wants to investigate further, feel free to do so. I’m absolutely open to answering any questions the community may have. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I went through the above links and discussions provided by Saqib. This seems like a case of Saqib being targeted repeatedly. A URL user with minimal edits (that are all related to Saqib) writing up a WP:COIN report like this is very unusual editing behaviour. It also seems like a situation of non good-faith editing. MohReddy (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    MohReddy, However, I suspect you might be a sock of someone as well, as it seems unusual for someone with only 50 edits to respond specifically to this complaint. It feels a bit suspicious to me. No offense to you but some time ago, I received an email from an unknown person stating that they would use sock accounts in my favor at some point, to make it appear as though I am socking or canvassing. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, I am not a sock. I have very clearly stated on my user page that I have been a longtime lurker and hence I am decently familiar with Wikipedia, having only recently gotten a little bit of time to became an editor. I have also stated that I aim to participate in discussions on noticeboards, logs, pages and deal with backlogs. As for why I responded to this complaint, simple, I scrolled right down to the bottom of this page to see recent WP:COIN discussions. It also seemed a clear cut case of repeated targeting against a user, hence why I decided to participate. MohReddy (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If someone approaches you to have their images uploaded, then you clearly have a COI with them. That's how COI works. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Jeraxmoira, Really? I didn't realize that! Is this mentioned anywhere on the WP:COI because I couldn’t find it. Not everyone outside WP is familiar with the process of uploading images. Many people request that images be uploaded to their profiles. While editing on someone’s behalf is considered a COI, I had no idea uploading an image might also fall under COI. But If that’s the case and if an admin can also confirm this, I’ll make sure to declare it on the article’s tp in the future. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, that is not clear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe it is. Once you are in contact with the BLP, the COI starts there. Whatever you do after that will obviously have some kind of influence on your contributions to articles related to them. You may or may not be receiving compensation, whether in the form of favors, money or otherwise. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm with Gråbergs Gråa Sång; I don't think it's as clear as that. As a community, Wikipedia values being able to use Creative Commons or free use images, so it's normal for Wikipedians to interact with living persons about images, like asking for permission to take a photograph, or asking for a photographer to release permission to use a photograph. By your reasoning ('once you are in contact ... the COI starts'), those interactions, or even just receiving and approving a VRT ticket providing image use permission, would trigger unacceptable COIs! I don't think the purpose of the COI guideline is to prohibit Wikipedians from having these normal interactions meant to improve the encyclopedia through illustration.
    The case in this thread isn't exactly the same, granted. Apparently people find out that Saqib is a Wikipedian and thereupon give to Saqib permissions while asking for an image to be uploaded? If these people are, for example, personal friends of Saqib or family members, then yes it's a COI. But if they're strangers (they well could be; Saqib's user page provides a link inviting anyone who wants to make contact to do so by email (permanent link)), I don't think merely uploading an image a COI makes. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, this is like saying that even though I have interacted with the BLP and they have asked me to upload a photo of theirs, I will still edit their article neutrally and unbiasedly without disclosing my COI. If this is going to be the case, then no one will be acknowledging their COI. These kinds of contributions are almost always compensated with favors or payments. If we are being lenient, maybe they shouldn't be editing the article apart from adding the image without disclosing the COI.
    Considering this instance, you can see that Ghias Khan was created by Saqib. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Pakistan-related subjects aren’t well covered on en.wikipedia. If someone is working on addressing that issue then great. If some of the articles get deleted along the way for being non-notable, so be it.
    However, recreating BLP articles which have already been deleted, and stating (as above) that one won’t publicly disclose the reason for a Keep vote at AfD, looks odd. So does suggesting that someone is a sock after they suggest your accuser is acting in bad faith.
    Looking at Saqib’s talkpage, it seems that allegations of UPE have been made in the past, and he has himself made similar allegations about other users. Some of the other allegations made against Saqib on his talkpage seem to be groundless or motivated by personal animus or conflict of interest. I’d suggest that all parties need to calm down.
    It looks to me as though a number of articles by this user are currently at AfD, but these seem to be due to notability concerns rather than promo. He has also referred a very large number of other authors’ articles to AfD himself, so presumably he considers himself an authority on notability, despite having his own articles regularly referred to AfD for the same reason. This seems odd.
    Is there some kind of ongoing situation here where specific authors are regularly nominating each other’s articles to AfD, or is there just an endemic problem with notability on Pakistan-related subjects on en.wikipedia? Axad12 (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Axad12, ...won’t publicly disclose the reason for a Keep vote at AfD, looks odd. If you want me to make this public, that's fine. Waqar Zaka repeatedly targeted me off-wiki because I was removing PROMO from his BLP. He has always used paid editors to push his promotion on WP - this can be verified by checking the page history. I’ve always worked to revert these PROMO changes. At one point, he said to get his BLP deleted and used a paid editor to start this AFD. I believe his BLP shouldn’t have been deleted just because he wanted it gone - BLPs aren’t supposed to be deleted on subjects' request alone. Imv. Waqar Zaka is notable; even Jimmy Wales has edited his BLP. Anyway, after this deletion, a newbie recreated this draft, which I then tagged for speedy deletion under G4 because I had to respect the community's decision even though I disagreed with the AFD outcome. And for the record, I never created the BLP for Waqar Zaka - any admin can confirm this.
    It looks to me as though a number of articles by this user are currently at AfD I created some business-related articles due to my background in business. I was curious why there weren’t articles on certain organizations and people. Because I wasn’t very familiar with GNG back then, I understand now that some of these might not pass GNG easily, but they are important in their fields. But none of these articles were taken to AFD until recently, when many of my old articles were flagged. This is because I started reviewing new pages and countering editors engaged in UPE. PS. I never thought I’d need to share this on-wiki, but I run a startup in Pakistan similar to Tenderd, BigRentz and Deugro.
    so presumably he considers himself an authority on notability No, I don’t consider myself an expert on WP:N. If I’m still unsure about an article, I prefer to draft it and get a review rather than creating it directly. Even though I’m a AFC reviewer myself, I follow this approach. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Saqib, thanks for your response.
    I’m sorry to hear that you’ve encountered problems off-wiki. I was also disappointed to see the almost routine levels of personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith aimed at you in your talkpage archives. If such activity was more widely encountered across en.wikipedia I’m sure that many of us would have stopped editing long ago. Axad12 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "If someone approaches you to have their images uploaded, then you clearly have a COI with them. That's how COI works." This is absolutely not the case. We advise article subjects to ask Wikimedians to take their pictures; we run events where Wikimedians meet article subjects to take their photos. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The statement was made w.r.t Saqib's reply and it shouldn't be broadly construed. Advising article subjects to ask Wikimedians to take their pictures and running events are completely different from what we are discussing here. Even in those situations, what do you do when someone asks you to make changes to their article? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Subjects are usually advised to make requests on the TP with desired changes. These changes are often declined and sometimes implemented. The only difference with this scenario is that the request could be made privately and in which case I would advice Saqib to refer them to the talk page. Best, Reading Beans 06:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I can see that the article on Ghias Khan was created on 10 May 2019‎ by Saqib and the image was uploaded to commons on 8 May 2019. How is it possible to receive an image through VRT two days before a draft/article is created? Am I missing something here? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Jeraxmoira, Good catch! So like I mentioned above, I was a bit disappointed to find that there weren’t articles on certain organizations and individuals incl. Ghias Khan. Given that he was the CEO of one of Pakistan's most largest and respected Engro Corporation, I felt it was important to create a BLP of him because his role in the field was significant. After creating the BLP, I've to admit that I, myself, reached out to Engro to request a photo for illustrating the BLP. That's it! At the time, I didn't even realize this could be considered a COI, but now I understand and will be more careful in the future. By the way, if you review this BLP, do you think it appears PROMO, cites unreliable sources, or includes any WP:OR? If it doesn’t show these issues, then there's no reason to doubt that it was created on behalf of Ghias Khan. I aimed to write it as neutrally as possible. But if you still think I had received any favors from Engro, then I wouldn't have irritated @Crosji, who primarily creates and edits articles related to Engro and its parent organisation Category:Dawood Hercules Corporation. Also, If I had received any payment or favor, I would have voted to keep his BLP, not to merge. I wouldn’t upset someone who had paid me or gave me favour. Anyway, I still believe there's enough coverage on him to meet GNG. However, as I mentioned at this AFD, I no longer have any interest in that BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, but this explanation is very weak in supporting your story and it seems that you are very much involved in UPE. Any editor active since 2014 with extensive contributions in 2016, 2017 and 2018 would likely know how COI works. An edit summary search through your contributions related to COI until 2019 shows many hits, which only suggests that you are familiar with the concept, although it would take some time to go through all your contributions.
    After creating the BLP, I've to admit that I, myself, reached out to Engro to request a photo for illustrating the BLP. - An admin should check whether the draft Draft:Ghias Khan was created before 8 May 2019.
    UPE does not mean that you must vote "keep" in an AfD, remove promotional content or fail to write the article neutrally. Anyone familiar with the history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shewasafairy/Archive will know how UPE editors draftified articles, moved them back to the mainspace, reviewed them, and then started an AfD thinking that if the consensus was to keep, the article could never be deleted. Anyone believing an editor who says they were unaware that reaching out to the subject is a form of COI after four years of experience with Wikipedia is just BS. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Jeraxmoira, it seems that you are very much involved in UPE That was quite harsh, I would say. And I'm not denying that I don't understand how COI works. I'm just saying that creating a BLP out of curiosity about someone and then indirectly asking them (in this case, Engro) for their images isn't the type of COI I've heard of. Anyway, I don't think there's anything more to add, as I've clarified what is true. And I don’t want to accuse you of casting aspersions since I don’t recall interacting with you before. Feel free to review my contributions and ask me any questions. I'm open to further interrogation. But this needs to be the last time. I've had enough of complaints against me. I'm not frustrated, but I don't want to provide lengthy explanations each time to defend myself about my past editing behavior. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am waiting to see when this draft was initially created. Apart from that, I do not have the time or energy to skim through your contributions, as it is very much evident to me. From a glance, I also believe you probably have not reached out to any other BLPs you've created articles on, which makes it more suspicious. The IP who started this case should be doing the legwork for diffs. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    ┌──────────────────────────────┘
    Jeraxmoira, See this. Your suspicions are understandable. It might seem like I was engaged in UPE since I created a BLP on Ghias Khan and then asked them for their image because it was easy to email Engro and request a photo. If I were in your position, I might have similar concerns. However, you need to trust me when I say I am not involved in COI/UPE. I would have the courage to admit it if I were. I mostly create articles about lawmakers, and it’s exhausting and sometimes not recommended (because they then ask for favors and threaten otherwise) trying to obtain their photos. But I’ve reached out to the National Assembly of Pakistan multiple times, but they’ve refused to release the photo under free license for various reasons. I would like to conclude by saying that if you still believe my autopatrolled and NPR rights should be removed, I have no objection. I am not interested in becoming an admin here (as mentioned on my userpage) and I'm not desperate in keeping autopatrolled and NPR rights either. However, I will keep countering and flagging UPE editors, regardless of how many allegations are thrown my way! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Just wanted to make two comments. First, I'm a newcomer to this noticeboard so I have no particular focus in COI situations. But I think it's notable that unlike some editors here, Saqib has been an active editor on this platform for 10 years now. So, they have a substantial contribution history and track record to look over, they are not some new UPE account pushing promotional articles. Secondly, Saqib has been extremely active nominating articles for deletion at AFD which is how I came to know them. This activity could be seen by some as agressive and I wouldn't be surprised if some editors are really irritated if not angry at them with this flurry of deletion nominations. I don't know who this IP editor is, but I think they are a registered account editing logged out but they just started editing today with this IP address and came right to COIN to make a formal complaint that shows they are a very experienced editor, not a newbie.
    It could be that there are COI issues to explore here but I don't think it's clear that uploading an image for an article demonstrates a COI and it doesn't look like there is a consensus here that it does, so it's clearly a fuzzy area. You can all keep pursuing this with a discussion if you want but the entire way this was started, by an editor who is clearly editing logged out, raises a red flag for me especially when the IP is not just initiating a discussion but asking for permissions to be removed and topic bans to be imposed. That's quite a leap from suspicions to punishment. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    +1. Seems very likely as a retaliatory move against Saqib. Best, Reading Beans 06:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    "The statement was made w.r.t... and it shouldn't be broadly construed. " I quoted your post in full and my response to it stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I don't know enough to take a deep dive here but if you interpret the overly-broadly-written wp:coi broadly, any human who edits any article involving humans has a COI, and I see assertions/interpretations above that are almost that creative. Also building a broad negative characterization of an editor with 60k+ edits on 13k+ different pages and promoting/proposing severe overall measures from some alleged issues with a few pages is pretty outlandish. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Out of interest, what is your line of argument re: "if you interpret wp:coi broadly", etc?
    Is it simply a question of taking the sentence Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest and extending it ad absurdum to suggest that everything is a COI, and thus that COI has no real meaning? If so, I disagree. Axad12 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The strength of a COI influence varies from a negligibly small .00001% that covers a good fraction of all editing to a very strong 100% and wp:coi defines them all as COI and fails to make the distinction. And numerous problems arise from that failure. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It does make such a distinction, it tells us that how singficant a COI needs to be before its an issue is governed by common sense. You seem to have a personal grievance against COI as currently written and are simply here to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I stand by what I said, including how this actually plays out, but don't want to get into a general discussion here. Having an opinion that a policy needs to evolve is not a "grievance" and saying so is not "disrupt" (doubly so when it is simply a response to an inquiry) and "simply here to disrupt" is the opposite of AGF, it's falsely inventing bad faith. Please quit with the false accusations and mis-characteriations. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Nazareth University‎

    edit
    Latest comment: 8 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    This editor is a single-purpose account that has only edited Nazareth University sporadically since 2008. They have not ever responded to warnings and questions on their User Talk page. A connection of some kind seems highly likely and the username may imply a direct, paid connection. ElKevbo (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Username softblock has been applied by HJ Mitchell on Promotional Username grounds. Their entire contribs (from a non-admin view) is to that article (Special:Contributions/NazWeb) and with some of the breaks between editing, I agree with Elkev that their editing is SPA, and wouldn’t change, if Unblocked. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 11:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1242435599"