Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"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:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Connections Academy
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:LPL Financial
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:The Student Room
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Augusta Read Thomas
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    User:Metalworker14

    [edit]

    I've definitively determined there's a strong COI between the editor and the band Symphony of Heaven and personally identifying private evidence has been emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. It isn't hard to find it, but we can't directly post such information. I am opening the case here, because I suspect further promotional activity such as promoting bands, record labels or sources cited within the articles the editor created. The user is a prolific creator of articles about Christian Metal and Metal bands, albums and record labels. Suspicion was triggered when Metalworker14 uploaded an image into Symphony of Heaven through Commons, stating that they were the copyright holder only for me to find that it's a downsized version of the black and white photo right above "biography" from the band's official website. The band's website is copyrighted and does not identify the author of the photo, and the photo that was on Commons did not have VRT verification. The user has previously been notified about uploading an image from the band's Facebook. In the process of investigating copyright matters, I browsed the band's website and came upon "For managemental concerns: Return to Dust Promotions" at contact section of the page. When I went to seek information on that company, the search result suggests COI with the extensively cited source "The Metal Onslaught Magazine is extensively cited in Symphony of Heaven as well as other articles created by the same author. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I cannot comment on whether there is a COI issue with the article you flagged without seeing the off-wiki evidence you found, I would like to add that this website themetalonslaught.com is not a RS at all, yet Metalworker14 has excessively used it across many articles which raises serious suspicions that they may have a COI with the magazine. I strongly suggest they stop using this source entirely unless they receive approval at WP:RSN. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib:, I believe that there is COI with the Magazine and the inserting party, actually. I just had to be really careful to not go foul of WP:OUTING but if you spend a few minutes Googling, it should become clear. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Off-wiki evidence does suggest that they have a COI with both Symphony of Heaven and Ascending King. And according to our P&Gs, Metalworker14 is required to declare their COI either on their user page or on the tps of the relevant articles, which they have yet to do so I strongly urge them to do so as soon as possible. Also, I recommend they refrain from directly editing these articles but if they continue to ignore these warnings, a temporary block may be necessary to get their attention. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Symphony of Heaven is one thing, but the bigger issue is the extensive use of sources they're closely related to that are not WP:RS trying to bolster the notability of non-notable bands, albums and recording companies. If you spent more than a minute or two searching with the research skills held by quite a few Wiki editors, that should become obvious. All I can say is that it's highly plausible and convincing that Metalworker14 has vested interest to promote certain authors and certain magazines, production and promotion companies. Graywalls (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is absolutely correct. The user has created over 150 articles and the frequency with which certain sources and authors are used would be considered industrial grade spam if those references were being added to pre-existing articles.
    The fact that the user created the articles themselves and used these non WP:RS compliant sources to support notability makes the matter worse rather than better.
    To be honest, the sheer number of links makes me wonder if Search engine optimization was a factor here. Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a large part of what music promoters do. Outside evidence suggests involvement of suspected COI editor partaking in the promotion business. Perhaps themetalonslaught needs to be suggested for Mediawiki blacklisting. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so. There is no place on Wikipedia for this sort of activity. Axad12 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a membership overlap between Symphony of Heaven, Timoratus, Ascending King, The Thlipsis, Mystic Winter. Also a member from those bands having COI with these sources cited by the user in question here
    Metal Onslaught Magazine, Life of Defiance Podcast.
    Other COI possibilities are Return to Dust Promotions and Battlefrost Productions Graywalls (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12:, were you able to locate the source referring to these? Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, A couple of days ago I had a look at the references for every 6th article that the user had created (as listed on their user page). I saw enough to appreciate that, as per your earlier comments, there was a recurring reliance on a rather small number of particular sources and authors. On that basis I was inclined to agree with your estimation that the user was involved in promotion and that there was certainly a clear and transparent conflict of interest in relationship to a particular individual.
    However, I must admit that I do not recall specific sources at this point in time as I seem to have been quite busy on this noticeboard in the intervening two days and this thread had rather slipped from my mind. Axad12 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to update that still waiting on functionary to weigh in. Graywalls (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:LOUTSOCK seems to be happening now. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Smatprt (undisclosed paid editing, long term PR editing)

    [edit]
    Possible covert promo edit
    and related suspicious edits such as this
    and this peculiar Special:Diff/916975478 by WP:SPA

    I became suspicious and checked the contribution history after I learned they were responsible for a lot of advertorial puff contents inserted into Carmel-by-the-Sea over a decade ago. I realized the account has been resurrected from sleeper status and making edits in the same subject area. Private evidence of positive COI and UPE submitted to [email protected] already about COI with Theatre of the Golden Bough's owner institution. Graywalls (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC) @Star Mississippi and Drmies:, I think they might be collaborating with you know who... or a slight chance of socking.. could you check? Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a CU and unfortunately do not have the bandwidth to dig right now, but endorse @Drmies' suggestion of an SPI. Let me know how I can help though. Also, ugh (issue, not you @Graywalls) Star Mississippi 16:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SMATPRT here. Happy to answer any questions. As you can see from my history, I am only one person, and I am not a puppet for anyone else. As you can also see, I used to edit a variety of articles, mostly theatre related, or on the history of Carmel-by-the-Sea. After the great and ugly Wikipedia Shakespeare Wars, I soured on editing and have only continued on non-Sheakespeare articles infrequently. I was recently alerted that two significant Carmel History articles had been absorbed into a related article and then deleted and/or redirected, which is what I restored, since as I recall from Wiki policies, deleting unique pages and incorporating summery versions into a related article is not the Wiki way. Kinda the opposite, right? But it's been a while...
    Anyhow - thanks for letting me respond. 50.213.42.61 (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To ensure the authenticity of the response, please always correspond while signed-in rather replying later and saying it was you from your account. Graywalls (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Signing in so you know it's me :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smatprt:, Although I don't want to make baseless accusations, the combination of your editing pattern, specifically the articles you edit and the evidence available off Wiki is strongly indicating you're doing paid editing. Paid editing does not mean there has to be a line item payment "for editing Wikipedia". I can not reveal the exact evidence, because policy strictly prohibits me from doing so publicly, but the relevant evidence has been emailed to the contact designated by Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Smatprt, thank you for your contributions. Could you please tell us if you have a Conflict of Interest with any of these articles, Pacific Repertory Theatre, Golden Bough Playhouse, Theatre of the Golden Bough, Forest Theater, Stephen Moorer? You have mentioned that you don't have a financial stake in the topics you edit,[1] but I am wondering if you have any other type of COI connection to the subjects of these articles? Netherzone (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I would be curious to see the evidence of paid editing because in looking at Smatprt's editing history I am not at all convinced that this is a paid editing account. What I see is an editor who is a Shakespeare buff with a particular interest in the Shakespeare authorship question. This is a natural pairing with an interest in the Carmel Shakespeare Festival and the Pacific Repertory Theatre (PRC) which runs the Carmel festival which has drawn national attention in the press and in academic journals related to American theatre and Shakespeare. The PRC has participated in scholarship in the Shakespeare authorship area; enough so that its director (Stephen Moorer) was given an award for his work by an academic society at Concordia University (a respected Canadian university) and the Shakespeare Oxford Society (an academic society that largely publishes on Shakespeare authorship issues) held its annual national convention in Carmel one year to correspond with the festival's unique programming. Anybody who is into Shakespeare scholarship as a passion could reasonably have the editing history that I am seeing from Smatprt. And if the editor happens to live in California they could be just taking an interest in a notable topic area in their local area. There's nothing wrong with that. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In fairness, I think I'd rather hear it from the user themselves. They were asked upthread whether or not they have a conflict of interest (on 24/10 and 31/10, and also on their talk page). The responses provided thus far seem evasive.
      The question that needs to be resolved is as follows, as per the request at the talkpage, here [2]
      Please indicate the nature of personal/professional relationship with the organizations/buildings/facilities in Carmel-by-the-Sea you have been editing on off and on for over a decade.
      The off-wiki evidence is perfectly clear in relation to the nature of the user's quite blatant conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment. Like 4meter4, I would like to see the evidence. Is this a case of an editor's COI/paid editing, or is this a misguided vendetta against that editor? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It cannot be provided here without WP:OUTING, however it is easily located. Axad12 (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ssilvers and 4meter4, just a brief courtesy note to ask if you were able to satisfy yourselves as to the nature of the CoI under discussion here and to determine that this thread is very much not part of a misguided vendetta against the editor (who is not simply a Shakespeare buff with a particular interest in the Shakespeare authorship question)? Axad12 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I have no idea where to look. Moreover, even if it was COI or paid editing, I don't understand why good content that is properly referenced should be deleted. This appears to be some kind of hysteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding where to look, why not have a try?
      Regarding deletion, I think you are conflating two entirely separate issues.
      You seem to have made a number of bad faith allegations recently, e.g. here [3], and the comment re: misguided vendetta above and now the allegation of some kind of hysteria.
      Could these comments and your apparent disinclination to consider the possibility of CoI be at all related to the fact that you're the largest single contributor to the article on Stephen Moorer (where you've made no fewer than 71 edits)? Axad12 (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, whatever is going on here [4]?
      And here [5] with further accusations of a vendetta and of threatening and badgering Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, why is 4meter4 claiming at the Pacific Repertory Theatre article that the coi issues have been appropriately dealt with and solved? It doesn't seem very clear how a reasonable editor could have read this thread and arrived at that conclusion. Axad12 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Axad12 I said that after adding more than 50 new references to the article, and checking the citations to the sources currently in the article. I spent many many hours sifting through sources in JSTOR, PROQUEST, EBSCOE, etc. I think after having read the literature and adding content and checking for verifiability, I could make an assessment on the state of the article. As it is, I am stepping away from it and have removed the article from my watchlist. This is too contentious of a topic area for my mental health. Please leave me out of this going forward.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When I asked you to provide WP:THREESOURCES, it was simply a request for cooperation, which you're not required to honor, but it certainly frustrates others when doing so would help others realize notability and move along. Please also see the essay WP:AMOUNT. If what's needed is a 4 carat center stone diamond, five hundred 0.01 carat pieces won't be an acceptable substitute. You talk about how many sources, but not really about the DEPTH of coverage. It's extremely time consuming for other editors to have to sift through all those sources. When put together with your unwillingness to name the few sources that anchors down the notability, it can be seen as stalling the process. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Graywalls You are now bringing this up again at a noticeboard discussion at which I am not the focus. This is now feeling like WP:HOUNDING; particularly after I already expressed my need to withdraw over experiencing mental distress due to conflict at the PRT article in my comment here and on the PRT talkpage. I already requested that you allow me to depart from dialoguing with you further on this issue multiple times. Please leave me alone.4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not think I have acted in bad faith. As I have said before, if the content and sources regarding these arts organizations and related people are good, they should not be deleted. As for Stephen Moorer, I have had an interest in Shakespeare and regional theatre since joining Wikipedia in 2006, and so I have come across his WP article several times. I tried to improve it whenever I did (mostly in 2009). I see that someone recently deleted much of the content from the article, even though some of it is referenced acceptably. As for searching, I did do a search for "Smatprt" but did not see anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ssilvers If we're talking about the Stephen Moorer Wikipedia article, can you confirm that you participated in the original deletion discussion concerning that article?
      And while I get where you're coming from - smatprt has certainy experienced some harassment from socks in the past - this is not a deletion discussion. This discussion is purely about determining whether or not Smatprt has a COI and whether they are likely to have engaged in undisclosed paid editing. Let's not get distracted by other issues here. This appears to be some kind of hysteria is not a very productive statement. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      GreenLipstickLesbian, I do not remember. I am getting the feeling that this had something to do with the old Shakespeare Authorship Question war, but frankly I don't remember. If all this is about is whether he had a COI, I did misunderstand and apologize. I thought this had to do with all the deletions and AfDs people are making to all the articles he worked on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ssilvers, you are not being truthful nor are you AGF of those who disagree with you. You have stated that those who disagree with you all the deletions and AfDs people are making to all the articles he [Smatprt] worked on? Are you sure you mean all? You made a similar accusations to an admin, like this: They are on a vendetta to delete everything the COI person wrote and this they are threatening to delete or merge out three certainly notable arts organizations[6] to an admin when neither of these statements are true, there is no vendetta to delete everything, nor have there been threats to delete. Why did you make that accusation? You have also implied some sort of conspiratorial accusation on this very thread is this a misguided vendetta against that editor?. You have lied about me and assumed bad faith Netherzone is obviously very invested in deleting any and all material connected with Carmel [7] when I have done no such thing as trying to delete all material connected with Carmel, California. You are completely out of line. Please calm down, stop exaggerating and making things up and take a breather. Netherzone (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question @Smatprt:, I have two questions for you. In 2016, you added that Stephen Moorer has two sisters: "Jacqui Hope Moorer" and "Catherine Hudson". You also added where they lived. You did not provide a source. I've looked for one, and the only place I can find this information is the Stephen Moorer Wikipedia page/mirrors of the Wikipedia page. What was your source for this information?
    Similarly, in 2009, you uploaded this image. Could you please explain how you happen to possess the copyright for it? You said in the author field that I (Smatprt (talk)) created this work entirely by myself. Could you explain how exactly you created it?
    That being said, even the now-off en-Wiki evidence is compelling. Couldn't you have just used edit requests? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In an effort to bring this thread back on track, I note that on 24th October Smatprt said that they are Happy to answer any questions [8].
    That being the case, can I suggest that all outstanding issues in this thread will be resolved by a straightforward answer from Smatprt on the issue of what degree of association there is between, on the one hand, user Smatprt and, on the other hand, Stephen Moorer and the Pacific Repertory Theatre.
    If the user is unprepared to answer that question then it seems to me that some form of admin action needs to be taken based on the easily accessible off-wiki evidence confirming the nature of the relationship.
    In the meantime I wonder if many of the recent additions to the thread (e.g. from here [9] to here [10]) might be collapsed, as the two users involved seem to have inadvertently derailed the thread into a content discussion which has no bearing on the central issue. Axad12 (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of this have started brewing over at Talk:Forest_Theater#COI. @GreenC:, perhaps you wouldn't mind discussing the matter here regarding Smatprt. Graywalls (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    --> Well some here say it's obvious, but I have no idea how to look. From the context of the above discussion, I can make a reasonable guess. I would be more concerned about professional sock farms. COI and UPE exists all over Wikipedia it's a question of triage, how serious is it. The serious problems are dark money politics, PR firms, ideology think tanks, etc.. a small arts organizations is low hanging fruit mostly harmless and IMO a waste of time. I feel the same about Henderson for the most part: the harm level was very low, the removal of some article topics and content was unnecessarily damaging, and the time sink is/was high.
    --> To give an example, I found a Republican political think tank had subtly molded the public perception of a Democratic think tank Media Matters for America that for over a decade cause massive harm to this organization after their biased description got picked up by international media echoed 100s of times around the world. I had to RfC change because some operatives were watching and blocking attempts.
    --> Another example, Graywalls knows about, is that priest who used Wikipedia for self-promotion for over a decade, and to influence the media and clerks at the Supreme Court (USA) by injecting leading and false information into the news cycle.
    --> When this forum gets involved in serious social problems let me know, happy to help, but it's hard to get outraged about a small arts community writing a theater history mostly concerning dead people, it's largely a harmless distraction from the limited resources available ie. the expert attention of people who care. -- GreenC 17:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COI is a serious problem wherever it is found. Low hanging fruit does not get a free pass and identifying such users is not a waste of time. If you have no interest though, feel free not to participate. Axad12 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like "not to participate" any further in this discussion. Please, everyone, stop pinging me. I feel llke Dorothy, realizing that I can just click my heels together. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC:, You chose to engage in the article talk page questioning the COI tag and supporting evidence behind it. There's no leeway reserved allowing "small arts community may engage un undisclosed paid editing or public relations editing". Procedurally, COI/N is the proper place for such things to be discussed in details. I guess I don't understand why you get involved and question the tag if it's not that important to you. Graywalls (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forest Theater was already on my watchlist, because you and some others had previously brought it to my attention, on that deeply obscure category talk page, whose stated intention was to form a group of editors to delete all the Henderson articles. I exposed it as unambiguous canvassing, after which everyone left to carry on in places unknown. -- GreenC 19:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that treating COI as triage vs comprehensive is that when it does come time to deal with major violators countless editors will point to our lack of action on the ones you say don't matter as proof that the community condones this sort of thing in general. Once you start making exceptions for the groups you don't think are a real threat it makes room for other people to make exceptions for groups they don't think are a real threat but you think are. I think that these sorts of things are in fact a real threat, even when its a small arts group and not a megacorp. Honestly especially when its a small arts group and not a megacorp because its more likely to avoid scrutiny due to the nature of the topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like a choice of triage vs comprehensive, the COI problem is so endemic anything you do is at best triage. -- GreenC 19:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate on the analogy then? I don't see how a triage approach results in us not treating this particular case of malignant cancer (there are no gunshot patients or anything like that, look around you... This noticeboard is the OR). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about not treating. But is it cancer? Using the triage analogy, this noticeboard is the ER where patients show up (as new talk page sections). The participants here are nurses and doctors, some more expert and committed than others. There is investigations into what the source of the problem is, immediate actions (banner tags), longer term treatments like editing articles. My point is he patients are not equally important. Some have COVID and risk infecting the community. Some have a bruised knee. Most COI is banal and not very significant and easily fixed without major surgery. I'd like to see this forum respect the WP:PRESERVE policy more and be conscious of the natural human trait to exact revenge/punishment on the perps by way of deletion. Because it's self-defeating to remove good content that might be addressed with a lighter less invasive touch. -- GreenC 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is not a thread about article content. Please take content discussion to the relevant article talk page. It is also not a location for shooting the breeze on how you think COI should be dealt with and whether or not you think COI is a serious problem. Axad12 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly about article content, we're discussing this particular case and you can't discuss COI without discussing specific content (how would such a discussion even work?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we keep philosophical conversations about the purpose of COI/N to the talk pages? Thank you so much.
    And @GreenC - if you want to discuss content, may I advise the article talk pages? And if you'd like evidence- smatprt has self-disclosed their real life name and identity on enWikipedia in the past. They have a conflict of interest. They clearly don't want their irl identity to be tied to their username onWiki, so out of respect for a fellow human being, I'm not linking it. But they have a very obvious financial incentive to edit certain pages in a positive light, and the way they are hiding that, refusing to disclose in the modern day, and not use things such as edit requests, is alarming and dragging this out a lot longer than it needs to. Other editor's insistence of trying to relive old CTOPs and turn this into a deletion discussion are also not helping. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is before us doesn't appear banal, not very significant, and easily fixed without major surgery. It appears to be the most pressing case facing us at the moment unless you know of others and are keeping them secret for some reason. There is no higher priority on the table. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC:, I guess I don't see why you turn a blind eye on obvious undisclosed paid editing or organization controlled accounts and don't flinch one bit, but become upset about hat note. Why does the hat note bother you? Organizations controlling page is an existential threat to the very purpose of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    UPE and COI Promo, whatever the scale, is contrary to two of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, WP:5P1: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents although some fellow Wikimedia projects are. And, it is often the case that COI/UPE goes against WP:5P2; which can be observed with some regularity at NPP or AfC: We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. Netherzone (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And when PR editing distorts the backbone of the article, whatever that builds upon it is inherently crooked. Public relations editing of Wikipedia is an existential threat to the encyclopaedia Graywalls (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greeting everyone. SMATPRT here. Thanks all for the clarifications as to what is defined as paid editing. Although I am not paid to edit or even monitor Wikipedia, I do work for Pacific Repertory Theatre. And while it was always my understanding that COI editing is discouraged, it is not disallowed. I have always tried to live up to Wikipedia policies and over the last 20 years of editing (the last 10 being few and far between) have hardly seen any of my edits seriously questioned. If someone sees "puffery" feel free to bring it up on the talk page. However, I don't see how providing a photograph of a long-closed production falls under that category.
    Regarding Photographs. I take theatre photos and have for decades. A while back there was an active push to add photos and graphics, and I was asked if my photos were available for use, and if so, to add them to various articles (mostly Shakespeare related) in order to enhance their visual appeal. I am an amateur photographer, and do not sell or market my photos. I do not copy-write any of them, and allow their use without attribution.
    Regarding these pages:
    This is the company I work for, so have a COI.
    This is correct, so have a COI.
    This is incorrect. The Theatre of the Golden Bough was a world famous theatre in Carmel, never owned by PacRep, and burned down in 1935. I don't see how there can be any COI here.
    This is correct,, so have a COI.
    This is correct, I am definitely related to PacRep, so have a COI.
    This is correct, however I made edits to the entire article, as I am a amateur historian on Carmel and lecture on the subject (non-paid), its bohemian influence, and the Carmel arts scene. Edits regarding PacRep would be COI.
    Bottom line, I am happy to add whatever disclosures or tags that you all feel are appropriate. And happy to discuss any other accusations. My apologies for not understanding that "paid editing" also means that if you are in any way employed by an organization, and you edit Wikipedia as a volunteer on your off hours, then you are a paid editor. Do I have that right?
    I am not collaborating with anyone and have no idea who "you know who" is. You all seem to have some inner knowledge of some editor you are on the lookout for, but I have no idea who that is or what you are talking about.
    It does look like some kind of vendetta is going on here - perhaps because you thought I was "you know who"? I can't see how any of these articles are worthy of deletion, nor are any of the photographs. I would love to hear an explanation on all these deletions attempts. Every single subject has been covered by state, national and/or worldwide press and is notable on their own accord. The significant people directly involved with them also makes them notable, if I recall correctly, as well as other notable attributes.Smatprt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smatprt: Getting back to you about Although I am not paid to edit or even monitor Wikipedia, I do work for Pacific Repertory Theatre. And while it was always my understanding that COI editing is discouraged, it is not disallowed. That's like saying a salaried field sales is not getting paid to talk to their client over dinner and saying they're just chatting with a friend. That's considered a "work related engagement" in common sense even though salaried people are not paid on task-by-task or hourly basis. So, failing to disclose COI and editing on articles on which you have a COI is prohibited. As for disclosed COI editing, it's not prohibited but strongly discouraged. I'd place it in the same category as infidelity in California. It shouldn't be done, but it is not prohibited by criminal law in that state. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've had a chance to review the various articles and I am astounded at the deletion spree. First, it appears that you all thought I was a puppet for someone known to some of you (but not to me). That not being the case, the deletion spree continued and has now grown to include a number of photographs both new and historic (either fair use or public domain). I have been on the receiving end of a vendetta before and this bears all the signs. It's the main reason I cut back on 95% of my editing. Graywalls - do we know each other? Did I run over your dog or something? Not content at deleting sourced information, but you are also deleting photographs? Both historic public domain or fair use shots, as well as more recent production shots, all of long closed, though notable, productions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smatprt:, what is the nature of your relationship to PRT? I have a pretty good idea, but it has not been directly stated by you. You indicated, finally, after two weeks you work for them. Someone who works at Walmart stocking shelves editing Walmart doesn't amount to COI if they edit Walmart.. but if they work in the corporate office as the director of public relations, then absolutely. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls: There is no need to pursue this case so vigorously. I can see that discovering that Smatprt has a connection with Pacific Repertory Theatre would have looked suspicious. Combining that with WP:ARBSAQ could make it seem a crisis. However, checking edits shows that there is nothing in the last few years that is a problem. Smatprt has made it clear above (search for "so have a COI") that there is a connection but this is an enthusiast with an interest in Shakespeare and theatrical productions—it's not someone selling widgets or promoting wellness scams. It would be better to focus on article content—a few things I have looked at do not show a problem. Does anyone have a recent diff of an edit that warrants the attention shown here? Some edits from others have removed material considered to be WP:UNDUE, but what I saw was not puffery or excessive—it seems reasonable that an article on a theater company would list significant productions. I don't have any COI here and was on the opposite side from Smatprt in WP:ARBSAQ. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq:, what set it off was their decision (as someone with very strong COI) to Special:Diff/1246762718 the re-direct on something they have a strong COI with that was deemed not-notable by another editor. All without disclosing their COI. They've been editing in a way promotional of PRT for a long time. That's no insignificant change. Graywalls (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At 20:06, 25 August 2024, Netherzone redirected Golden Bough Playhouse to Theatre of the Golden Bough. Then at 23:56, 25 August 2024 Netherzone redirected Theatre of the Golden Bough to Edward G. Kuster. A minor edit war then broke out. For anyone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, redirecting an article is a big step and trying to edit war to keep the change is very unwise—you are supposed to start a discussion on article talk and, if unsatisfied, use WP:AFD. The article talk pages seem to show people only discussing COI and User:Greghenderson2006. Indignation should be reserved for harmful cases. If some enthusiasts have used undue material, it should patiently be removed but people are losing sight of the big picture: COI editing is opposed because it is generally harmful, not because it is morally repugnant. If there is a problem, someone should add some diffs here showing recent edits that are actually a problem. Reverting a bold redirect is standard procedure and the solution is AfD, not COIN. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing you're misunderstanding is that the purpose of this is to not to overrule the change that happened. That's what lead to the development of suspicion of long term COI. Graywalls (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When will someone produce a diff of a recent bad edit? Sure, investigate, but stuff from before 2024, or a revert of a deletion-by-redirection, are not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, can I just check that when you wrote above that this is an enthusiast with an interest in Shakespeare and theatrical productions you had Googled to look at the easily accessible evidence of the exact nature of this user's COI with the Pacific Repertory Theatre, which the user still has not fully divulged.
    The Shakespeare stuff is irrelevant to this thread and the user is far more than an enthusiast with an interest in [...] theatrical productions.
    The user demonstrably has a very profound COI and should not be making edits to the relevant articles at all. They should be using the COI edit request process like any other COI user in a comparable role at an organisation (or indeed the degree of association that they have with Stephen Moorer).
    The user has been a significant contributor on at least two articles of a promotional nature where they have a very strong COI and that is a serious problem which has to stop. That has been the opinion expressed by pretty much every editor who has contributed to this discussion, except for those who incorrectly put this all down to a hysterical reaction based on Shakespeare authorship issues with no relevance to COI.
    It doesn't seem to be at all reasonable for the user to say that COI editing is discouraged, it is not disallowed, where the issue here is a long history of clear promo and public relations editing, which is specifically disallowed and which is an issue that was first raised in relation to this user back in 2009 (both at COIN and on the relevant article talk pages). Axad12 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: I knew Smatprt's identity before WP:ARBSAQ started in January 2011 due to my minor involvement in the topic. I understand that some COI regulars think they have cracked a huge case because a tiny amount of digging shows that Smatprt has an enormous COI. My point is that a single revert of someone changing an article into a redirect appears to be their only sin in the last several years. For the fourth time, does anyone have a recent diff of a bad edit? If that is too much trouble, how about quoting some text of a "promotional nature" which is still in one of the articles concerned. Is this COIN report about a theoretical problem or an actual problem? Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While Smatprt has not edited any of the articles in a number of years, there are still unresolved issues re: a small group of apparently connected users effectively curating the articles during that period, currently reverting/opposing deletion of material and throwing around a lot of quite ridiculous bad faith allegations to try to prevent scrutiny. At least one of those users has been riding shotgun for Smatprt since at least 2009 (and has continued to do so in this very thread). It seems that there are credible concerns re: meatpuppetry, off-wiki co-ordination and general COI here and - yes - I think that is very much an actual problem.
    There are a significant number of users who have raised COI concerns in this thread and/or in the relevant talk page discussions and I think it is worrying to see you repeatedly attempt to downplay those concerns.
    This thread is not a question of some COI regulars think they have cracked a huge case, it is a question of several articles being manipulated over a very long period of time in a promotional fashion which very closely resembles COI/UPE. It is an established fact that a very senior individual at one of the theatres involved has been part of that activity, and under such circumstances it does not seem unreasonable to expect some form of admin action to be taken. Axad12 (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the issue at stake is not about whether any promotional material remains in any of the articles concerned. It is a problem that it was put there in the first place and maintained there over a very long period of time by regular contributors. It is thus quite unreasonable to effectively say "all bad material gone, nothing further to see here, please now move along". This thread is not about the clean up effort, it is about the underlying COI. Axad12 (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not surprising that Wikipedia has editors who oppose deletion of content in arts articles. The people you think are "connected users" are just editors with similar interests in high-quality encyclopedic content. I encountered many of them during the infobox wars—they are generally excellent editors. Discussions should focus on actionable outcomes. Instead of being horrified, please just identify some bad article content. I have looked at some of the related articles and cannot see a problem warranting all this fuss. You have not located a nest of scammers. This is just a bunch of good editors interested in theater! Putting them in the village stocks is not an achievable or helpful outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you about the "apparently connected users", and I'm not the only user to have expressed that opinion.
    With regard to the promotional material that was previously in the articles, you only have to look for the large scale removals of material that can be easily located in the edit histories. The relevant edit summaries and talk page discussions demonstrate the views of a significant number of editors who saw the material as promotional, undue, etc.
    I'm not horrified by any of this, and nor do I find it morally repugnant, but your comments to that effect seems to be in the poor taste tradition of similar comments aimed at other users in this saga, re: misguided vendetta and some kind of hysteria etc, both in this thread and elsewhere.
    In reality, what is going on here is none of those things, it is just editors who take COI seriously attempting to bring the articles into line with the relevant policies and guidelines - and (as usual) being subjected to various aspersions and personal attacks for their troubles. Axad12 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are levels of delusion—believing, for example, that SchroCat is a "connected user" with Smatprt would be at the high end. They are just two editors with an interest in high-quality encyclopedic content. COIN plays a vital role in protecting the encyclopedia, and Smatprt (as acknowledged above) has a COI. But no one can show any recent bad edits! It's nonsense to put this much energy into an historical issue. Everything at Wikipedia should be about article content and it is very unsatisfactory to just regurgitate debating points without at least identifying some bad article content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already indicated where you can easily locate the (already deleted) bad content. I never suggested that SchroCat was one of the connected users (and I don't believe that anyone else has either), although I do believe that their comments [11] [12] about someone being bullied off the [Pacific Repertory Theatre talk] page (either by Maineartists or anybody else) were exceptionally ill-advised groundless personal attacks. Similar allegations have been made by at least two other users - and if you want to see delusion then look no further than all of those comments.
    Ditto for repeated allegations (I count 6 of them so far, from at least 3 users) of a shadowy multi-user vendetta against Smatprt relating to years old Shakespeare authorship arguments and a barrage of allegations of bad faith conduct at the Pacific Repertory Theatre talk page.
    Personally I've played no part in the discussions there, but it seems perfectly clear that those working to improve the content of the article have been acting in nothing but obvious good faith and those working to prevent that are routinely making groundless allegations (including. laughably, a claim that the behaviour was worthy of a trip to ANI). Axad12 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don’t be silly. There’s no personal attack in what I have written. Three people have identified inappropriate behaviour directed towards 4meter4 across a range of pages: that’s not a personal attack, nor is it groundless. Either way, this is tangential to the topic. Maybe you could try and keep the thread running along the lines of the page, rather than trying to besmirch anyone’s name who is working on the article? - SchroCat (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, the discussions at PRT and elsewhere involving 4meter4 seemed like reasonable and within bounds policy discussions to me. 4meter4 didn't want to participate any more, which is their choice, but the idea that they were bullied off the talk page(s) doesn't seem to me to be borne out by the contents of the discussions. If there are specific diffs demonstrating bullying then I'd be glad to see them. If they stand up I'll happily scratch my comment re: exceptionally ill-advised groundless personal attacks. If such diffs don't exist then I'd suggest you scratch your comments re: bullied off the page. Hopefully this is deemed a fair and reasonable response. Axad12 (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not going to start building up a bunch of diffs over multiple pages just to get involved in a pointless timesink for the ANI peanut gallery, and I’m not going to strike my comment either. What you need to do is stop dragging this already overlong thread off on another pointless tangent. I don’t care whether you strike your comment or not: it’s silly and pointless, and I’ve already pointed that out to you. I’m going to step away from this as it wasn’t constructive in the first place, and you’re pushing it even further away from anything even vaguely useful. - SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, bullying is quite a serious issue and discussing it is neither silly or pointless (albeit, as you say, it is tangential to this thread). If you genuinely believe that there has been an incident of on-wiki bullying then I strongly encourage you to report it via the appropriate channels rather than making throwaway comments to that effect. Happy to conclude matters here if you are... Axad12 (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smatprt:,
    1.) I don't know you.
    2.) I've only initiated deletion on two photos on Commons specifically related to Golden Bough. Well, uploading improperly licensed photos is not allowed. If it slips through and they get deleted when they're caught noticed, you've got nobody else to blame. You uploaded photos from 1935 and 1949 and tried to trick the system into thinking it's public domain by but tagging them as "published pre 1929". Then, there's another picture of fire which apparently came from a blog somewhere. Thorough explanation is provided in deletion nomination on that one. I have no part in whatever production shots you're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about by "fair use" though, because there's no such thing as "fair use" on Commons.. In August 2024, someone editing from a California IP was rambling about "fair use" picture getting lost following Golden Bough Playhouse re-direct here though. Interesting coincidence. Graywalls (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again, everyone. SMATPRT here. This thread demonstrates the very reason I left as an active volunteer editor with thousands of non-controversial edits. I'm amazed that a small group of arts articles has generated such ill will, accusations, and negativity. Those demanding I disclose my precise relationship are really demanding I OUT myself. Is that what you desire? (By the way, I was outed during the SAQ wars, and the outers faced no punishment at all, not even a reprimand. So if you want to wade through those records, feel free.)
    If someone will provide a link (or better yet, the actual code) to place a COI announcement, I am perfectly willing to do so. It's definitely my bad that I did not know that was a requirement. But as you all have seen, I stepped away over a decade age, and no one brought it up then, although other editors, I believe, knew I has involved in the Carmel art scene.
    I have also been chastised on this thread for taking 8 days to respond. Sorry, but I have a demanding job and I'm here as a volunteer. And with the accusatory tone coming from several of you, I am in no hurry to play these childish games with you.
    And just above, Graywalls accused me of trying to "trick the system". What happened to Assume Good Faith?? It seems instead, some of you are loaded for bear. As I explained previously, I was encouraged to upload photos by numerous long-standing editors, and at the time, I believe there was a fair use or public interest criteria that the historical photos you reference fell under. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about? Regardless, there was no bad faith, no trickery, and no one was "caught" doing something wrong. Please stop with the accusations. Please. It's everything that's wrong with Wikipedia.
    I am deeply saddened at the wholesale deletions of relevant (and mostly sourced) material, especially without any discussion about specific edits. As a way to avoid losing this material, and actually discussing offending edits on the talk page, this is what I propose: Restore all these articles to before the deletion spree, and allow everyone to start with a clear head. Let's discuss specific edits, deletions, or corrections, achieve some consensus, and then make the edits. I'm happy to help provide sources, which are easily available. And any puffery (not that I believe there is much) can be easily re-written without deleting the relevant facts. Thoughts on this, everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatprt (talk • contribs) 21:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smatprt:, I've struck out what was perhaps not warranted. You did though, accuse me of doing something to recent production photo, which I didn't interact with at all. Going forward, I think it would be best if you do not directly edit anything PRT related, broadly construed, but use the talk page and submit the request via edit request and clearly state you're requesting edit as someone from PRT. Graywalls (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smatprt: I disagree with your suggestion above. The discussions taking place at the relevant talk pages are admittedly somewhat strained but they seem to be bringing about beneficial changes in some areas.
    I do agree with you, however, that it would be useful if there were to be some de-escalation. To that end I wonder if you (and others) would consider refraining from referring to those discussions as part of a 'vendetta' against you, as you have done above [13] [14] (twice in text, once in an edit summary, as well as several other comments suggesting similar motivation). The standard definition of the word 'vendetta' is presumably something along the lines of "a campaign intended to do serious harm to an individual, based on personal animosity in relation to past events". In reality, the individuals that you are referring to are regularly engaged in addressing COI issues - the PRT etc articles are just what happened to appear on their radar in recent weeks. Axad12 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rgstudio and article: Robert Gober

    [edit]
    Appears resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Rgstudio has made a wide range of edits to the Robert Gober article, beginning in 2008. It appears that the account may be the subject of the article or a representative of Gober. I left a message on the user's talk page notifying them of COI guidelines, but they made several rounds of additional unsourced edits after I flagged the COI rules. 19h00s (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @19h00s, I agree with you that the likelihood of a COI is about 99.9%. Gober is a great artist, however his studio assistant or intern should not be directly editing the article if they work for Gober. @Rgstudio, I can help update the article (within reason) if you make edit requests on the article talk page. This is in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines for COI editors. See WP:COI and for the Edit Request Wizard see: WP:Edit request wizard for more information. If you are paid or receiving in-kind compensation (for example for an academic or job-training internship), you must disclose this information on your user page, otherwise you would be an undisclosed paid editor which is not permitted, for information on how to disclose see: Paid editor disclosure. Netherzone (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now they're copy-pasting text from books on Gober into the article (with references to Amazon links), even after your ping. @Rgstudio, please acknowledge that you've seen the multiple points of contact about your edits on Robert Gober. 19h00s (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted to the last good version prior to today's edits by the apparent COI user. Hopefully that will at least lead them to try a different approach. Axad12 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, but I was not seeing your edits. I do work with the artist and was correcting mistakes that others have put on his Wikipedia page. I was also adding information that was missing regarding his exhibitions and curated shows including links to the websites. I will undo my edits and read to better understand what I am allowed to change. I don't want incorrect and incomplete information out there, so I hope there is a way I can make edits. Rgstudio (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I misunderstood the COI information that says "However, our policy on matters relating to living people allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly, including by the subject." I thought that meant that I as Robert Gober's longtime archivist could log on and change errors, I didn't understand that I need to contact the Edit request wizard to make changes. I will do that now. Sorry that I was not receiving notifications of your messages to me. I only saw them now when I searched for them trying to figure out why my edits were being removed. Rgstudio (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries at all, thank you for reverting the edits and engaging with us on this! Totally understand what you're aiming to do in terms of removing incorrect/outdated info and adding additional details about notable exhibitions and events Gober has participated in. As Netherzone explained above, there are multiple ways to go about adding or changing content on pages with which you have a COI - one of the easiest ways is to communicate with artist-interested editors like Netherzone (who offered above to assist on this), who can help you add well-sourced information that you otherwise would be warned against adding because of the Conflict of Interest. You're also welcome to use the edit request wizard to request changes. But I totally understand that you didn't see the notifications, and you definitely weren't trying to change anything controversial, so I think you're all good to move forward requesting changes via the official channels. Thanks for looping back around on this! 19h00s (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rgstudio, if you submit an edit request and I don't see it for a while, ping me on my user talk page which is located here: User talk:Netherzone, or by clicking on the word, "talk" after my name. Netherzone (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Also, the major contributor to Donald Moffett, named as Gober's partner in the article smells of paid editing based on edit history pattern. Graywalls (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Graywalls: Please raise a new report, following the usual process and criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not outside of "usual process" to mention closely related matter that surface following the issue raised initially. While it might look like I just came along and added to an already closed issue, Pigsonthewing closed the discussion after I added the related concern. Graywalls (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't named any editors in your comment. You haven't indicated any prior discussion on the matter, with any of the article's editors. The editor named in the now-closed discussion, above, has never edited the article in question. And I am sure our colleagues understand how to read the date stamps in our signatures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Danko Nikolić

    [edit]

    There has been a number of edits on the subject of "practopoiesis" and "ideasthesia", which are terms coined by Danko Nikolić, and which (as far as I can tell) aren't widely used. "See also" sections all over the wiki have been sprinkled with links to "practopoiesis", which redirects to a section of the Adaptive system article. Same with "ideasthesia". Here they link to the websites of two of his businesses. The account was warned as early as 2014 about their self-promotion. Also I'm not entirely sure what constitutes sockpuppetry or evidence thereof, but this seems like it might be a fairly clear-cut case? Silenuss (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, the main account has only made 1 edit since 2018 (and that was in 2022), and then there are the 2 IP address edits from earlier this year. It seems highly plausible that the IP edits may relate to the same end user, but I wouldn't consider it to be sockpuppetry to make 2 logged out edits such a long time after the main account was last used.
    However, that still leaves the issue of self-promotion and whether there is any tidy up that needs to be done. I see you have removed the recent IP additions, is there anything else to be done in that regard?
    Interestingly, the previous occasion when this user was brought to this noticeboard was here [15] back in 2015. Back then the user seems to have been able to summon the support of three quite blatant meatpuppets, but that is all ancient history now. Axad12 (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking about removing all the "practopoiesis" links from the "See also" sections. There's no point linking to a section that doesn't exist anymore. I'll also get rid of the redirect. It's a little less clear what else I could/should do here, so I'd appreciate advice on how this sort of thing is usually handled. Silenuss (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, it’s quite common for academics to be involved in citing their own works in a promotional way. The relevant policies (WP:SELFCITE and WP:CITESPAM) are rather brief and they don’t specify what action is to be taken. Some users take the approach that the individual edits should be taken on their merits, others take the view that they should all be removed. All agree that such edits should have been done via the COI edit request process. In practical terms the action to be taken will depend on how much tidy up users are prepared to undertake.
    The degree of the self-promotion in this case is quite extreme. It goes well beyond self-citing and the user had previously been warned about using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Indeed they received a 24 hour block [16].
    Comments by the user leave no room for doubt that they have been involved in a promotional campaign, for example:
    you are right that there is my own interest involved: to promote ideasthesia. This is not deniable [17]
    and Yes, I understand that this link promotes my work. But also isn't that in some way the goal of Wikipedia?
    Of course, the goal of Wikipedia is very much not to promote academics or their work, as per WP:PROMO, so feel free to remove, revert, etc. to your heart’s content.
    On the broader topic of people who self-cite, it's probably a good rule of thumb that if no one apart from the author could be bothered to install a reference then no one apart from the author is going to be troubled by its removal. After all, non-COI inclusion only requires the existence of one non-conflicted human being somewhere in the world who feels that the material warrants inclusion. That is a very low bar indeed. Axad12 (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting that the user's article on Practopoiesis was deleted after discussion at AfD here [18] for obvious reasons. Other users may wish to consider whether the article on Scaled Correlation, by the same author (and sourced almost solely to one of his own works) warrants a similar response. Axad12 (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User was blocked on 1st Nov by Orange Mike for being a WP:NOTHERE promo only account. With thanks, Axad12 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Artists Repertory Theatre

    [edit]

    This article is essentially being controlled by the organization. There are numerous WP:SPA single purpose accounts being used, but it's quite obvious that the organization itself is literally curating the article. Needs to be pared down, possibly re-done from scratch so that it's not written around the way the organization wants to present it. Graywalls (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls, I think you should mention some active editors who you believe have a COI with this article. I’ve checked the history and most of the accounts accused of COI are stale. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't any active ones. Read through the edit history. They use a fresh burner account with each series of edits. Look in the talk page tag. I think those only represents some of them. It's obvious, because they make no other edits. Graywalls (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Graywalls, I believe the article should be semi-protected for at least a year. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib:, also see TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley). I see it. Do you see the pattern too in the edit history? PR editing is glaringly obvious. Graywalls (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me as though there is potentially a great deal of WP:COPYVIO in the Artists Repertory Theatre article from material on their own website (specifically the 'Organisation History' section, here [19]). That ought to allow a large amount of material to be stripped out immediately. Axad12 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further examination indicates that a large proportion of the text has been lifted directly from the sources indicated in the text. Typically a sentence ends with a reference from where that sentence has been lifted. I'm happy to go through the whole article later today, compare it to the sources and strip out all the copyvio, but isn't there an easier way to do this (e.g. with Earwig?). Axad12 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now removed all WP:COPYVIO material from the article, but I am having trouble applying the copyvio template to request revdel. Could somebody more familiar with that template/process do the honours? Axad12 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Revdel now requested at WP:CP. Axad12 (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12, Thank you for your efforts on this. Why don't you install this script? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple answer: because I'm borderline computer illiterate and I don't understand it. To be honest, I find that looking into COI issues quite effectively only really requires time, persistence and Google (and I can get by without scripts - whatever they are).
    There are some things that I find impossible to do here, like setting up SPIs, but usually if I ask nicely someone else will do that if they are convinced by the evidence I've located.
    Apologies if that all sounds a bit Luddite. Everything I've learned here was picked up by looking into how someone else had done the same thing and then copying it (that was how I did the WP:CP referral a few hours ago). I get by okay with that, but if I have any strengths (opinions seem to differ on that point) they lie elsewhere. Axad12 (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't rely just on Google. Do a "second opinion" with DuckDuckGo, Bing and others as you often uncover additional information not found in Google. Graywalls (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Definition of self-published sources

    [edit]

    Please see:

    These discussions could have wide-ranging implications not just for non-profit advocacy groups, but also for political and corporate websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    None of these discussions has any implications for the use of sources: corporate websites are bad sources, just not for the confused reasons you propose. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, corporate websites are excellent sources for some statements because Wikipedia:Primary does not mean bad. If you need to include a statement along the lines of "The company said _____", then the corporate website is a good option for supporting that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But, it should be used sparingly. Article should not be a place to voice what the company said. A company announcing it has reached net zero carbon footprint status citing the company, or Churnalism source is undue. Graywalls (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle, articles should be mostly WP:Based upon sources that are independent, and sources that are secondary (and ideally sources that unite both qualities and are also high-quality in other respects). That would still leave room for an occasional brief mention of things that seem relevant. For example, if the company is known for an eco-friendly marketing strategy, then adding a sentence saying that "they reported Net-zero emissions in 2022" might not be unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not discussed by secondary source that is NOT churnalism, I strongly disagree. The article isn't a place to parrot self aggrandizing contents issued by the company PR. As an acceptable use of primary source, if a reliable source announces company intends to close sometime in 2022, then there's a statement on the company's official page that they closed in January 2023, we can use it to cite the closure. For anything that's remotely boastful to the slightest degree, no way. Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm never sure whether you actually mean secondary source when you say things like that. IMO if you have a notable business and you have an independent source saying something like:
    • "The company's detailed plans for environmental stewardship are extensive. The company is embarking on a project that will save the whales, restore the wetlands, and reduce their carbon emissions. All of this ethos is reflected in their plastic-free packaging. Their environmental credibility is the most important factor in their company's marketing strategy. A public commitment to environmentalism has been good for profitability, but an oft-overlooked advantage is reduced risk of liability for ground contamination..."
    and a few years later, the company issues a press release (or posts on their website) that they reduced their carbon emissions down to zero, then I've got no problem with the article mentioning their claim. The sources directed our attention to their environmentalism; the net-zero thing is merely an example of what the sources focused on. Simple examples are a good use of WP:PRIMARY sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I’d say that company websites are an acceptable source for certain basic info such as company location, names of CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe some basic historical details such as date founded.
    Beyond that, no, because there is little meaningful difference between (a) how a company presents itself on its own website, and (b) a press release.
    I don’t see any merit in the idea that if a company slightly rewords a press release and places it on its own website then somehow it becomes an independent WP:RS compliant source.
    Also, the idea that content may become so because it was drafted by one member of staff and placed online by another is fanciful. In many companies the individuals who decide on website content are the same as those who draft press releases. Even if that were not the case, both individuals would have an identical paid conflict of interest. Axad12 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the idea that if a company slightly rewords a press release and places it on its own website then somehow it becomes an independent WP:RS compliant source. Zero people in any of the discussions taking place have suggested this. (That's why I object to the misleading framing by WAID in their first post in this thread.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so, I agree with you 100%. Axad12 (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad, putting their content on their website wouldn't make it independent. Nobody has suggested that. The question is whether it would make it stop being self-published.
    There are three qualities that need to be kept completely separated here:
    • Is the source independent?
    • Is the source primary?
    • Is the source self-published?
    A press release saying that Bob's Business sold a million widgets last year is non-independent, primary, and self-published.
    The same statement, made by the same people, but posted to their website, is IMO still non-independent, primary, and self-published. But a few editors at WT:V are arguing that the content of the website is non-self-published, at least for larger organizations, because probably 2+ different humans were involved in writing and posting it. According to these editors, putting that information on the corporate website makes it non-independent, primary, and non-self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I agree with you too.
    I stand by my earlier comments that (a) the input of more than one individual with the same paid (or unpaid) conflict of interest does not resolve concerns about whether a source is self-published, and (b) it does not seem reasonable to assume the involvement of more than 1 individual.
    Others may have a different view but I very much doubt if it would carry much weight at, say, COI edit requests (especially not the COI edit requests that I respond to, where any such argument would be firmly rejected). Axad12 (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that this: the input of more than one individual with the same paid (or unpaid) conflict of interest does not resolve concerns about whether a source is self-published is a nice way of putting it. For example, Girl Genius is a webcomic written, illustrated, and published by a husband and wife. It's two humans, and they have also hired various colorists to help out (and a few of their things have been published in the traditional fashion), but the mere fact that there is more than one human involved doesn't mean that they aren't doing it themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eric Schucht

    [edit]

    After proposing the article for deletion, user Eric Schucht contested the deletion; in his message, he affirmed himself to be a paid freelancer for the publication in question, which he did not disclose on his user page (despite listing other publications he has worked or freelanced for); additionally, he made unsubstantiated claims about the personal identity of a fellow Wikipedia editor, which violates Wikipedia's harassment policy. Specific to the Conflict of Interest policy, user Eric Schucht did not disclose his COI when he proposed the article for creation and otherwise did not disclose his COI on Wikipedia until the article was proposed for deletion. There is no contest here — Eric Schucht affirmed he is a paid freelancer for the company whose article is in question. He has an obvious Conflict of Interest. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TheMediaHistorian, OK, look! They’ve disclosed their COI. Now it’s your turn to share yours too, don’t you think? @Eric Schucht: You wrote, Maybe a connected contributor tag should be added to the talk page disclosing that. Why say “maybe” when you’ve got 99% of the article and you’ve already admitted your COI? It’s not a maybe; it definitely should be and you’ve done it yourself before, not me. Also, I can spot some unreliable citations and the content definitely has a promotional tone, as well. Anyway, could you explain why you never disclosed your COI for this particular article? Also, please avoid disclosing the real-life identities of other editors, as it’s considered outing - and you just did that. I’m hoping it was just a mistake. And what exactly led you to call this editor a former disgruntled Comstock's employee, especially since they’ve been on Wikipedia since 2020 and have never touched this page before. We really need to hear your reasoning on that. I’ve added some tags, so I hope you won’t just remove them! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the concerns I've raised. A COI tag should have been added. I made the article before I started freelancing for the magazine, and never thought to add it until the issue was raised. I now see that was wrong. As for "unreliable citations and the content definitely has a promotional tone," obviously I want the article to meet Wikipedia standards and to be as good as it can be. Which sources or sentences are you concerned with? I'm happy to delete copy or do a re-write. <redacted> Eric Schucht (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you are potentially revealing the identity of a Wikipedia editor, in violation of Wikipedia's policies. You were warned once before about this, and now you will be reported. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TheMediaHistorian, Your real-life identity - if it was true - has been redacted, so there's no need to worry. I'm still waiting to hear back from you. You can choose not to respond, but that will count against you. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to confirm or deny. The user in question originally posted information that included the full name of a purported Wikipedia editor, in violation of Wikipedia's anti-doxing policy. That information can't be confirmed or denied, per Wikipedia's own guidance against publishing comments and/or information that could lead people to uncover the identity of an editor:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment
    "If you have accidentally posted anything that might lead to you being outed (including but not limited to inadvertently editing while logged out, which reveals your IP address, and thus, your approximate location), it is important that you act promptly to have the edit(s) oversighted."
    and
    "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information, and anyone else who saw the page, feedback on the accuracy of the material."
    What you are asking someone to do here is explicitly discouraged by Wikpedia. Accordingly, there is nothing to "count against," because what you're asking me and others to do is the precise opposite of what Wikipedia itself says we should do.
    Last, no one has raised a COI issue involving me. An editor's appeal to hypocrisy in response to a COI issue against them does not rise to the level of a formal COI complaint. Thus, there is nothing for you to investigate on that matter. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, by posting that they believe the identity to be a "former disgruntled Comstock's employee" is still identifying, given that the Comstock's page in question — which the editor has since affirmed their COI — identifies, or once identified, that very person. So, User: Eric Schucht is still in violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PazSeguro

    [edit]

    New/newish account. Another editor already warned them about COI and they denied it. Everything about their edit pattern screams PR editing. I'm not convinced. New account. Made 2-3 small edits, and right into creating three new articles on companies within a month of editing all showing signs of flowery language. Graywalls (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have provided a bit more complete response on my talk page Special:Diff/1255660533.
    I am not employed by any of the three entities mentioned here but I am unclear if I am conflicted in regard to Tock. I would think I am not but I have provided a bit of transparency in the interest of keeping things above board and receiving feedback on the matter.
    I'm also unclear on how many of the items I included are promotional since they reflect what sources say and what I see on other similar articles but I will take a closer look later and welcome constructive improvement. PazSeguro (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Graywalls that the activity here appears to strongly resemble undeclared paid editing. Over the last 24 hrs there has been extensive tidy up at all 3 articles and a further 4 editors have suggested that material (since removed) was promotional or similarly inappropriate.
    It seems to me that you've received a lot of excellent advice [20] [21] [22] [23] from Grayfell, the editor who originally tagged these articles as reading like adverts. You should also be able to establish other elements that users have found objectionable by looking at comments left in the article edit histories and at the relevant talk pages. Given the volume of input and advice that you appear to have received thus far it's surprising that you're still claiming above that you're unclear what was promotional about the articles.
    It's also surprising to see you claim that the articles only reflect[ed] what sources say, when you've received significant advice on why much of your sourcing was inappropriate and non-independent. It is concerning that you don't seem to be taking on board the input you've received from multiple editors.
    I’d suggest that as a bare minimum you should be submitting any future articles through the Articles For Creation process, details of which can be found here [24]. This will allow an experienced editor to check your work for inappropriate tone, inappropriate sourcing, etc. before it is installed in article mainspace and will prevent the need for time consuming community tidy up after the event.
    Hopefully this note is of assistance. Axad12 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Betty Shamieh

    [edit]

    Would appreciate advice on this one. In September, Rinageorgia (talk · contribs) added text to Betty Shamieh taken from Shamieh's publisher's website and from a theatre's website. I removed it and requested revdel, which was done. The user said I got explicit permission from Betty Shamieh to use her descriptions of her plays and her new novel so I asked about conflict of interest. The user responded I do not [work for or represent her], I just reached out to make sure that I was allowed to use the descriptions on her website. The user has now added text to the article about Shamieh which does not all read neutral - "sharp wit", "candid, often humorous perspective", "poignant storytelling". The user has also just replied to my September CoI notice saying I understand and do not have a conflict of interest. Although I would like to assume good faith, this so far single-purpose account is worrying me, so would appreciate other eyes on the article. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Something was clearly very wrong there. I have removed all of the unsourced material from the article, which leaves very little left. If the user wants to add detail to the article then it will need to be neutral and properly sourced. Also, importantly, it cannot be original research (e.g. material along the lines of 'this play explores themes of...').
    To be honest, the material that the user added (the first time or the second time) is the sort of thing that would be expected of a professional publicist - and it is presumably not coincidental that the material was added in the run up to the subject releasing their first novel - i.e. see the notice that was placed very prominently at the top of the article Her novel, TOO SOON, will be released by Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster in January 2025. Axad12 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Axad12. Yes, that was the feeling I had too. Hoping the user will edit neutrally from now. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further investigation, I see that much of the material I just deleted from the article was WP:COPYVIO from the subject's website (very close paraphrasing rather than direct lifting, but still copyvio).
    As you note, the user states I got explicit permission from Betty Shamieh to use her descriptions of her plays and her new novel, which is interesting but if we are just to go on a user's say-so then anyone could directly lift anything from anywhere on the basis that they had received permission.
    However, I do think that the issue is academic really because clearly we can't have articles about writers where the writer basically gets to define their own work in considerable detail. That is always going to be entirely inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This one has been happily resolved. The user has clarified in response to Axad12 on their talk page that they do not have a CoI but are an academic working in the field. Axad12 has given them some good advice and they have since made constructive changes to the article. Thanks, all. Tacyarg (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SPX Capital

    [edit]

    WP:SPA accounts clearly used to only make promotional/COI edits for this article. One has already been banned. Imcdc Contact 01:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The blocked one looks to be for WP:ROLEACCOUNT. Only individuals can have accounts and they can never be shared, so company name accounts aren't allowed. The other name isn't a sock, but appears to be an account made to comply with the name rule. Graywalls (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The remaining account made one edit, and I've got it on my watchlist, Graywalls did some good copy editing work on the page. The part that Amandadomicioli was attempting to remove appears to be property sourced. TiggerJay (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed out things about the contents of speculation since "newspaper said people said... blah blah blah blah blah blah" doesn't comport to NPOV or RS, but we can just say led people to speculate about. The source is in Portuguese, so I translated it using automatic translation in my browser. Someone fluent in both languages may want to look over my work. Graywalls (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vesan99

    [edit]


    First was spotted in 2022. Was not banned, we kept him under observation.

    The nature of his activity was such that he would go into an article created by a newly registered account (obviously created to order), check the quality as an experienced participant, and make minor edits.

    Last year he was banned by Ле Лой and it was confirmed by local ArbCom in ru:АК:1299. It is small, I'm giving translation in full:

    1.1 The arbitrators find it proven that Vesan99 has a conflict of interest and made edits in violation of WP:RSUW and WP:NPOV at least in the articles:

    1.2 ArbCom found that participant Vesan99 actively added individual links promoting private companies. See [29], [30], [31], [32] (replacing a link to a site affiliated with the participant) and generally a significant number of articles with a link to this resource.

    1.3 In many cases, the defendant acted in a conflict of interest: for example, it was proven that he had the most direct relation to the resource from 1.2.

    1.4 The arbitrators became aware of an episode when the defendant removed relevant information from articles about competitors, and then demanded a monetary reward from them for its return.

    2. Having studied the contributions of SBruno, YuFedorov, Dnslllrnv, Ivansychev, verification of Solod2020, as well as the actions of the Ioanndemidov account, from which advertising is entered on the same topic, some external data, and having questioned the defendant himself, the Arbitration Committee found his connection with the persons who own these accounts, as well as their cooperation in paid articles, proven. Among other things, their edits are noted in all articles of paragraph 1.1.

    3. The defendant had already had his patrol flag removed for spamming his site, and the topic of his spam had already been brought up for discussion, cf. [33] and [34]. When he was given the patrol flag again, the defendant did not mention that he had been removed for spam, using the most evasive wording and significant omissions.

    His accomplices are at most not active in en.wiki:
    SBruno - not active now, hit some articles 2015-2020
    Ivansychev - edited Russian National Reinsurance Company.
    Solod2020 was spotted in nomination in created by Wgc120 article TheGenealogist. ( WP:MEAT )

    Since Vesan99 doesn't have much of a contribution to the English Wikipedia, I suspect that any edits he made were paid.

    Although Vesan99 himself is not active here often, he continues to edit, for example, on Wikidata, and may edit again. I would like to record that the local community agrees with the decision of the Arbcom of another language section and it is possible to put corresponding templates on the articles, so that, perhaps, they will be reworked in the future.·Carn·!? 11:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Manx Museum

    [edit]

    Hi, not 100% sure if this is the correct place to report, so please let me know if this should be moved to AIV or the like. Back in May 2024, an IP filled the Manx Museum page with promotional fluff and a charity donation link in this diff here. The edit summary was "All descriptions updated by Manx National Heritage, the site owner.", implying some sort of COI. I'm not sure if this is a static or dynamic IP, so I'd appreciate some help here. Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Manx Museum article has now been reverted by Melcous to a pre-promo version.
    Looking at this IP user's edits elsewhere on Wikipedia I'm concerned by the almost entirely unsourced article on the Isle of Man Railway and the entirely unsourced lengthy articles for the Isle of Man Railway Museum and Castletown railway station. These were tagged for requiring further citations 6 years ago, but in the absence of any being forthcoming it must be time for some major pruning.
    In fact, looking at the Isle of Man related railway articles that this IP user has contributed to, they seem to be almost entirely unsourced. Similarly Braddan A.F.C., etc., etc. It seems the user has well over 500 edits in total, mostly to Isle of Man related subject matter, and a spot check suggests that the edits were all entirely unsourced.
    The user's talk page also seems to have attracted 6 notices over the two years re: their edits (unsourced/own research/unconstructive). None have received a response. How is this issue best dealt with? Axad12 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some examples of this IP user’s more colourful handiwork…
    This company is an entire shambles the CEO Martijn De Lange should hang hs head in shame at being associated with is without doubt the worst delivery company in Europe[35]
    UK television personalities Philip Schofield and Holly Willoughby are professional queue jumpers[36]
    Salt Bae’s name vandalised. [37]
    Further more recent vandalism, altering the name of Optimus (robot) to ‘Murder-bot 9000’ [38] and editing the ‘Purpose’ field to Manslaughter of the Human Race[39]. Plus this [40].
    The user (assuming that all the IP edits are by the same end user) claims to be Manx politician Alex Allinson, here [41]. Axad12 (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know about the reversion. I also was looking through some of their recent edits- the above-mentioned numerous unsourced edits of Isle of Man Railway Museum- and they're pretty concerning. According to user contribution search, nearly 25% of edits to the railway museum page were made by them. Not inherently bad, but that combined with the previous talk page notices is cause for concern. Sarsenet (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm currently looking through the rest of the edits by that IP address, and by it's pre April 2022 predecessor, here [42]. It looks to me as though they have made rather more edits to Isle of Man related political topics than one would like to see from a serving politician.
    For example, while Minister for Education, Sport and Culture he appears to have made the following edit to the Culture of the Isle of Man article, directly related to the business of the relevant dept [43]. Also this edit removing negative info on COVID cases [44]. It seems the user was also regularly updating the article on COVID-19 pandemic in the Isle of Man. See also this edit adding spammy links to the article of his current dept [45].
    With regards to the edits to railway and museum related articles, Allinson is currently the Minister for Enterprise, which includes tourism. So it would seem he has a very clear conflict of interest on those subjects, especially when editing about them in a promotional way. Axad12 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it looks as if this is a shared IP and the railway, politician and vandalism edits were made by different people. I agree that the railway related content is problematic in terms of WP:OR and WP:NOTWEBHOST but I don't think there is enough to merit a block at this time. I think the main course of action is to remove all of the unsourced content from the railway articles and try to educate them on why they can't add unsourced content to articles. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: the three different elements being the work of different people...
    There have been a significant number of edits via that IP which relate either to Allinson directly or to departments/topics which he was involved in as a minister at the time that the edits were made - e.g. the 35 updates to the IoM covid article during a period when, according to Google, Allinson (a doctor) was regularly briefing the media on that topic). We know for a fact that someone plausibly claiming to be Allinson operates under this IP and it is reasonable to assume that the Allinson / departmental edits were made by him (or by someone operating on his behalf).
    For highly promotional edits to be made to IoM museum articles when Allinson has oversight of tourism is, at best, a rather extreme coincidence.
    Also worth noting that the large museum edit [46] was (in it's entirety) a cut-and-paste job from this location [47] and as such was a very significant WP:COPYVIO.
    Re: the railway articles, presumably there is a wikiproject dealing with that sort of thing and members there may be best placed to take the articles to a point where they reflect Wikipedia norms. Removing all of the unsourced material immediately would take the articles back to stubs. Axad12 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's just occurred to me that perhaps those railway articles don't fall within a specific Wikiproject because the Isle of Man isn't part of the United Kingdom and thus presumably WP:UKRAIL doesn't apply. That may explain how they arrived at their current state. Maybe large scale deletion of the unsourced material is the only option after all... Axad12 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think to consider about them not falling into a wikiproject. Is there a general European railway or Celtic or Isle of Man Wikiproject that's active and willing to take a look? Sarsenet (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, It's not subject I'm familiar with. Axad12 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always the parent project at WP:TRAINS. I looked up the IP in the RIPE database and the IP is assigned to the Isle of Man government offices, though I could not say if it is dynamically assigned within that organization. Could be public wifi. MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the 'railway user' on this IP address, I had been under the impression that they were probably a non-conflicted hobbyist who could be a very valuable contributor if they could be directed to policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. However, I note at Castletown railway station that a very similar range of edits were recently made by logged in users called IOMR 1874 2024 and IMR18742024. The usernames and apparent interest in souvenir shops and events suggests a plausible conflict of interest.
    The IP address also makes edits of that kind (plus info on opening times, timetables etc.), and made an edit [48] about the 150th anniversary of the railway two days before the first of those 2 accounts popped up. On that basis I think it's reasonable to assume that the end user is the same.
    Also worth noting that the Isle of Man Railway doesn't seem to have a website (except for this [49] and a Facebook profile). Ditto for Isle of Man Railway Museum, so it seems that Wikipedia is basically being used as a webhost - which explains the addition of material on timetables, opening hours etc. See also, for example, Isle of Man Railway rolling stock where the user has made 130 edits over the last 12 months.
    So, upon further examination it seems that the railway related edits by this IP address may well relate to extensive COI activity.
    Hopefully now that the two accounts apparently connected to this IP activity have been mentioned above the end user will received email notification and will be able to comment here on any conflict of interest and take on board (and hopefully resolve) the sourcing issues. I will also leave the standard notices on the user talk pages. Axad12 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: the correct spelling of one of those users is IOMR1874 2024 rather than (as stated above) IOMR 1874 2024. Axad12 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Budd

    [edit]

    I am certain this user, the creator of the article, was linked to Stephen Budd in a professional capacity. In the interests of privacy and of course wiki policy I will not show any evidence here (will email to [email protected]) but it is very easily found using publicly available information and cursory web searches. There are other contributors to the article who, while maybe not as overtly linked to the subject (I have not really looked into them yet), have previously made possible COI edits - there are a couple SPAs and another significant contributor who removed a previous COI warning [50]. I'm in the process of cleaning the article as it's not particularly good (it's a bit of a promotional mess) but the more I look at it the more I am thinking the whole thing has been largely cobbled together by COI users over the years. ToeSchmoker (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I agree.
    I've recently removed some material from the article with obviously bad sources like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. I also removed a long 'Known for' section in the Infobox where there was no sourcing to indicate that the subject was indeed 'known for' those acts etc.
    Anybody else looking at tidy up here should be aware that I also found that some of the material in the article isn't really borne out by its source material, e.g a claim that Much of Budd's later career has focussed on [etc] was sourced to a single quote by the subject which did have a bearing on the [etc] but had no bearing on much of Budd's later career. Thus the claim wasn't borne out by the source, was essentially WP:OR, and has been removed. Given the rather promotional nature of the article as a whole, further attempts to read in to quotes may perhaps be expected.
    Also worth noting that one of the accounts that has done a lot of editing around Budd has denied any COI here [51] at the user page for an IP address, saying I'm not associated with Stephen Budd, simply a wiki writer who finds him fascinating hence I spent the time revamping his page the other week. Whether that is accurate or not, who knows. That user is actually primarily an SPA on an entirely different (and apparently non Budd-related) topic.
    There is also another Budd-related article here [52], the creator of which was also a frequent contributor to the Budd article.
    As a final point, you've mentioned the existence of several possible COI accounts, but you've only mentioned (and notified) one which last edited in 2012. Could you list (and notify) the other accounts, as one of them edited the Budd article as recently as 3 days ago. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the other accounts which I think could also be in breach of COI policy but where I haven't been able to find as solid a confirmation for User:sbcragg:
    user:HaroldPalmer - edits primarily centring on Budd and subjects linked to Budd such as NH7 Weekender, Africa Express (organization) (seems to be primary contributor to the latter). Also has added Budd into other articles such as here at at Adrian Borland [53] and The Sound [54]. In the latter case the edit re financing the record is unsourced - a bit bizarre and smacks of puffery in my opinion. I assume User:HaroldPalmer2000 is another account of theirs.
    User:Newblackuk - creator of the "Passport: Back To The Bars" article you mentioned above, many edits to Budd and also Songhoy Blues who are a band that Budd supposedly "discovered" and "co-managed" (I have recently removed this from his article as it was not sourced properly)
    User:Yourfriendbam - SPA, edits pretty much all Budd. Created the page Alluri (musician) - a musician managed by Budd. user:haroldPalmer also has made edits to this.
    As mentioned above there is [[User:Spcranger] who removed the old COI warning on Stephen Budd but aside from that their edit history is a bit more varied. I will dive into it deeper but not as obvious as the above three.
    That's about all I can find for now but I think it's pretty clear there has been undisclosed editing by Budd and/or people/companies associated with Budd in quite a selection of articles. I am not sure the exact protocol on marking account talk pages with COI templates - generally in the past any COI issues I've found have been a lot less convoluted than this. ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's helpful. Could you notify the various users at their talk pages, as you did with sbcragg?
    With regards to Spcranger and HaroldPalmer2000, I would assume that they are the same end user based on the brief discussion here: [55]. It seems as though the user had made an unsigned comment using one account and then made another unsigned comment, forgetting that he was logged in under a different account. Alternative explanations seem less plausible (especially as both comments were unsigned).
    If that is correct then the accounts for HaroldPalmer2000, Spcranger and HaroldPalmer, represent a single user who is responsible for over 30% of the text of the article, making them the primary contributor. This is the same user (Spcranger) who claims they are not associated with Stephen Budd, simply a wiki writer who finds him fascinating and who previously removed the COI tag from the article.
    As you say above, based on editing patterns it is easier to make a case that Spcranger is not associated with Budd than it is for HaroldPalmer/HaroldPalmer2000. However if, as seems likely, the same end user is operating all of these accounts why does he use the HaroldPalmer accounts to make the majority of his Budd-related edits and the Spcranger account to deny COI and remove COI templates? Axad12 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I will notify the users. Very good catch with the Spcranger - HaroldPalmer connection. I would say those unsigned comments are irrefutable evidence they are the same person. Re why they are operating the two accounts, I am really not sure. Spcranger created Greg Jarvis (musician) - at risk of making rather loose connections this is another music industry exec type character. To me it's written in a fairly similar way to Stephen Budd what with the puffery/almost résumé style. Fair enough if someone has an interest in music management execs etc. but I just find it all a bit bizarre someone would be operating a separate account for each of the two executives they find "fascinating". Can't help but find it a bit suspicious/disingenuous. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another user connected to the apparent COI editing here is PhoebeShaw. The now dormant account edited primarily around Budd-related articles which were extensively edited by the users already mentioned above (e.g. Stephen Budd, Alluri (musician), Africa Express (organization) and, interestingly Greg Jarvis (musician), a preoccupation of user Spcranger although apparently not an article with a connection to Budd).
    PhoebeShaw's edits also bear a marked resemblance to those of Spcranger. See for example this unsigned post left at an IP talk page: [56] as their 4th edit. Compare to this unsigned message left at another IP talk page by Spcranger a few weeks previously: [57]. Several days later PhoebeShaw removed the neutrality tag that the earlier unsigned post had been referring to. Compare to Spcranger who had previously removed a COI template here [58], two minutes after sending the unsigned post linked above, having previously removed the same tag a week earlier, here [59]). See also, similar unsigned post by HaroldPalmer, here [60].
    So, PhoebeShaw is clearly a third account deriving from the same end user which was in use simultaneously with the other accounts. If a user is operating multiple accounts to remove tags from an article where they seem to have a COI, that is clearly a violation of WP:BADSOCK because it gives the impression that more than one user feels the article is fine. Operating three different accounts to manipulate Budd-related articles is not behaviour that one would anticipate from a user who claims simply to be a fan.
    And of course, whether the Newblackuk and yourfriendbam accounts were also the handiwork of the same end user remains unclear but plausible. Newblackuk was sufficiently close to Budd to be able to upload 2 photos of Budd and co-workers (described as 'self made files', here [61] and here [62]).
    Most of this activity is old news, but user:Spcranger updated the Budd article as recently as 7th November. Hopefully they will drop by here and give their version of events... Axad12 (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey there, Harold here, thanks for reaching out. I certainly don't know Stephen Budd (or whoever 'PhoebeShaw' and 'Spcranger' are) but I do keep a Google Alert going for news of Budd and update this page from time to time when I get pinged with something. I'm in agreement that there's some cleaning up needed but certainly don't think this is a case where the page should be should be targetted for deletion - there doesn't seem to be any doubt that Budd meets the notability criteria. HaroldPalmer (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Harold. Thanks for responding. Could you perhaps shed some light on the unsigned comments mentioned above - [63]? I am sure you can understand why one would perhaps assume you, HaroldPalmer(2000), and the user Spcranger are in some way associated. ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the evidence presented in this thread is quite compelling re: HaroldPalmer(2000), Spcranger and PhoebeShaw not being independent end users.
    It's also worth noting here the degree of crossover in their subjects edited, e.g.:
    All the 3 users have edited the articles for Stephen Budd and (Budd-related) Alluri (musician).
    HaroldPalmer & PhoebeShaw have both edited the Budd-related Africa Express (organization).
    Harold Palmer(2000) & Spcranger have both edited The Flowers of Hell & Space Rock (these are topics unrelated to Budd, as far as I can see).
    Spcranger & PhoebeShaw have both edited Greg Jarvis (musician), (member of The Flowers of Hell).
    What are the odds that all three users are interested both in Stephen Budd and The Flowers of Hell?
    This degree of correlation is despite the fact that Spcranger only made edits to 34 different articles and PhoebeShaw only made edits to 8 articles (4 of which are shared with one or the other, or both, of the other 2 accounts).
    A sockpuppet investigation would be pointless here as two of the accounts are long dormant, but the similarities between the accounts are clearly far more than could possibly be anticipated by chance alone. Axad12 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    P. V. Nandhidhaa

    [edit]

    I came across this article while doing some cleanup work on medal tables for WP:Chess. I noticed straight away something was not right when the medal table was so long and yet it contained most non-notable tournaments and mainly in younger age groups. After I have went through so many chess players (many of whom are more accomplished), the article seems like a huge promotion piece. Both users mentioned have been noted to have disproportion amount of editing related to the subject of this article and have been tagged for COI in their talk pages. They both uploaded pictures of her as their own work giving the impression they are directly representing her. Imcdc Contact 14:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon shera has not edited since March 2021. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Wylie (literary agent)

    [edit]

    I can't specify any specific account in particular, but given what I've trimmed and the rather unnatural edit history pattern of the article, further analysis of contribution pattern and interactions between various accounts are likely warranted. This appears to be part of an editing farm. Graywalls (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nana Patole

    [edit]

    This user MrMkG may have some personal interest with Nana Patole politician because he is reverting my edits!!. My all edits are with reliable references and as per guidelines, he might be person P.R. be try to maintain his positive image through and the politician might be his client. He made account in 2020, and all of sudden woke up in 2024! Befor Maharashtra election!. Rtpaz (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rtpaz: As noted at the top of this page, "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." Where did such a discussion take place? Do you have any evidence of such a CoI issue, other than that one of your edits was reverted?
    You are also required to notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion you start here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing I apologize for the late reply; it has been a busy day. sorry it was unknown to me, now, I noticed that all my edits have been reverted again without any discussion. It seems that this user may have somthing at stake related to their employer, and I found that this user account was created in 2020, but it appears to have had very little activity until now, in 2024, when they started creating and updating articles primarily about Indian politicians. The nearly four-year gap in activity makes it doubtful
    It seems to me that they may have acquired/bought this old account to appear credible and publish biased articles or make edits about politicians, possibly as part of some image improvement campaign/branding!
    I am unsure of what to do, so I reported this situation here, I am not familiar with the reporting process, so if you believe I acted incorrectly, I am willing to withdraw my report.
    But, there is an upcoming election in Maharashtra, India, and such users should not be allowed to maintain a favorable image for any politician. Rtpaz (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look at their contributions shows inactivity between 2020 and 2023, but a lot of activity since returning. I wouldn’t really consider it evidence of being a paid editor or a bought account though as-is. R0paire 22:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I only started editing properly in 2023 but had made an account long ago. That's all there is to it.
    The rest is a bunch of accusations without evidence and a story that doesn't even make sense. No one is going to buy a 3 year old account with 1 edit. MrMkG (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made one revert of your edit. Your edit was about adding a paragraph of accusations from an opponent politician to the lede of the article with things like "[Opponent] accused Patole of playing mind games with the people of Maharashtra." (link) It should be common sense why this can't be added. Your edits being sourced is the bare minimum, doesn't mean you can add anything.
    Your account has been active since well.. yesterday, and you have only two big edits which add any significant content. The Nana Patole edit and this (link) which ironically actually looks like PR. MrMkG (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrMkG Nothing personal, but it seems that you and some other users may have added promotional content in various sections to portray him as a Robin Hood and to clean up his image. If you had a problem with certain parts of my edits, you are welcome to edit those specific sections. but, you cannot revert all of my edits outright.!!
    You know, It takes time  to research and gather reliable references,  please discusse with  me or provide guidance. so All of my edits were based on reliable references, and the content you mentioned is not the only instance where my edits were reverted. It appears that you reverted my all edits to create a more positive image of him, which raises concerns. and your accont was created in 2020 and you started using it in 2024 , where were you for almost 4 years?
    I strongly request that you disclose your conflict of interest (COI) before editing that page again.
    And yes, I am new and have made only a few edits, but does that mean I should not report a COI? Rtpaz (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrMkGi i have removed "the [Opponent] accused Patole" part because that is reasonable. But you aggressively reverting my edits again and again that is pure vandalism, please don't do that again. and disclose your COI. Rtpaz (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not vandalism neither is the definition of COI, "reverting obvious BLP violations from Rtpaz".
    The only thing your edit added was the accusations, besides moving a paragraph from one place to another. MrMkG (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also new people don't tend to know about noticeboards and templates, you are clearly not new. MrMkG (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan C. Bundy

    [edit]

    Edits by editor whose username suggests a conflict of interest. Most recent edit summary starts This edit is being performed by Ryan Bundy himself who is the subject of the page on Ryan Bundy. I, my self, participated in all the events mentioned and am the greatest source for truth on them matters mentioned. I had previously posted about CoI on the editor's Talk page, but have not had a response. Tacyarg (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: It looks like @Rsjaffe has soft-blocked them to prevent impersonation. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing a college or university you attend

    [edit]

    What's the current consensus on editing the Wikipedia article of an institution you're attending or an alum of? While you technically have a conflict with a school you're currently enrolled in, I'm pretty sure most articles about educational institutions have been written by either students or alumni. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how this would be anymore of a conflict than writing about the city that you live in. Unless you are getting paid by the institution to edit the potential conflict is very abstract. BD2412 T 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a good summary of the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knights_of_Columbus&diff=prev&oldid=991723403 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a conflict of interest - you have a relationship with the subject and a potential motivation for editing articles about it with a bias (as it's likely in your best interest to paint a positive picture of your alma mater). But it's a relatively minor conflict that rarely rises to the level of being a problem for most editors. ElKevbo (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1257297114"