Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
| Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. | ||||
|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
|
| ||||
| 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:
|
Nihil novi/Logologist, various articles
[edit]- Nihil novi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Logologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- various articles per below
I brought up COI editing on Nihil novi's talk page a couple days ago but the page was archived, leaving me without any response, so I bring it here for discussion.
A quick preface: a few weeks ago, I came across Perfection via the random article tool and after some talk page discussions I initiated an AfD because I took issue with its sourcing, or lack thereof. It was decided to keep the article but I ended up discovering what I think are likely COI violations. That article is maybe one of the most prominent examples but I must stress this isn’t some attempt at a follow-up or some sort of retaliation as I made this discovery fairly late into the AfD process and had no intention to use it as a new argument/piece of evidence (see my discussing with administrator(s) on my user talk about this).
NN=L=K
I am certain that Nihil novi (“NN”) and Logologist (“L”) are operated by the same person. There was a sockpuppet investigation raised a while ago. Some of the links now seem to be dead but I reckon what’s still there is quite compelling. I have additional reasons to believe they’re the same user:
- this instance where after a period of relative inactivity, L becomes active and involved in a dispute which includes NN and some other editors re the inclusion of images in an article, L ceases editing and resumes inactivity the same day;
- the amount of articles where NN and L remain primary contributors by a wide margin. Some are listed below, some others include (1), (2), (3), (4) (non-exhaustive list);
- very, very similarly worded paragraphs atop their user talk pages re maintaining continuity of discussion. I’m aware similarity in prose isn’t the most sound argument but the specific phrasing is quite telling.
L ceased editing many years ago. I’m not concerned about any sockpuppetry or whatnot but it’s still best to establish this link as makes the COI editing a bit more apparent.
As for the accounts’ association with Christopher Kasparek (“K”), there is this diff here, chiefly the “my English translation”, from which I think one can safely assume that NN is confirming that he is the translator in question who, if we look at the book (I found a copy on Internet Archive), is K. This section was recently removed then, as mentioned above, the whole talk archived.
I have liaised with a member of the COI volunteer team via email and while they did not deem this as WP:OUTING because NN identifies himself as the author, it was thought best to not use K’s full name so the above is the only time I’ll be doing it (as there’s not really any way to avoid it once).
A selection of possible COI violations
In no particular order:
- L & NN being primary contributors to the aforementioned Perfection article. The AfD/talk page gets into the nitty gritty of it all but the article is more or less derived entirely from K’s work. Whether or not the substantial amount of close paraphrasing also constitutes a copyright violation is above my pay grade – it’s a bit of a weird one because NN/L is paraphrasing his own work (which is in turn a translation of someone else’s work). Not super pertinent to the COI but a twice occurring argument from NN against the article being unbalanced/poorly sourced is that the author of the untranslated text is an authority who “wrote the book” on the subject matter – it’s hard for me to not see a bit of bias or vested interest here;
- L creating/being a primary contributor & NN being a primary contributor to the aforementioned article about K and also this article about a relative of K – self-explanatory;
- L creating/being a primary contributor & NN being a primary contributor to Pharaoh (Prus novel) where there’s a substantial amount of self-citing (including a fairly unencyclopaedic part in which another translator’s work is branded “incompetent” compared to K’s...).
- NN adding a para about K’s discovering/inventing “recombinant conceptualization” to List of multiple discoveries;
- NN adding K to the “notable people” subsection of a college;
- NN adding K to the “notable people” subsection of a city;
- Some of NN’s (and potentially L's?) contributions to Translation. This one’s a bit more of a maze to navigate via WikiBlame/rev history as the prose has morphed substantially over time (e.g. this addition has evolved to three paras cited to K) but a decent amount of self-citing remains in the present revision including one in which K’s stating that translators “have helped shape the very languages into which they have translated” has at some point made its way into the lead - as far as I can tell this is when it was first added in some form. I can’t comment too much on veracity of the actual statement (my own work in translation is limited) but when it’s someone stating their own opinion on the matter as if fact I feel it’s rather WP:UNDUE.
This is not all of them but I don’t want to go overboard and pick out any and every instance I can find - whether or not some of the more minor edits one can find when searching Wiki for references to K fall afoul of COI would depend on your interpretation of WP:SELFCITE, I suppose. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Response to ToeSchmoker's allegations
[edit]While ToeSchmoker (hereafter "TS") placed a notice on my talk page accusing me of "conflicts of interest", he did not state any allegations for me to respond to.
According to Wikipedia, a conflict of interest "[t]ypically relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual... might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party." I submit that TS has not made a case for conflict of interest on my part. Rather, he shows a conflict of interest in connection with his disappointment at the Wikipedia community's decision rejecting his recent attempt to delete the "Perfection" article from Wikipedia.
There has been no time overlap between editing by L and NN. NN began editing in 2007 after L had ceased to edit. NN's revert of the "Translation" article to an earlier version by L in no way indicates a conflict of interest. It is merely a revert to an earlier version, which earlier version could equally well have been written by someone other than L.
The fact of L and NN each having both (at non-overlapping times) contributed to a number of the same articles, in no way constitutes a conflict of interest.
I do not see what TS's "outing" of L or NN contributes to TS's complaint of L's or NN's "conflict of interest". The Wikipedia community, in fact, condemns "outing" Wikipedia editors. ("Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline.")
I will leave to the Wikipedia community's consideration whether the existence of the articles about K or K's relative constitutes a conflict of interest – whether these articles "might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party."
The article on "Pharaoh (Prus novel)" cites articles by K which, again, in no way prejudice a third party. The author of the novel's 1902 translation, Jeremiah Curtin, is long-deceased and, in any case, had previously been shown, as K indicates in a cited article, to have been an inadequate translator from the Polish language.
The propriety of NN's inclusion of K in Wikipedia-article sections listing notable individuals is, again, best left to the judgment of others who are more familiar with K's contributions to the edification of the world community, including (but not limited to) readers of Wikipedia.
Nihil novi (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Comments from other users
[edit]- I'm not going to lie, I didn't read this entire report. But I did read Christopher Kasparek, and it's in pretty rough shape. We have a citation to Amazon, and a citation to one of his own books. Without even getting into how to deal with the COI concerns, I think there's a strong argument for sending this to AfD, even if just under WP:TNT. There's no problem with COI if the article doesn't warrant inclusion anyways. MediaKyle (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see why this is at COI at all; in fact, the most serious problem I see here is WP:OUTING. I don't see a clear problem with WP:SELFCITE, but issues of WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV can be discussed in various articles, one by one. If and only if we reach consensus in several discussions that UNDUE/NPOV/COI have been violated, this can be escalated. I am familiar only with the issue of the Perfection article and I don't recall seeing such a problems there. As for issues with WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:GNG, WP:AFD can be used without prejudice anytime (and yes, that article is in a pretty poor shape, to say the least). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- As I clearly stated, I'd liaised with the COI volunteer team over email before bringing this here. The administrator I spoke to didn't deem it outing because "the user idenfied themselves as the author of work that they linked to". I'm happy for the COI volunteer team to share the email chain with you provided they redact my name and email address.
- I disagree that it's necessary to raise it at every article "one by one" before bringing it here when the crux of the matter is Nihil novi repeatedly adding material about himself across an array of articles. Yes, these articles have their own separate flaws (poorly sourced, unbalanced etc. etc.) which we can perhaps iron out in the future but there is a common thread in the COI issue so I have elected to raise that. Thanks. ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've looked into this more since my prior message, and the idea that Nihil novi does not have a COI seems pretty inconceivable to me with all the evidence that has been provided. That being said, I think Piotrus might be correct in that AfD is the only venue in which this can properly be dealt with, given the tools available to us at this time. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How to handle conflicts of interest - it says to send it to the COI noticeboard. Okay, well you did that. Now what? We don't seem to have any concrete policy against what this user is doing, other than to say that you "should disclose your COI", not even that you "must disclose your COI". WP:TOS doesn't appear to contain the phrase "conflict of interest". Even WP:SELFCITE is rather vague and subjective. Unless there was broad consensus that this user's edits were problematic enough to warrant some sort of administrative action, AfD seems like the only way to go for a lot of the involved articles. MediaKyle (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- The content guideline WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY says:
You should only edit a biography about yourself if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy.
As such, admin action could be needed as Nihil Novi has continued editing his autobiography while this noticeboard query was open without acknowledging his COI on the TP. (This, after deleting his claim to be the person in question in discussion with Piotrus, who opines above.) Wikipedia is not a place where the nobles have special liberties. (cf. Nihil novi) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 10:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)- This is getting a little ridiculous now actually. There is now a see also section on the article containing about seventy articles, it seems to be all of them have citations to Kasparek. Are we just going to turn a blind eye to all this? MediaKyle (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- An example of the stylistic puffery to be found... not sure it's a major problem, just typical of folks used to trying to sell their favorite author on the market rather than writing NPOV prose... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 06:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- If no other editors have anything else to add then I'd personally be inclined to
archive this andstart making the necessary edits to affected pages/raise AfDs where required because it looks like we do have a consensus that there is a COI. The continued editing of autobiographies as mentioned above doesn't really instil me with much faith that the editor in question is going to accept this, which is maybe where an administrative input could have been helpful, but I appreciate there is likely a large backlog of more pressing issues. - A copyright clerk has raised an investigation into Perfection which was the part that was maybe a bit more confusing to me what with its blend of copyright and COI issues. Other pages/edits vary in severity e.g. the autobios are very egregious but then we have widespread self-citing instances which could or could not, depending upon your own opinion, qualify as "excessive". I would think best to start with the more flagrant articles and proceed from there. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- I happen to think this is kind of a pressing issue... This situation and others like it cause immense damage to our credibility as an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Seeing the state of the Perfection article now certainly drives the point home that there have been some huge, consistent conduct issues here. I find myself a bit disappointed at the fact that we've been unable to effectively deal with this after over a month... I'm starting to feel as though we're not equipped to handle major conflict of interest concerns regarding established editors. This does seem like a case where a newer editor would have been blocked by now for self-promotion. MediaKyle (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with this. I guess the idea is just, hey, whatever, forget about it, let it get archived? DoubleCross (‡) 10:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I happen to think this is kind of a pressing issue... This situation and others like it cause immense damage to our credibility as an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Seeing the state of the Perfection article now certainly drives the point home that there have been some huge, consistent conduct issues here. I find myself a bit disappointed at the fact that we've been unable to effectively deal with this after over a month... I'm starting to feel as though we're not equipped to handle major conflict of interest concerns regarding established editors. This does seem like a case where a newer editor would have been blocked by now for self-promotion. MediaKyle (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is getting a little ridiculous now actually. There is now a see also section on the article containing about seventy articles, it seems to be all of them have citations to Kasparek. Are we just going to turn a blind eye to all this? MediaKyle (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- The content guideline WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY says:
Suresh Immanuel
[edit]- Suresh Immanuel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WikiProfessionaluser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Promotional tone, promotional style. Suspected public relations editing. Does not answer questions requesting to clarify connection to the subject on their talk page even though they've made direct edits to the suspected COI article after the question was asked. Graywalls (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I, too, suspected COI when I reviewed Suresh Immanuel via AfC and left a note here. Based on the editor's recent comment,[1] they appear to be related to the subject and this seems to be a relatively benign and unwitting transgression of COI by a new user. I'd suggest directing the editor to our COI policy, informing them of the edit request feature, and asking their assurance they'll desist from further edits to Suresh Immanuel. Suresh Immanuel appears to crest WP:PROF based on his very robust research productivity and some early issues with the article, like the use of honorifics, has now been remedied. Chetsford (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Chetsford:, the COI/U WikiProfessionaluser, article subject's son continues to repeatedly make the same edits/copy editing to change how its presented. Also, they only responded about the COI after a discussion was started here. Content wise, I believe "dean of business and engineering school" is more dispassionate and encyclopedic presentation than dean of Schroeder Family College of Business and Engineering. The COI/U expressed desire to introduce Schroeder into the article because they're college's donor and then directly added into the article himself anyways. While this is something that could merit discussion in article talk page, I find it inappropriate for a COI/U to be repeatedly changing presentation like this. Graywalls (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping abreast of this. Since his last series of edits I left another message advising he use the WP:EDITREQ function and I think your Talk page message was also very appropriate and will disabuse any confusion that remains.
Given the most likely age of the editor (and his willingness to engage on Talk pages), I'd like to extend to him a bit of room for misunderstanding / correctable error and proceed at a gentler cadence if no one objects. However, if there's a recurrence of this please let me know and I will certainly address it more impactfully. I'll also plan to watchlist the relevant pages. Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)- @WikiProfessionaluser:'s lack of edits on anywhere else as demonstrated by no edits on anything not related to his dad is not suggestive that he's editing with interest on editing Wikipedia, rather than drumming up his dad's profile. AGF was assumed until he repeatedly reverted my edits insisting on identifying the names of department/academic colleges within university by the name. Graywalls (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I give him the benefit of the doubt that he's interested in editing WP and he started with a topic he knew well, perhaps not entirely understanding our byzantine policies and guidelines at the point of first edit. That said, on further reflection, since I approved the draft at AfC I'm probably not an appropriate person to address this and will un-watchlist the page and defer to someone else for any additional action. I would just encourage us to proceed deliberately as the biographical timeline of the BLP suggests there's a possibility the editor may be very young. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I just discovered this page, and I just want to say a few things.
- First off, @Graywalls I'm sorry about reverting your edits, for some reason it didn't occur to me that my edits were getting changed back for a reason, and it was a genuine mistake. I apologize. After some research I now realize that Wikipedia entries should be encyclopedic and neutral, however, I just wanted to ask one thing, please understand that I'm not trying to be defiant or pushy in asking this, but I looked at some other college deans' Wikipedia pages, and they all had the full name of the school, for example, Stephanie. G. Adams ( Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science) or George. P Baker (Darden School of Business). That's just why I was wondering if you would consider including the full name of the college. I'm not trying to insist you do it, I'm just bringing it up.
- Also, just one more thing, currently it says "school" of business and engineering instead of "college". In 2020, the school of engineering and computer science merged with the Schroeder family school of business administration to create the College of Business and Engineering, so in this case the term "school" would be wrong as a "college" is larger academic unit that encompasses multiple schools or departments, like the college of business and engineering. So I would really appreciate it if you looked into changing that
- Thank you, and I will be more careful to align with the Wikipedia guidelines and policies from now on. WikiProfessionaluser (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- You should stop making direct changes to page about your dad, period, which you continue to do regardless of concerns from other editors. I see you've done it again and was reverted by an uninvolved editor. Graywalls (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand, but is there nothing that can be done about the grammar error in the lead sentence? Can some other editor fix that? WikiProfessionaluser (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can request changes on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand, but is there nothing that can be done about the grammar error in the lead sentence? Can some other editor fix that? WikiProfessionaluser (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- You should stop making direct changes to page about your dad, period, which you continue to do regardless of concerns from other editors. I see you've done it again and was reverted by an uninvolved editor. Graywalls (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I give him the benefit of the doubt that he's interested in editing WP and he started with a topic he knew well, perhaps not entirely understanding our byzantine policies and guidelines at the point of first edit. That said, on further reflection, since I approved the draft at AfC I'm probably not an appropriate person to address this and will un-watchlist the page and defer to someone else for any additional action. I would just encourage us to proceed deliberately as the biographical timeline of the BLP suggests there's a possibility the editor may be very young. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @WikiProfessionaluser:'s lack of edits on anywhere else as demonstrated by no edits on anything not related to his dad is not suggestive that he's editing with interest on editing Wikipedia, rather than drumming up his dad's profile. AGF was assumed until he repeatedly reverted my edits insisting on identifying the names of department/academic colleges within university by the name. Graywalls (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for keeping abreast of this. Since his last series of edits I left another message advising he use the WP:EDITREQ function and I think your Talk page message was also very appropriate and will disabuse any confusion that remains.
- @Chetsford:, the COI/U WikiProfessionaluser, article subject's son continues to repeatedly make the same edits/copy editing to change how its presented. Also, they only responded about the COI after a discussion was started here. Content wise, I believe "dean of business and engineering school" is more dispassionate and encyclopedic presentation than dean of Schroeder Family College of Business and Engineering. The COI/U expressed desire to introduce Schroeder into the article because they're college's donor and then directly added into the article himself anyways. While this is something that could merit discussion in article talk page, I find it inappropriate for a COI/U to be repeatedly changing presentation like this. Graywalls (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
LauraNCH
[edit]LauraNCH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Over the past few years, this user has received four talk page warnings about a conflict of interest (including one related to external links) without responding to any of them or formally disclosing a COI. This user has repeatedly created pages for the company Nevada Corporate Headquarters (most recently Draft:Nevada Corporate Headquarters, Inc), along with mentioning the company in other articles (most recently on July 20, in this diff, also some spammy edits in 2024). They continued to edit and resubmit Draft:Nevada Corporate Headquarters, Inc after receiving the most recent warning about paid editing. The COI/paid editing is obvious given the username. If LauraNCH does not respond to this discussion, a block is necessary given that this editor refuses to abide by the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- LauraNCH just resubmitted Draft:Nevada Corporate Headquarters with a paid-editing disclosure at the bottom, although the new version is obviously AI-generated (fake references). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- I also pruned this flowery worded COI edit Graywalls (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any CoI edits outside User: or Draft: space? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. @Pigsonthewing:, the topic starter already gave a few examples. Graywalls (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Toyin Ajao
[edit]- Toyin Ajao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Standtall78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article appears to have been written by an editor with some sort of professional connection with the subject. The tone remains promotional throughout, the close-up photo was uploaded as their own work, the date of birth is unsourced, etc. My attempts to enquire what that connection might be have failed at their user talk page, so bringing the matter here. I recommend per WP:COI that the article be moved to draft, and submitted for review as an WP:AFC. 2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:18B3:9D6A:5198:86B5 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, house. I am glad to have you weigh in on this matter by kindly reading first my interaction between the editor with the above IP Address and myself on my talk page.
- I have been very corporative and I do not agree that the tone of the article is promotional. They keep coming up with different reasons to discredit the article.
- Our interactions have not been collaborative as they sounded more punitive than helpful, and also impatient.
- Kindly weigh in. Thank you. Standtall78 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- You need to make a clear response about your relationship with the subject; instead of the answers you have given so far, which appear both evasive and hostile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- My intention was never to be evasive or hostile. And I hope you read our interactions on my talk page to this effect. Standtall78 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Standtall78: But you still haven't given a plain and simple answer to the IP's query. So I am going to ask you again, and all I need in response is a 'Yes' or a 'No' with no other qualification or explanation: Are you creating the article for Dr. Ajao, or for an organization she works for? - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Rich Smith Yes. Standtall78 (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello again @Rich Smith, and thank you for your continued engagement.
- I’d like to offer further clarification regarding the question: “Are you creating the article for Dr. Ajao, or for an organisation she works for?” I now realise the ambiguity in the word “for” may have contributed to my earlier confusion when responding to @Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:18B3:9D6A:5198:86B5.
- If “for” implies I was asked, hired, or commissioned by Dr. Ajao or her organisation, then the answer is no. This is not a paid contribution.
- If “for” is meant more broadly—as in, creating an article about Dr. Ajao or her work—then yes. As disclosed both on my user page and the article’s talk page, I am writing about a subject I consider notable due to her scholarship and praxis on intergenerational and collective trauma from an Afrocentric perspective.
- My motivation aligns with WikiProject Women in Red’s mission to close gender and regional gaps on Wikipedia. My editing focus includes improving content about notable African women/womxn, especially those whose contributions are less documented on Wikipedia.
- I’ve acknowledged that I may personally or professionally know some of the women/womxn whose biographies I improve—through academic, activist, or organisational spaces—but never in the context of compensation. I had, in fact, never considered the concept of paid Wikipedia contributions until learning about it through COI guidelines.
- I have made good faith efforts to disclose my connection and editing intentions via appropriate channels (user page and AfC draft talk page), now that I have a better understanding of what is required of me, and have requested the reviews of the article by neutral editors.
- I welcome any further guidance from you, @Pigsonthewing and @Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:4D0A:A500:18B3:9D6A:5198:86B5 or others in this space, now that I have a clear understanding of what is required of me.
- Thank you again for your time and consideration. Standtall78 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Rich Smith Yes. Standtall78 (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Standtall78: But you still haven't given a plain and simple answer to the IP's query. So I am going to ask you again, and all I need in response is a 'Yes' or a 'No' with no other qualification or explanation: Are you creating the article for Dr. Ajao, or for an organization she works for? - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- My intention was never to be evasive or hostile. And I hope you read our interactions on my talk page to this effect. Standtall78 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- You need to make a clear response about your relationship with the subject; instead of the answers you have given so far, which appear both evasive and hostile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Article moved to draft; COI issues need to be clarified and notability confirmed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I respect that. Standtall78 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing, Greetings once again, I have done as suggested via my user page and the drafted article, which I have now submitted for neutral editors to review.
- May I know if there are further directions that I should be aware of?
- Thank you. Standtall78 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Goricah3/ Alen Hadzic
[edit]- Alen Hadzic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Goricah3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- FFlorence1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Goricah3 says that Hadzic is their son; they were advised about COI in May, when they said "I have no intention of editing the article on Alen Hadzic myself." They are now doing just that. They have some understandable BLP concerns, but need to be prevented from removing valid content, and from adding inappropriate content, to the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Given the nature of the allegations, wouldn't WP:GENSEX apply here as well? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Goricah3 continues to edit the article in question and is bludgeoning the AFD discussion over it including doing so while not logged in, as can be seen from the edit history. They should be at least topic banned and their edits to the article reverted. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- I will not do that again, edit the article myself. I am now aware that COI is preventing me from making any changes, regardless of how minor they are. I will use the Talk page for any edits. My apologies. I am also learning that if I leave the page I have to log in again. None of that was intentional. I am learning but I am here in good faith and will respect your comments and Wikipedia guidelines.Goricah3 (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Added an earlier account which Goricah3 says was them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Ken Whitman
[edit]- Ken Whitman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- KenWhit888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WhitWhitman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
New user has made numerous edits to the article, based on username I feel these should be examined. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted the edits made by the original account as a precautionary measure [2], but if this undoes any positive changes, please feel free to fix those, but please avoid the spelling and grammar errors they made. The new account User:WhitWhitman was created and they have posted on the article talk page, if anyone is able to review. BOZ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
AnnKP20 and Ibiyinka Alao
[edit]Ibiyinka Alao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AnnKP20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has failed to respond to multiple COI warnings and continues to add promotional material to the article while edit-warring to remove the {{promo}} tag. I strongly suspect there is a COI involved, but the WP:SPA user does not seem interested in discussing. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can can you point out the specific promotional materials in question? I'd like to edit and correct them if I know what is promotional? AnnKP20 (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you keep adding the maintainance tag even after I made the corrections? AnnKP20 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The individual, Ibiyinka Alao is a well known artist and I have no affiliations with him nor do I get paid in any way. I only have an interest in art stories. AnnKP20 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Payment Disclosure
[edit]- Cave Creek, Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- BowenLarsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am the primary editor of the Cave Creek, AZ , and I am an employee for the Town. My goal is to have accurate, attributable information on the Town's page. If I don't update the page then it will sit idle and not be of use to the visitor. Am I still allowed to provide content to the page? Thank you.
BowenLarsen (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- BowenLarsen As an employee, you need to follow the instructions at WP:PAID, which including making a disclosure on your user page and on the talk page of the article; and following the conflict of interest guidelines. This would include proposing changes to the article on its talk page rather than editing it directly, which can be most easily done using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thank you Melcous (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- We welcome your questions, suggestions, and requests in the article's Talk page - that is how you can help us keep the article up-to-date and accurate. ElKevbo (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
FAMED PR
[edit]FAMED is a marketing and pr firm. Marketing, PR and Making Success Stories Are FAMED Areas of Expertise. "Natalia Privalova is the founder of the New York marketing powerhouse, FAMED." "These connections allow FAMED to get major publications curated by their handpicked experienced writers in industry giants like TheSource.com, TheHypeMagazine.com, AllHipHop.com, Thisis50.com and Raptology.com among others." Raptology.com [3] "Raptology.com is rap and hip-hop news website founded and launched by CEO Natalia Privalova". LinkedIn tells us said CEO is "Rap Promoter, Concert Organizer, editor at Raptology.com and AllRapNews.com, manager at FAMED PR & Marketing, Wikipedia editor and page creator." So a PR company is planting stories in there so called "news" sites and using those stories to edit Wikipedia? Wikipedia editor since November 2019, same year they founded FAME. This Instagram post is showing up in bing "Are you an artist looking to build publicity? We can write a custom article about you and get it ..." [4] but not on Instagram any more? TheHypeMagazine.com is a PR service run by Jerry Doby (coin, coin, coin, coin, afd, afd). I believe the most blatant of these sources should be blacklisted. Raptology, AllRapNews, The Hype Magazine. And others may need to be depreciated if they allow paid placements as articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Addison Wiggin
[edit]- Addison Wiggin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Awiggingsf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user, who purports to be the article subject, was advised earlier this month, both on their own talk page and at The Teahouse, of our CoI policy and not to edit the article about themself, but instead to make talk page requests. They have repeatedly ignored this advice.
I have previously also requested a {{uw-ublock-wellknown}} block, but for some reason this was refused by User:Mfield. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)