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.
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.
Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of
notability can be tagged with {{
db-bio}} instead.
This page is not for reporting simple
vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the
neutral point of view policy.
Notes for volunteers
To close a report
Add
Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{
edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
"cult" is a really useless term, it just provides condemnation.
Secretlondon (
talk) 22:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are reliable sources describing it as such, but ultimately that's an article content debate, whereas the issue here is editors associated with the church editing the article to portray it in a more positive light.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with SecretLondon. A simple google search of the word “cult” provides hundreds if not thousands of references describing multiple different church groups as “cults”.
JamieBrown2011 (
talk) 07:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I also disagree with CordlessLarry, there has been lots of discussion, over a period of multiple days, if not weeks, on the Talk page and consensus was clear over the changes that that needed to be made.
JamieBrown2011 (
talk) 07:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's nothing to do with google. Academic writing in religion would/should never use the word cult. However, for Wikipedia. if a reliable source called it a cult we could use that, but some newspapers are not great on these issues.
Secretlondon (
talk) 12:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Sometimes cult is appropriate; there a few (see
Category:Cults) and it's difficult to imagine an article on e.g. the
Kidwelly sex cult that doesn't use the word 'cult'! More frequently, it's appropriate to discuss how/whether something has been classified as a cult in RS (e.g. for
Sahaja Yoga). In general it's movement members who object most to the term. In fact for Sahaja Yoga proponents were very keen to use the word cult to say the movement was not a cult when they thought a Belgian court had ruled that way. When it was discovered the court in fact ruled the other way, their enthusiasm for any mention of cults waned.
Bon courage (
talk) 09:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I continue to think it most appropriate to heed the most reliable sources, which for this topic would be
publications by academics in religious studies. As far as how to write about such topics, by way of example, Goodwin wrote an entire academically book about sex abuse in religions without using the word "cult" (as she mentions in her paper "Making the American Religious Monster"; the book being Abusing Religion [Rutgers University Press, 2020]).
Hydrangeans (
she/her |
talk |
edits) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In this case, we do have scholarly publications that use the word cult in relation to the subject. However, this is more a matter for the article talk page than here, where the issue under scrutiny is COI editing.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 10:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed books which aren't about cults won't use the word "cult" (and religions which have sex abuse scandals aren't necessarily cults just because of that). Scholars like
Lorne L. Dawson are interested in cults and write about them naming them as such.
Bon courage (
talk) 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Cordless Larry, a Wikipedia administrator, has mischaracterized my involvement in a minor edit as a Conflict of Interest. In support of my request that his actions be reversed, I offer the following additional information. I simply repositioned for readability purposes a reliably sourced single sentence about an expert witness that had already been written and published by another editor in a paragraph authored by a third editor, Nowa. Prior to any editing of the subject paragraph, Nowa consented to edits being proposed to that effect. That’s it – I made a minor edit to improve the article by cutting and pasting an already published sentence. Cordless Larry references my response to a welcome letter I received from another administrator that included a suggestion that I disclose any conflicts of interest. In relevant part, here's a more complete description of my disclosure: (1) I disclosed my membership in a congregation that has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ, (2) I stated that I have never been compensated as an employee or consultant to the church, (3) I shared that I have a general interest in Restoration Churches in the USA, (4) I informed that I have legal training and experience and am familiar with conflicts of interest, (5) I expressed my view that advocacy on a topic that you care about does not constitute a conflict of interest and (6) I have confined my comments to the Talk page of the International Churches of Christ article until a consensus for change has been reached. I’m confident that a review of my comments on the Talk page will show that I have researched and reported only on Wikipedia policies with an intent to improve the article. I respectfully request that Cordless Larry remove his posting about conflicts of interest as they pertain to me.
Meta Voyager (
talk) 11:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Having received no response to my request to remove the posting about me from this COI Noticeboard, I have reached out on this topic directly to Cordless Larry on his Talk page in accordance with WP:ADMIN.
Meta Voyager (
talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Meta Voyager, you
appear to believe that because you don't have a financial relationship with the ICOC, you don't have a conflict of interest. However, an editor doesn't have to have a financial relationship to have a COI, as explained at
WP:COI: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest".
Cordless Larry (
talk) 19:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your message and further explanation on COI. I've already stated that I don't believe I have an actual conflict of interest and, if I did, most conflicts are resolved by voluntary disclosure. However, I intend to honor the spirit of the COI guidance and comment only on the Talk page until a consensus is reached on any issues that might concern me.
Meta Voyager (
talk) 22:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added Psmidi, an SPA
with a COI who showed up on the article talk page today, several years after their last edit. It wouldn't surprise me if off-Wikipedia co-ordination between ICOC members was going on here.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Adding XZealous, another new editor who's very keen to dismiss any concerns about use of non-third party sources,
removing a template highlighting that problem despite having its relevance explained to them on the talk page.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is actually a great illustration. An editor with an apparent COI claimed they are stone-cold neutral trying to change Wikipedia's guidelines on COIs to make COI editing okay (for, you know, self-assessed stone-cold neutral editors with COIs). Unfortunately among the Wikipedia corps there is a poor understanding of COIs and in particular a common misconception that it's all about the "end result" of content.
Bon courage (
talk) 09:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed. Meta Voyager illustrates this line of thinking with their comment about being a member of the church
here.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 07:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Initially, I sensed something was off when I noticed they were inserting self published primary source references into may articles, such as plaskett.family and adding tourism guide like contents. COI was suspected, because they were single handedly responsible for the insertion of the overwhelming majority of that self published personal website blog reference. They've created the article
White Stag Leadership Development Program and when I searched articles containing sourcing to Whitestag.org and ran a Wikiblame check for insertion of whitestag.org (such as this
example and
this 2022 example out of many) I found that btphelps was responsible for most of them. Further research found strong evidence of long term advocacy editing and likely
undisclosed paid editing. I've given them a chance to explain, but after a few days, no response. Per
Wikipedia policy on outing, I can not name the evidence here, however per the protocol, private evidence has been emailed to Wikipedia functionaries.
Graywalls (
talk) 06:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
btphelps has overlapping interests. This is not a COI. This is simply throwing mud and seeing what sticks.--
evrik(
talk) 21:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Evrik:, there's sufficient evidence that contradicts that.
Functionary users: Please refer to March 11, 2024 email titled "Off-wiki evidence on user:btphelps for suspected UPE" addressed to
@
Evrik:, Please see
WP:PE and
WP:COI for the meaning of conflict of interest on Wikipedia. You are quick to claim there's no COI, but have you done any checking on your own? While Wikipedia privacy policies doesn't allow the discussion of the specific evidence, anyone who does a bit of their own research on this should easily find the blatant COI between White Stag and the user in question.
Graywalls (
talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, so I can now say btphelps is a co-director of White Stag, per their
self reveal as they have not had it redacted/oversighted. White stag was founded by Béla H. Bánáthy. Extensively writing about their own organization as well as those closely associated with it and inserting links to contents to the organization they direct as references to numerous related articles is a COI behavior.
Graywalls (
talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Graywalls, you act like you smell blood in the water and I can see you are enjoying circling in for the anticipated kill. Exactly which subject do you accuse me of having a COI? You initially
accused me of a COI about the
Big Sur related articles. I challenged you to prove that and you could not. Because it does not exist. Failing at that and apparently provoked by my refusal to succumb to your attacks, you dug deep and now accuse me of a COI having to do with Bela Banathy and tenuously his founding of the White Stag organization in 1958, which he left to others to run after about 1965. Exactly how did I financially benefit 50+ years later from writing about Bela Banathy? Or the White Stag program?
I first wrote that I was co-director of White Stag in 2008 on WP
here. That position lasted for two years. The content on my WP user page that you cite lasted much longer than my volunteer position. I was never employed by that non-profit. It did not then and does not now have any employees. The idea that I might somehow benefit financially from it is laughable. When I was an active volunteer with that organization from 1968-1984 (long before WP existed) and 2008-2009, I paid out thousands of dollars in personal expenses to serve as a adult volunteer and paid hundreds of dollars yearly in fees for the opportunity to serve.
I wish I got paid for writing on WP. It might make up for having to deal with nincompoops like you whose
primary work on WP consists of deleting and criticizing what others have contributed. Adversarial, demeaning, patronizing, confrontational editors like you are the reason editors like me with nearly
40,000 edits since 2004 quit.
BTW, when you proposed deleting the
White Stag Leadership Development article, did you apply any of the WP concepts of
courtesy and strive to notify anybody in the
Scouting portal who might have had input over the validity of that article? I certainly didn't have a chance to respond, as I am no longer a regular contributor, due in part to fellow editors like yourself.
Maybe you didn't notice but when I began making contributions to the Bela Banathy article in
2008, he'd been dead for five years. Please, please, I beg you, explain your train of thought that I somehow financially benefitted from writing about Banathy. Who paid me? What proof do you have other than mere suspicion? The weight is in you to prove that UPE exists. This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. Otherwise you are merely wasting everyone's time. I'm holding my breath in anticipation. —
btphelps(
talk to me) (
what I've done) 01:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I would say conflict of interest is a spectrum ranging from being paid to edit particular articles (either indirectly or because one's paying job includes keeping the public image polished) through articles about family or friends whose reputations matter to you and onto belonging to a large organization (e.g., Catholic Church or Boy Scouts of America) and on to former connection to just general interest. I don't think Wikipedia frowns on most American citizens editing articles on their state (though if you are the press secretary of the governor, things are getting too close) or on the USA itself or most Catholics editing articles about the Catholic church or alumni editing articles on their university (unless they are adding themselves as prominent alumni). Also Wikipedia CoI has become stricter over time. In other words the boundary shifted. The
Béla H. Bánáthy article was created in 2004 (he died in 2003) and not by @
Btphelps. He first edited that article in 2008 and seems to have removed some serious POV issues from the article. I also checked his link to his user page in 2008 and he is up front about his connection to White Stag Leadership. I also checked the White Stag Leadership 990 form (2014 [the earliest easily available] and the most recent) and they have no paid employees (and not a huge budget). My judgment is he is not a Paid Editor though there was an admitted connection with White Stag and possible significant CoI at the time, but, the fact he announced the connection makes the fault more minor. My own view without knowing what was in the White Stag Leadership article is that it likely could have been merged into
Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and that article improved as regards references to third party sources. That Btphelps admires Béla H. Bánáthy is obvious but then most major editors of particular wikipedia articles either admire (or abhor) their subject. There seems to be no evidence (and no money in White Stag Leadership's budget) that he was a paid editor for either article.
Erp (
talk) 03:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Erp:, there is evidence some evidence that has already been emailed where sharing those details are allowed.
WP:OUTING prevents me from discussing those evidence further.
Graywalls (
talk) 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Btphelps:, I nominated for deletion and I provided you with a courtesy notice. The article was written entirely based on your organization and it was very much advertorial. I did check for presence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources
before I nominated it for deletion.
Graywalls (
talk) 06:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Btphelps:, to respond to: This is a serious allegation and you should be prepared to provide solid evidence. since you have not directly introduced yourself by your identity outside of Wikipedia, I have to be careful with what can be posted here since posting anything that connects user name to real life identity is strictly prohibited, unless you explicitly authorize. Even then, I'd feel more comfortable if you introduced yourself first (strictly optional though) before I post it.
Graywalls (
talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:COI's def is so broad and vague that it can be easily capitalized on by someone with an axe to grind. Saying there is a COI on someone who has been dead since 2003 is certainly outside the intent of wp:coi. North8000 (
talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Please drop your allegation of "axe to grind". This is not what this is about. I noticed something I believed was a COI, and more probing found more suspected COI. That's all there is to it. Even though the founder is dead, the company he founded is still around and it isn't unusual for companies to want to maintain page on its founders.
Graywalls (
talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Btphelps:, We haven't heard you comment in a while Do you give permission for editors to publicly share evidence found off-wiki in this discussion even though it may reveal your identity and/or your affiliation with various organizations? Without your explicit consent, those details can't be shared here.
Graywalls (
talk) 09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"I loathe busybodies with too much time on their hands, who spend more time being critical of the postings of others than they do posting their own knowledge. I am the natural enemy of the protocol deletionist; I hate those who intentionally won't seek a creative way to save something potentially useful. If you've been here long enough, you will be involved in deletion discussions. I have had to nominate several, but it is nothing to cheer about; no matter how trivial it may seem to you, it mattered enough to some volunteer editor. Those who take joy in deleting the work of others are psychopaths.
and those who delete factual or useful contributions to an article, that are not vandalism, because it does not fit their own narrow view of what the article should be. If someone puts something on there that might not belong where it is, find a home for it, don't delete it outright. :)" —
btphelps(
talk to me) (
what I've done) 07:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Resurgence of banned paid editing business
FYI the company WikiExperts which was
banned in 2013 has a
new website and is offering services to academics. They claim to follow Wiki policies and I can't show any specific edits from them but if there was a previous ban maybe it's worth investigating. Disclosure: I work as the Wikipedian in residence for
NIHR, editing with a separate account.
Adam Harangozó (
talk) 09:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Haven't you heard? it's okay now! (or at least that's the message seeming to come from numerous admins and arbs of late). The new mantra is "it's only a matter of concern if the quality of edits is poor".
Bon courage (
talk) 09:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It is difficult to act from our end if there is no real way of identifying which articles they have worked on. This should be a problem for WMF Legal, but they won't act, and they certainly won't tell us if they ever do so, thus as far as we know they will never act on paid editing. If we can identify an article WikiExperts have worked on I'm happy to block and delete. -
Bilby (
talk) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I know WMF Legal have actually been quite proactive in chasing down paid editing outfits. Obviously they're limited in what they can do, and lawyers don't usually make a habit of speaking openly, but I'd say it's always worth giving them the heads up... –
Joe (
talk) 10:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lawyers will also start with things like sending a formal letter that people not on the legal teams and not managers of the relevant company will be unaware of. If that results in the firm ceasing the relevant activities (stopping editing completely or editing in compliance with the rules) then that's a complete win for us but there will be no fanfare or anything we're likely to be aware of.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User:KERALAMAN is creating draft articles which are very poorly sourced - sources appear to the first few Google searches about the subject and have included significant copy vios.
Of the Drafts created so far, the first two are business people and the last an advertising agency. My concerns are the disparate nature of the subjects, the liklihood that these subjects would be wanting a Wikipedia article and the casual way all three Drafts have been thrown together. These all are strong indicators of paid for editing and they are all very unlikely targets for new articles for a newly arrived editor. VelellaVelella Talk 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
2001:558:6017:18C:145:9CCC:4D40:C01E This person is almost assuredly either the subject of the article trying to whitewash their article or someone related to the subject of the article. Their only edits are on this one article and they have been regularly arguing against the truth, as the subject of the article seems to like to do. Often taking people to court for defamation for trying to out his cheating. I'm actually not sure how they are even able to edit as they don't seem to meet the requirements to edit semi-protected pages. Perhaps their edit history is from before the page being locked. Just seems fishy as the only people that believe the things he is asserting is the person himself and his legal team. I attempted to notify this person via the templated COIN notice but as they are an IP user, they do not have a user page. If there is another way to notify, please just let me know and I will do so. Thank you.
Ditchdigger456 — Preceding
undated comment added 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
IP has only edited the talk page not the article. "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 that discussion take place; and what is the "problematic material"? IP's contributions were all made over a two-day period in January. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit history for Jay Kenechukwu is self-evident, though this is what caught my attention
[1]. Ibru family article especially could use a going-over from non-affiliated editors, what with its scrapbook-like photos of non-notable family and their business holdings. Many peripheral edits have been to add Ibru family members to other articles--the impression is that of an account here primarily on the family's behalf. Not so sure about removal of cite tags at
Egbert Udo Udoma, or mass deletion of cats here
[2], either. There may be an affiliation between the two accounts.
2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk) 19:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If I choose to study a certain people and make edits to their pages to reflect recent events or exploits, I don't see how that amounts to a conflict of interest. I have a right to make edits to pages I choose to as long as those edits are backed by verifiable citations from reputable sources and not my personal opinion and bias.
So you really do need to prove the conflict of interest here. Absolutely nothing is self evident.
Jay Kenechukwu (
talk) 08:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"scrapbook-like photos of non-notable family members" you say? SMH
I just studied the Ibru family page again, and every photo of members on that page is publicly available on the Internet and is backed by atleast one verifiable citation. Or is Wikipedia no longer about independent and verifiable citations from reputable sources?
I doubt anything significant will come of this, but I might as well post it just in case. I came across this listing on Craigslist:
Long-time Wikipedia contributor needed. The post avoids including any specific information, so perhaps this is only useful as a warning, but there may be a reason to look out for possible issues in new articles on nonprofit founders (as if there weren't enough reasons already). —
烏Γ(
kaw)│ 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
An article like that described in the ad ("the story is only documented in court records") won't get very far.
Schazjmd(talk) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
An IP range which Wikipedia links to the European Parliament
I’ve raised an issue relating to possible conflict-of-interest regarding the IP range which Wikipedia links to the European Parliament off-wiki. I’m a bit confused by it, as the IP has disruptively edited articles regarding scandals about the parliament and its members. The talk page says the IP’s edits are monitored, but I can’t seem to find anything in the archives about any action that’s ever been taken. The IP address is 136.173.162.129
It can be found here:
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
Do I need to put the COI notice on the IP’s talk page, even though Wikipedia is already aware of this as they link the IP to the parliament on its talk page?
I’ll also just add that I wanted to be clear transparent to notify Wikipedia about the off-wiki thread, as some other relevant points were raised such as this being the whole IP range, and not just the singular IP I initially thought it was. And also why the IP doesn’t just create an account to hide the possible COI edits. It’s all very confusing, with some relevant points raised in the thread, which I can’t take ownership of. (and, again, I won’t notify the off-wiki thread of this notice).
TheSpacebook (
talk) 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TheSpacebook: Yes; as noted at the top of this page you are required to notify someone that you are raising a report about them here; and to attempt to resolve issues with them before doing so, Historic material on an IP page is irrelevant in that regard, because the IP may be used by different people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User was previous blocked for promotional edits and has never declared COI. Later
admitted "work[ing] with the PR team of Badshah".
Northern Moonlight 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Added a paid contribution declaration template to the article talk page.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Undeclared COI (possibly paid) editing in the subject article, and then post-declaration, continues to make clearly contentious and clearly promotional/advertorial edits in contravention of COI policy.
Also, copyright infingement from:
https://www.capitaland.com/en/about-capitaland/who-we-are.html.
Melmann 09:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I first became aware of
Serious Modi when they moved [[Draft::Shruti Reddy]] from draftspace to mainspace and removed a COI template I had placed without addressing any COI in the article
Special:Permalink/1218665391. The article had been written by
ShamiBeldee, who had placed a paid editor notice on their page, so the coi notice on the article was appropriate, as no one else had edited it.
I then looked at
Serious Modi's edit history some more, and found some odd issues. This user is very new (10 days old), and has been engaged in some very sophisticated Wikipedia actions. Also, the user has a pattern of taking a draft article written by another user and, as the first interaction with the article, moving it to mainspace. There's a partial listing above. It appears as if the user is supervising a group of paid editors, including the properly declared paid editor ShamiBeldee.
I placed a level 1 unpaid editor warning on the user's talk page April 12, with no response but continued editing. I placed a level 2 warning on April 15, also with no response.
Steve Quinn has also expressed concern about this user.—
rsjaffe🗣️ 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also have some unconfirmed concern that Serious Modi is an alias for a more experienced editor: whether there is a sock puppet issue or not is unclear. I am only filing here, not at SPI, to avoid duplicate investigative work. —
rsjaffe🗣️ 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, this account is part of the organization which takes care of the digital image management of South Indian Actress Shruti Reddy and this annotation is to declare that the article or cites are not part of any extended promotional activity. The notice flagged COI for unpaid edits, however, that has been declared in the wiki contributors talk page.{ Ref:
User:ShamiBeldee }
Kindly discuss and set resolution. Looking at seamless contributions and collaboration. Thank you.
ShamiBeldee (
talk) 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Rsjaffe: Other issues notwithstanding, please read the documentation for {{
COI}}; in particular the highlighted "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, will do in future. —
rsjaffe🗣️ 21:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I became aware of Serious Modi after they moved an article (Draft: Pappu Can't Dance) from Draft space to the main space
[3]. I originally placed this article in the Draft space under the auspices of NPP
[4]. Prior to this I had tagged the article for lacking sources that discuss the topic in depth and so on
[5]. I also noted the issues with this article on the talk page
[6] and I previously communicated at least some of these to the article author
[7],
[8].
So, to make a long story short I left two messages on Serious Modi's talk page. One concerning moving this Draft article to the main space when it wasn't ready while also asking if they moved the page into main space for compensation
[9]. The second message is about his sophisticated editing abilities as a brand new editor
[10]. One of the "interesting" features of this particular article is that it appears to be a COATRACK. Most all of the sources cover the related movie from which the song is derived.
And, there is only meagre coverage of the song in a couple of sources. So, I agree that they could be a sock puppet. Within nine or ten days this new account has racked up a number of issues. And they have not responded on their talk page at all. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk) 00:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On another note,
user:1 too 10 created the above draft article that was part of my discussion. Well, that is one article that tried to pass through our system as a COATRACK replete with a REFBOMB. And on the face of it, the article looks like a well made article. If I hadn't bothered to analyze the sources I would not have caught it. Or if I hadn't analyzed enough sources to realize what was happening it would have got through. Well, this new editor (January 2024) is still cranking out similar articles every day since April 4th
[11].
They are also working on similar articles
[12]. So, I am wondering about this editor and the other editors. The references for these article probably should to be scrutinized. Also, is this part of a campaign to publicize movies, movie soundtracks, and songs? I am noticing at least some of these other articles have a significant number of references that would need to be verified. Anybody have any ideas, here? ---
Steve Quinn (
talk) 01:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So, here is an example. User: 1 to 10 created Hum Tum (soundtrack) on April 6th
[13], to which they recently contributed
[14]. It has 36 references. Who wants to go through 36 references? I know I don't. Anyway, I can tell you the first four references do not in any way qualify as reliable sources
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18].
Next we have Hum Tum (song) also created by User: 1 to 10
[19]. This article has 24 references. The first reference is not RS but it also does not cover the topic
[20]. In fact, this was one of the four references used in the previous article (above). And the second reference was likewise used in the first four of the previous article (above)
[21], This third one, I don't know
[22]. This next one is about a kissing shot and not about the song
[23]. So, basically I have provided some samples. So, I am wondering if editors like this are gaming the system by providing an overwhelming amount of references. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? ---
Steve Quinn (
talk) 02:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello Sir. Before creating these pages. I went through a lot of soundtrack and songs pages. And I realised that along with references used related to the song, there where references related to soundtrack and film, to make it look more reliable. Also sir of all the pages I have created, beside few sources, each of them justify my edits. Also sir, I request if there is any thing wrong help me correct it, but please do not delete the articles. I have tried giving source related to awards won, any adaptation and everything else. I have made them after much research and hardwork. Please let me know, I will make all the required changes. I am new to this, so please hope you understand. Thank you.
1 too 10 (
talk) 10:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also sir, I will like to clarify I am not part of any film or music promotion campaign. I have created all the pages on my own will.
1 too 10 (
talk) 10:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Rsjaffe I created the Draft:Himani Savarkar but saw it was moved by Modi, I don't know the user and i don't have any WP:COI with the article i just created it under Women In Red. Regards.
TheChronikler7 (
talk) 03:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You all are thinking wrong about me. I moved those articles which I thought were worth publishing.
Serious Modi (
talk) 11:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have nothing to do with paid articles and unpaid articles. If I found those articles worthy of mainspace, I moved them.
Serious Modi (
talk) 11:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Serious Modi: It has taken close to 8 days, multiple warnings and a COIN thread to get a reply from you. Would you mind explaining how you are familiar with the content policies and how you arrived at the judgment of moving articles that you thought were worth publishing? If you were an IP editor previously, please disclose the areas you have edited to avoid any unwarranted accusations against you. Considering that editors with only 4 days of experience will not be familiar with moving articles, I hope you'll respond here before making your next move.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (
talk) 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I saw that this article has the full information so I moved that article. That's it.
Serious Modi (
talk) 13:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Serious Modi: Ignoring my second concern only means that you have used multiple accounts or you are not competent enough to understand what I have written. Either way, you shouldn't edit further unless you plan to resolve the concerns placed here.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (
talk) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As you think, as you wish, i dont know whats going on here.
Serious Modi (
talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Serious Modi: Have you had any previous experience editing Wikipedia? If not, how did you become familiar with
WP:RMUM and
WP:Draftify within just 5 days of starting to edit?
Jeraxmoira🐉 (
talk) 15:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey brother, there is a lot hidden in Wikipedia's settings. Talking about draft, there are many options in Wikipedia's three dot setting.
Serious Modi (
talk) 15:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Good wali Night & Have sweet wale Dreams.
Serious Modi (
talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please note that, as per off-wiki evidence, there is a case of block evasion for user ShamiBeldee, which I am willing to provide details about privately.
GSS💬 14:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hkc345 (a disclosed paid editor) created the
Jorge Suárez (pianist) page, which I accepted at Articles for Creation. Soon after, a Spanish translation, at
es:Jorge Suárez (pianista) was created by Belarti, who has also edited the page in enwiki. The problem is that Hkc345 also edited the Spanish page without disclosing his paid editor status, which is prohibited by the ToU (and seemingly eswiki's
CoI guideline, though I have to rely on Google translate for that). Since there may be intacracies to eswiki's rules I've missed, and also because I suspect Hkc is a native Spanish speaker who has English as a second language, I wonder if any bilingual editors could help me out? Keep in mind
Hanlon's razor.
@
Mach61: I have only basic Spanish fluency, but their rules are just like ours. Paid edits must be disclosed on either the user page, the talk page of any article linked to their paid relationship, or in the edit summary of said article. The appropriate notice for them on eswiki would be
es:Plantilla:Aviso conflicto de interés. I would put it there myself, but when I try, I trip a filter that stops me. I may not have enough edits there to be autoconfirmed. --
Drm310🍁 (
talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Turned the article into a puff-piece, and continued to do so after being asked to declare a COI. One edit summary reads "We added fourteen new cited link clicks (from sources verifying Susan's credibility from Vogue to People Magazine and many more). Please make sure and update on your end, that her Wikipedia page is providing the articles and citations you requested. Please remove the 'multiple issues' that were marked back in 2011. Thanks in advance." (note the "We"). Shortly afterwards, the maintenance templates were removed by the same editor.
2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:79FB:BC74:BEDF:FF0C (
talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sock- or meatpuppets, adding copyvio or inadequately paraphrased material from the IMGT website. Turned the article from a perfectly serviceable page on the organisation to a sales presentation.
2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:79FB:BC74:BEDF:FF0C (
talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I deleted large sections of the IMGT article for hyperlinks to IMGT website and lack of references. That content available at View history. The edits by those four accounts all made on 18 April.
David notMD (
talk) 07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Account and IP are likely the same user. Repeatedly turning the article into an advertisement
[24][25] with poorly paraphrased copy-and-pastes from the subject's website and adding alumni with no Wikipedia article.
2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:79FB:BC74:BEDF:FF0C (
talk) 20:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dropping by to point out that alumni lists can include people with no Wikipedia article.
WP:LSC says that "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" (emphasis mine), also see
WP:ALUMNI.
Readingpro256talk to mecontribs 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This IP is currently blocked for a day and a half. They are clearly the subject or their representative, and have turned
Nick Jordan (artist) and, to a lesser extent,
Jacob Cartwright and Nick Jordan into resumé/advert/lots and lots of extraneous trivial detail pieces. Yesterday they started repeatedly replacing the article with a copyvio sales pitch, which is what got them the 31 hour block. Given they started turning the article in January 2021, I'm pretty sure they will return to it when the block expires, so extra eyes would be useful.
2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:79FB:BC74:BEDF:FF0C (
talk) 10:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You left {{
uw-paid1}} on Judokitty's talk page just five minutes before posting here (and they have not edited at all since 8 April). You have not notified them of this discussion. Please read the guidance at the top if this page and be sure to follow it in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Register of non-notable BLPs/Corps to enhance UPE asymmetry
I edit mostly in WP Climbing. A badly written BLP for non-notable climbers
Iulia and Delia was turned down at AfC (i saw it when the WikiProj Climbing tag was added). It then reappeared as a more professional article (photo, editing standard etc.) but still non-notable per
WP:CLIMBER. The creator of this new-and-improved version
User:CharlesBNB was blocked including linked accounts and articles.
It struck me that there is real asymmetry here. Once we know a non-notable BLP/Company has been declined, its reappearance in a very professionalised form (with photo, logo etc,) is likely a UPE, which then links to their wider portfolio of other articles. In fact, a UPE takes a big risk taking on a client who was previously turned down/deleted on Wikipedia, as they could lose all their work?
My question is whether we keep a register/filter of non-notable BLPs/Corps who we know are trying to get on Wikipedia and who may engage the services of a UPE provider, so that we can expose the whole provider?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that there is an easy answer, editors often have to decide on notability without access to all the potential sources and some non-notable subjects become notable later. We do have
Creation protection (salting).
TSventon (
talk) 13:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
removed referenced info from
Hamza Essalih and turned it into something of a hagiography
92.17.14.64 (
talk) 12:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Administrator note: I've blocked the account as is standard when one is using the name of a well-known person to edit content related to that person. They won't be able to particpate in this thread unless they prove their identity to
WP:VRT or choose a new username.
Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply