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:Kati Agócs
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zerodur
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    [edit]
    Articles
    Editor
    Related discussion

    Rvsingh12, from their very first edits, has extensively edited articles related to the Khanna family/clan, and appears to have access to materials (especially images [1]) that indicate a relationship to members of the family.

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

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

    So, if I understand correctly from the talk page discussion, the user claims no conflict of interest and states that his independent wealth allows him to pursue interests such as... writing Wikipedia articles about many related individuals to whom he personally has no relation?
    Normally it works the other way, i.e. an individual writes articles about lots of people and this provides the individual with independent wealth.
    Are we sure we have this the right way around?
    Also, I'm not sure why someone would need to clarify their situation in great detail in private if they had no connection whatsoever to the individuals in question. And if they had no COI, why would they be so against this being referred to COIN?
    Maybe we'll get some clarity if we consider the edits themselves. I've not looked at the articles. In your opinion are they written from a neutral point of view or do they appear promotional? Axad12 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles are highly promotional, Navin Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) especially so. As I said, regardless of the outcome here, the articles need major cleanup. --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the subjects actually notable? If not, AfD would avoid the need for laborious cleanup.
    What this all resembles, of course, is a situation where there is a family historian who has created lot of articles for past and present members of his/her family. In those situations the likelihood is that the individual is either related to the family or is someone who is being paid by the family.
    Obviously it is possible that neither of those situations are applicable here, but if the articles are highly promotional then the likelihood of that being the case would appear very low indeed.
    Please proceed carefully here as we do not want there to be any WP:OUTING. Axad12 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged Navin Khanna for AfD as clearly not notable. Haven't looked at the others yet. C F A 💬 03:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not across all the details of commons, but isn't uploading pictures as "own work" the same as declaring you took the photos rather than that you have somehow "acquired" the copyright? Something definitely feels fishy here. The user says I obtained these through various methods. One is public domain and archival collections. Two is estate sales and auctions. Three is amateur photography. Four is acquiring rights and developing historical ones. For one example, I'm not sure how any of these can account for this 2022 portrait uploaded as his own work, or am I missing something? Melcous (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Melcous, you are correct. After looking at the personal pics uploaded by the editor, along with the WP:REFBOMBING, WP:UNDUE additions, and promotion about this Khanna family in many articles, I strongly suspect that they have a WP:COI with this family. An independent editor cannot promote a family like this which has mainly received some coverage and that too for alleged involvement in corruption cases. So, at the very least, they should be topic-banned from the articles related to the Khanna family so that any further damage to this project can be averted. BTW, I cross-checked their Khanna family article. Over one-third of the cited sources are non-independent, poor, or simply don't mention the Khanna family. The editor also added seemingly unsourced details like the birthdates and family relationships of obscure Khanna family members. So I will post relevant comments on that article's talk page. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A ban from BLPs also seems necessary given the editing since this discussion was started (eg Rajeshwari Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Khanna family). --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Macgirl

    [edit]

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

    If this is not WP:UPE, it certainly resembles it.
    Interestingly the user has only ever cleared material from their user page twice, both times specifically removing only discussions about the apparently promotional nature of their edits.
    I understand that the user intends to reply here, so no doubt we will soon hear their version of events. Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: the material that was removed from the talk page was broader than simply discussions re: promo, but the removals did include the removal of those discussions. Axad12 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall specifically removing items from my Talk page. Despite being on this platform for nearly 20 years now, I am by no means an expert, which should be obvious from my contribution history. Whatever was deleted was inadvertent and had no bad intentions. Can you show me where I can see what content was deleted and when? macgirl (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just go to your talk page and select "View History" (top right). Large scale removals took place on 5th May 2020 and 25th Sept 2020. Axad12 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this is helpful. I see these two, which were labeled as "Archived" and "moved to history", yet not deleted (unless archiving and moving to history is the same thing as deleting?):
    15:25, 5 May 2020‎ Macgirl talk contribs‎ m 2,381 bytes −41,031‎ Archived. undo Tag: Replaced
    13:36, 25 September 2020‎ Macgirl talk contribs‎ 3,805 bytes −24,136‎ moved to history undo
    It looks like I was trying to keep my Talk page clean, but it's hard to recall clearly something I did without knowing its full meaning four years ago. macgirl (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Graywalls. I'd like to respond to this message point by point.
    1. "The general editing pattern with huge amount of ref bombing, and how they'd do one article and articles directly related to that article."
    I don't know what "ref bombing" means. If you are referring to my practice of researching subjects thoroughly and collecting ample independent sources to prove notability, then I was under the impression that ample independent sources is the preferred approach and am confused as to why you are citing it as a negative. Please clarify what you mean by "ref bombing" in relation to my articles.
    Similarly, my understanding is that Wikipedia's goal is to expand, and so whenever I've noticed where a new article could be written, and I've had the time to write it, I have written it. I also do not see this as a negative. Please clarify why you think adding articles where I think they are needed is a problem.
    ///////
    2. "They go away for a while, come back and do major edits on a different company."
    I edit Wikipedia in my spare time and have a narrow focus of interest: design and the Dominican Republic. I contribute where I see there is a need. General architecture knowledge is well covered, in my opinion. Where I see the need is in creating pages for designers and firms doing work I consider significant for one or another reason (size, style, LGBTQ advocacy, impact on certain underrepresented neighborhoods, etc.). Once my page is created, I return if and when I have time to add more. More often than not, I simply move on to other subjects. Because I do this as a hobby in my spare time, it takes me a LONG time to create a new page from scratch. This is why there aren't more frequent contributions: Wikipedia editing is a hobby for me. One page a year is all I can contribute, and I make sure that my contributions are valuable.
    ///////
    3. "The very flowery and flattering tones and great focus on architects and firms rather than on the topic of architecture despite what the user profile is strongly indicative of public relations editing."
    Please indicate examples of the specific contributions I made that are "flowery" and "flattering" in your view. I would be glad to receive positive feedback on how to improve this aspect if indeed the tone is found by the majority here to be "flowery" and "flattering". Also, please note that every article I've created has been reviewed and approved by an Editor, except for the very last one, which was awaiting review for months.
    ///////
    More generally, though, your accusation that I am being compensated for my edits is unfounded. If you have specific criticism about the pages I've created, I would be glad to listen and implement, as I have implemented the suggestions of several other editors who have weighed in on ALL my new page edits over the years. macgirl (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Three questions:
    In what sense in raising a topic at this noticeboard a personal attack?
    Are you aware that according to WP:PA making an unsubstantiated allegation of that nature is itself a personal attack? [Edit 19/8/24: allegation subsequently removed here [2]]
    On how many occasions has your work been labelled as promotional or as reading like an advert? Axad12 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers below:
    1. In addition to this message, the original poster left a message on my page accusing me of being a paid contributor. Perhaps this is standard practice, but I consider it a hostile approach, as I have never been accused of such before. As I said above, I can retract this if I have misread Graywalls's intentions.
    2. No, I was not aware of that. I am referring to the combination of this noticeboard and the message that Graywalls left on my page. Combined, they seem awfully hostile and not constructive. Please let me know if I've misread intentions here.
    3. I recall a "promotional language" issue arising only once. The criticism I received was very specific, which helped me not only correct that one article but improve future ones. I am very open to making edits and improving, and have never been accused of being a paid contributor. macgirl (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1 & 2: Those are standard messages. You should withdraw the allegation of a personal attack.
    3: I've already counted three occasions and I've hardly started looking. I'll get back to you when I have the full count. Axad12 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you list the three occasions? macgirl (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have to provide the exact diffs tomorrow, but Looking at the articles you have created...
    Roman and Williams was tagged as reading like an advert [3] (and much puffery was later removed [4]).
    Michael David Kirchmann AfC was rejected for reading like an advertisement [5]. (Reviewer's note: "The whole thing is written as if to promote him”[6]).
    Jessica Rich (designer) AfC was rejected for reading like an advertisement [7].
    After these it seems you stopped referring your new articles to AfC.
    This resulted in Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects having to be moved back to draftspace due to being "too highly promotional" [8] [9].
    And then today promotional material was removed from 4 articles which you had placed directly into mainspace: Eduardo Brito National Theater, Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects, Rene Gonzalez Architects and DXA Studio.
    So that makes 8 occasions.
    Plus there are the various articles created on buildings designed by Kirchmann: Marcus Garvey Village, 25-27 Mercer Street, 500 West 25th Street and 177 Franklin Street.
    All of this is going back over a period of 10 years, so there seems to be a longstanding issue with promotional text here. Axad12 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for summarizing these.
    I only remembered one of these instances, but you are correct that there are four preceding today, since 2012. *Twelve* years is a long time. Roman and Williams was my very first article, so it is not surprising that it had issues. As for the remaining three you listed, they were all reviewed by other editors at the time and whatever objections they had were resolved to their satisfaction. You also failed to mention the several other articles I created that did not have any issues.
    Today's removals were all made by the same person who originally made the accusation. They include these articles: Rene Gonzalez Architects, Marcus Garvey Village, Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects, DXA Studio, Eduardo Brito National Theater, and Michael David Kirchmann. I would hardly chuck them into the same category as the above, as there seems to be an effort here to go through my history to find a smoking gun of some sort.
    That said, I am more than happy to start this conversation over with a constructive critique involving as many articles or edits of mine as you wish to review in order to improve them and remove any language that may seem promotional. My general goal isn't to antagonize anyone but to contribute the best way I know how within the rules of Wikipedia. A new goal that just emerged today is to defend myself from these unfounded accusations and stand by my work, so please excuse any defensive tone: I am defending myself indeed.
    "Plus there are the various articles created on buildings designed by Kirchmann." Is this not permitted? Please clarify. See my previous point about expanding Wikipedia and try to see my contributions through that lens (instead of seeing some dark ulterior motive). I have added whenever I've had time to add and wherever I see a need. If this is not acceptable, please let me know.
    Another issues is the "paid editing" tag that was incorrectly added to several of my articles. Most were removed but one is still live. See here:
    https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nelson_Byrd_Woltz_Landscape_Architects
    This is what I was reacting to before when I said "hostility". I was not given an opportunity to defend myself before the original poster went ahead and added this tag across several articles of mine. And now that I have denied the allegation, tags remain. It seems to me that the least disruptive and more collegiate way to address this would have been to wait until I respond before adding tags across my contributions. Then again, I have not been accused of this before and don't know how this protocol works. macgirl (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an uninvolved editor who stumbled upon this case while looking for something unrelated on COIN. I looked back thru macgirl's creations and some of the deleted items on her talk and found at least two warnings about promo by DGG, who was probably the most highly astute spotters of PROMO, COI and UPE and defenders against using the encyclopedia for promotion, advocacy, and the problematics of paid editing. I have to agree with both the OP and with Axad12 that there is a strong promotional tone to macgirl's articles. Whether UPE is occurring, the articles appear that way having multiple indications, however they are adamantly denying this, so until more evidence is gathered it's unclear. In the meantime, the promotional tone should be cleaned up in the articles. I also wanted to ask macgirl how is it that you obtain photographer's permissions to use their photographs if you are not in some way connected to the subjects? Netherzone (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not connected to any of these subjects.
    Whenever I've wanted to use photos, I simply reach out directly to the photographers of the images I like. It is not difficult to find out who they are, as they are often credited in the design publications or websites I frequent. More often than not, they decline or ignore the request. When they accept, the images make it onto the page.
    This is one of many reasons why it takes me a long time to build these pages. If I'm working on a page is because the subject interests me, so I try various avenues to create a good quality article out from the start. Obtaining image rights is one such way, though it often fails (they won't release credit).
    If this is a matter of promotional tone, I am happy to review any pages you wish in full and edit as needed. Please note these pages were reviewed by editors back when they were made and all objections were resolved to those editors' satisfaction. These pages have also been edited by others since. So I am quite surprised at all of these comments arising years after the fact.
    Please note my comment above about the deletions. macgirl (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve now added the relevant diffs and wikilinks to my post above.
    In response to your various recent comments:
    a) The events cover a 12 year period and *Twelve* years is a long time. Yes, it is certainly a long time over which to not take into consideration the concerns made by other editors about your work.
    b) The 3 cases after Roman & Williams were all reviewed by other editors at the time and whatever objections they had were resolved to their satisfaction. Yes, but the issue is that you tried to introduce promotional material onto Wikipedia, not that other users prevented you from doing so. The fact that you then stopped using the AfC process looks rather like an attempt to evade further scrutiny, given that you would have been aware that issues had been raised with previous articles.
    c) Re: the various articles on buildings designed by Kirchmann and Is this not permitted?. It is permitted, but when it occurs 2 years after you tried to introduce an article written as if to promote [Kirchmann] then it looks rather odd.
    d) The tags that were recently placed on the articles said that the articles may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. Not that they “were”, but that they “may have been”. The user involved then started a conversation here for that issue to be discussed, which is surely more appropriate than simply adding the tags and doing nothing. I really don’t see that that is hostile, it’s just a perfectly straightforward activity when there is room for concern.
    e) Towards the end of your response you again said these pages were reviewed by editors back when they were made and all objections were resolved to those editors' satisfaction. That is not true, you ceased submitting articles for review at AfC back in 2019 after encountering repeated difficulties in including promotional text. The fact that similar issues have now arisen on articles that you didn’t submit to AfC doesn’t seem particularly surprising because it is evidently a repeated issue that you have, despite having received consistent advice on that matter.
    Three other points:
    All of the above thread relates primarily to the articles that you created. I’ve not looked in any detail at your edits on other articles but those edits do seem to frequently relate to adding mentions / wikilinks to articles that you created.
    I note that you removed some tags from the Kirchmann article, here [10], despite apparently not having resolved the issues, or having sought any consensus, or having discussed with, say, the editor who had placed those tags on the article.
    And there is a rather unusual question that you asked of another editor here [11] re: why one of your articles didn’t appear on a Google search. That seems an odd question, although one that would certainly be of interest if one was engaged in, say, Search engine optimization.
    Looking at all of the above, and the diffs and links in my earlier post, I agree with Graywalls that there is room for concern on the matter of WP:UPE, or, at the very least, there are certainly repeated breaches (or attempted breaches) of WP:PROMO. Axad12 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for adding the links, that is very helpful. Point by point reply below.
    a) My "Twelve years is a long time" comment refers to what I think is an unreasonable expectation that I remember every single Wikipedia edit or contribution I've made over such a long time, particularly when I contribute so infrequently. I also wonder how many Editors's contributions over the same period of time would withstand this level of scrutiny. Everyone learns and grows and improves as best they can, no? "Yes, it is certainly a long time over which to not take into consideration the concerns made by other editors about your work." Respectfully, I disagree that I haven't taken these concerns into consideration. I believe my Wikipedia writing has improved over the years, with several articles not drawing this same criticism. Whenever concerns have been raised, I have always responded in the same way I am responding now, which is to ask for guidance and try to improve. Writing for Wikipedia takes a lot of effort to master, demonstrated by the sheer number of poor articles all across the site, and I have expressed repeatedly an openness to improve. However infrequently I contribute, I try to make the contributions valuable in the realm that I know and interests me.
    //////
    b) "Yes, but the issue is that you tried to introduce promotional material onto Wikipedia, not that other users prevented you from doing so." I wrote each of these articles in the best way I knew how at the time I wrote them, and improved them when others pointed out flaws. What may sound promotional to some may sound neutral to others. On my end, there was no intention to promote but simply to write about subjects that interest me, and I wrote about them how I thought sounded best. My work was reviewed and I stood corrected multiple times, after which I made every attempt to follow the recommendations given. "The fact that you then stopped using the AfC process looks rather like an attempt to evade further scrutiny, given that you would have been aware that issues had been raised with previous articles." Sorry to say, but you are reading far too much into my actions and are assuming negative intentions when there were none. The reasoning behind this is quite pedestrian: I simply forgot how I had done these in the years before, Googled it, and started the more recent ones as you see them. To be clear, I have NEVER been opposed to having my work reviewed. Even now, when I feel as though my work and my ethics are under attack, I am still open to receiving specific feedback to improve all the contributions I've made.
    //////
    c) "It is permitted, but when it occurs 2 years after you tried to introduce an article written as if to promote [Kirchmann] then it looks rather odd." It shouldn't look odd. As I said before here, I don't edit Wikipedia frequently. I only do so when I have the time AND when a subject is of interest to me. For example, I had planned to write about this subject of interest a long time ago and even started a rough draft around 2015-16. I was too busy at that time to take it further and then someone else finally beat me to it in 2018. I saw nothing to improve in this article, so I've since moved on to other interests. In short, there is nothing odd about me taking forever to make these articles, as this is a side hobby for me that I do in my limited spare time.
    //////
    d) "Not that they “were”, but that they “may have been”." For the purposes of this discussion, "may have been" is just as damaging as "were". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the worst possible accusations to receive as a contributor to Wikipedia? Surely you can understand my concern and my vigorous defense of my work. Or am I overreacting here?
    //////
    e) "The fact that similar issues have now arisen on articles that you didn’t submit to AfC doesn’t seem particularly surprising because it is evidently a repeated issue that you have, despite having received consistent advice on that matter." The advice I received in the past was limited to specific articles, which I then corrected. If I had more time to practice, perhaps you would see more improvement over time. The "repeated issue" is a matter of me writing in a style that sounds acceptable to me but does not to you (and the others who have responded here). It is not some sneaky attempt to get this by anyone, as I am well aware that any contribution anyone makes can be removed at any time. You are again reading negative intent where there is none.
    //////
    f) "[...] but those edits do seem to frequently relate to adding mentions / wikilinks to articles that you created." Well, of course they would be. I only edit things I'm interested in, so it shouldn't be a surprise that I'm contributing to and expanding my own work. It is also a problem when articles exist without being linked to, so I sought to resolve those in my own articles whenever I could. None of this is odd to me.
    //////
    g) "I note that you removed some tags from the Kirchmann article, here [58], despite apparently not having resolved the issues, or having sought any consensus, or having discussed with, say, the editor who had placed those tags on the article." The link you sent me shows a single edit to remove "Projects" as a subtitle. It doesn't show I removed the box. Are you certain I didn't address the concerns? Or is it that the editor never responded, and so I assumed the matter was closed two years after? See here: Talk:Michael David Kirchmann
    //////
    h) "And there is a rather unusual question that you asked of another editor here [59] re: why one of your articles didn’t appear on a Google search. That seems an odd question, although one that would certainly be of interest if one was engaged in, say, Search engine optimization." Now that is a huge leap. The vast majority of users access Wikipedia via a search engine. It concerned me that my article didn't show up when trying to find it to show a friend and I asked the editor for guidance. One would have to be really determined to see a sinister motive in that question.
    Given the tenor of this discussion, I am now wondering what the ultimate goal is. Is it to initiate an inquiry of my previous work in order to improve it or is it something else? I have already answered the initial accusation, have explained my actions as I recall them, and have expressed repeatedly a willingness to receive new critiques on my past already-approved work. How do we move forward from here? macgirl (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    g) (cont.) Upon further review, it seems that the editor did respond in 2020 and they indicated the issues that prompted the box had been resolved. The issues were notability, lack of focus, and orphan. All three were addressed in my edits.
    Note the quotes below:
    "I'll be honest and say this isn't my area of expertise, so you may want to get more opinions, but I'm satisfied that the subject meets WP:NARCH."
    "In general though, the article looks okay and my only note would be to mind WP:NPOV. Biographies can be tough because the line between factual reporting and non-neutral promotion can be thin."
    https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Macgirl macgirl (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that I do not agree with very much of what you have said above, a large amount of which appears to be nonsensical [evasive]. However, I was about to post the following material re: your response to criticism of your article for Nelson Byrd Woltz. Other editors will hopefully draw their own conclusions re: the extent to which you take on board (and act upon) the valid criticism of your promotional work:
    For any readers wishing to see the issues in this thread in microcosm…
    The user had had articles knocked back at AfC for ‘reading like an advertisement’ in both Sept 2018 and Dec 2019 (both later accepted after alterations).
    Then in May 2020 they introduced a new article [12] directly to mainspace, bypassing AfC. The lengthy ‘History’ part of the article is apparently promotional in intent and reads like advertising copy. See also the very long list of notable projects and list of awards.
    This article was then objected to by user DGG as being too blatantly promotional and in this post [13],
    that user makes two specific suggestions which are clearly described as a start for improving [the article].
    The first of these suggestions was to remove material like [specific example], in actual fact only the specific example was removed.
    A name-dropping list was also removed upon request.
    I would suggest that (a) in relation to the first of those 2 points, the text removed could not reasonably have been interpreted as anywhere near to the scale of removal requested by the objecting editor, and (b) although macgirl states above that all objections were resolved to the [objecting] editor’s satisfaction, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the objecting editor expressed their satisfaction over the relatively minor changes made to an article which they had previously described as too blatantly promotional.
    So, the claim that you dealt with the objections to the objecting editor's satisfaction is untrue, and the changes that you did make were presumably the minimum that you thought that you could get away with.
    However, as a more general observation on the broader issue, I think it would be useful if you were to acknowledge that there are elements to your edits, and your general editing pattern, which would give the impression to other editors that you are editing for pay. Without that I don't really see how we go forward. If you only intend to post lengthy self-justificatory material, repeating previous comments, then I don't see any likelihood of the problem going away. Axad12 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm afraid that I do not agree with very much of what you have said above, a large amount of which appears to be nonsensical." Not agreeing is fine. Calling my words nonsensical is an uncalled-for escalation.
    "Then in May 2020 they introduced a new article [60] directly to mainspace, bypassing AfC." I've already explained this action.
    "[...] there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the objecting editor expressed their satisfaction over the relatively minor changes made to an article which they had previously described as too blatantly promotional." I addressed the concerns as I understood them each time. Since there were no further concerns after that, I assumed that the issues were resolved to the editors's satisfaction. You seem to have new concerns. Could you point them out specifically so we can address and resolve them?
    "[...] the claim that you dealt with the objections to the objecting editor's satisfaction is untrue [...]". It is not untrue. Can you show evidence that there were further concerns that I did not address?
    "[...] and the changes that you did make were presumably the minimum that you thought that you could get away with." You are assigning nefarious motives without proof.
    "However, as a more general observation on the broader issue, I think it would be useful if you were to acknowledge that there are elements to your edits, and your general editing pattern, which would give the impression to other editors that you are editing for pay." I acknowledge everyone is free to believe whatever they like, but I will not admit to doing something I didn't do just because a stranger believes it so.
    This has not been a constructive critique held in the spirit of collaboration. You are making assumptions based on conversations you did not participate in to impugn my motives and present mi actions in the most negative way possible. All of my explanations have fallen on deaf ears. Also, the inaccurate "edit for pay" tag is still on the Nelson Byrd article, despite my repeated denials.
    At this point, I would like to explore other avenues to help resolve this dispute. macgirl (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let’s try to boil this down to its fundamental core…
    When an editor has been asked on several occasions to remove promotional material from their newly authored articles it is reasonable to assume that they would learn from the experience and stop trying to install promotional material into future articles.
    If an editor doesn’t stop doing so then the only reasonable conclusions are as follows:
    a) the editor is engaged in WP:UPE and the promotional material is the whole point of their activity.
    or b) the editor is genuinely unable to determine promotional text from non-promotional text despite having it pointed out to them several times.
    You appear to be a highly intelligent and articulate individual, so it does not seem as though (b) could be correct.
    The only question therefore is why do you continually seek to introduce on to Wikipedia material which you must surely be aware is promotional? Just a simple explanation please (rather than a further attempt to textually deconstruct concerns which several editors have now expressed). Axad12 (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how I can continue a civil discussion after having my words be labeled nonsensical. As you asked me to withdraw a previous comment, I would like to do the same now. It would be helpful if you withdrew that escalation so the conversation can proceed. macgirl (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be more productive if you concentrated on the suggestion that your articles are promotional, rather than creating a very transparent diversion to avoid answering the central issue of this thread. Axad12 (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, I am happy to retract "appears to be nonsensical" and replace it with "appears to be evasive". Axad12 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for retracting. I'm not sure I agree withe "evasive" either, but it is an improvement.
    //////
    To address your question: "The only question therefore is why do you continually seek to introduce on to Wikipedia material which you must surely be aware is promotional?" I've presented the writing I thought was best each time and with the intention to showcase subjects I like, not to promote. Others gave feedback that it seemed promotional, so I implemented changes to resolve those concerns each time. With each page submission, I believe have improved on this point. You are free to disagree, though I would point towards articles I wrote that did not have this concern raised as proof that there has been improvement. Edit: I would also point towards this, at the core of which is the idea that everything here is a work in progress. Learning how to write consistently in the Wikipedia neutral tone takes time. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury to devote more time to editing, and only do so when I can. If I did, there would be even more improvement.
    //////
    You are making a lot of assumptions about my motives and every explanation I've given seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as you continue to accuse me of something I haven't done. The proof you have is circumstantial at best and is based on your interpretation of my intentions, which you could not possibly know, instead of actual facts. For example, you ascribed nefarious intentions to me cleaning up my Talk page, when this looks like a standard practice among editors, yourself included. No one is disputing it was cleaned up. But you immediately assumed I did so to hide exchanges about promotional language, when there is no possible way for you to know that (and when there are additional exchanges left posted). There are other examples, but I don't think it's useful to repeat all of them.
    //////
    Not only that, but my efforts to address these new concerns have been repeatedly ignored, as the focus seems to be on questioning my motives from more than a decade ago instead of helping resolve the concerns directly. Once again, if there are issues with any of my contributions, please point them out specifically so I can resolve them. It would be helpful if the feedback is specific, as "this sounds like promotional material" is difficult to interpret. We can go through every single edit I've made if you like. macgirl (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether something is promotional or not is not a subjective matter or difficult to interpret. It is very clear to any articulate person, especially if it has been pointed out to them in the past in their own work. If something "reads like an advertisement" or is "blatant promotion" (or any of the other terms previously used to describe your work) then the promotion is not subjective.
    Nobody would consistently produce promotional material unless they were trying to do so. Consequently I don't intend to get involved in an edit-by-edit analysis. The overall picture of promotional intent is clear from the evidence provided earlier in this thread, which involves consistent input from a range of different editors over a long period of time.
    The idea that promotional tone is subjective is a common line from paid/COI editors with a history of promotion. Unfortunately they find themselves painted into a corner by their own actions, and that is the only flimsy argument left for them to try. Sorry but it doesn't hold any water. Axad12 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will ask again. Could you please be specific about which of my contributions today have a promotional tone, so that I can correct? macgirl (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The idea that promotional tone is subjective is a common line from paid/COI editors with a history of promotion." That is your view. My view is that I am being put in a position of having to defend my work, and am responding as best I can. There is a recurring pattern here from you to see negative intent in my actions, despite having limited knowledge, and comparing my actions with others. This is quite unfair. macgirl (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point it seems unlikely that we will resolve this impasse. As I said last night, I would like to explore other avenues to help resolve this dispute. macgirl (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest a simple solution? How about if you agree to abide by Wikipedia policy by refraining from creating articles which appear to be promotional, or from otherwise making edits that appear to be promotional. That would work for me. What do you say?
    I'd also suggest that, due to past concerns raised by a number of editors, you voluntarily agree to submit any future new articles to AfC rather than placing them directly into mainspace.
    I don't want to be seen to be unfair here. These are reasonable suggestions that I think any reasonable editor would accept. Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "How about if you agree to abide by Wikipedia policy by refraining from creating articles which appear to be promotional, or from otherwise making edits that appear to be promotional." That seems fair. It is what I thought I was doing all this time, but others disagree and have seen promotion in my style of writing. I am happy to accommodate edits to improve.
    That said, without specifics, which I have been asking for since my very first response, it will be difficult to know exactly what parts of my contributions over 12+ years *still* sound promotional. I've asked you and the original poster for examples and neither have provided them. Instead, you have provided examples of other editors' feedback from years ago, all of which were resolved to their satisfaction, but you have consistently failed to identify specific issues with the articles *today* that I can correct so we can move forward. Remember that this entire thread was started by an editor who read one of my articles in recent days and decided to investigate my contribution history to accuse me of being a paid editor, an accusation that has not yet been retracted.
    "[...] due to past concerns raised by a number of editors, you voluntarily agree to submit any future new articles to AfC rather than placing them directly into mainspace [...]" This is perfectly acceptable to me. I will bookmark the page so I know where to start for future pages. macgirl (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, excellent. Netherzone has given some very good advice below and you may find plenty of useful material in the guidelines on writing in a "neutral point of view", which can be found here: WP:NPOV. See also WP:PROMO and various other guidelines linked to those 2 pages. Axad12 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing further to add at this point, because the arguments presented by others essentially negate any need to do so. Graywalls (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've removed the "paid editing" note you placed in most of my contributions, but the one for Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects is still live. Could you remove that one as well? macgirl (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not totally convinced, but since this discussion is already here, I will let someone else do it, if they agree it doesn't belong. Graywalls (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem to be consistent with your previous actions. Why remove some but not all? Is there anything in particular about that one specific article that requires the tag after everything I've explained here? macgirl (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to jump in here again to give you some examples, Macgirl, however I'm not going to go through all your creations, as that is clean up you should take care of yourself. In regards to the DXA Studio article, this: DXA studio emphasizes authenticity, sustainability, and originality in architecture is highly promotional and probably written by the principals at the studio themself. Same with this: The book explores DXA’s practice through 14 projects that consider New York City as a laboratory, embracing history as a constructive and critical influence. which sounds like content from a press release or DXA's book proposal. This sounds like advertising copy: it features two side-by-side towers with a faceted column and spandrel grid façade, with condo and rental units, including affordable housing as does this: sought the firm's expertise for potential renovation ideas for the imperiled. This sounds like it came from a project proposal for the development: proposed three options that preserved as much of the core structure as possible and added new apartments with a façade respecting the neighborhood context. More PROMO: rooted in health and wellness; and has also set records for condominium sales in the area; and renowned architect. This sounds like advertisement brochure copy: The six-story building consists of 16-unit condos attached to a glass lobby with a green roof surrounded by a landscaped entrance plaza and private garden. The façade features intricate masonry.. I'll stop there but could go on. It is clear that DXA Studio is notable and has done some very good work, so that is not the issue; the issue, to my mind, is that pretty much the whole article needs to be pruned from this sort of promotionally-toned writing, and cut back to the essentials - basically re-written; a complete overhaul. As do several of your other articles. I suggest you go back and read what user DGG wrote to you some time ago. I'm sorry if that is not the answer you want to hear. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very helpful. I have to step away now but will return later today to digest these comments and start editing. macgirl (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't understand why someone would even write in that kind of highly promotional hagiographic tone in the first place. Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just noticed some close paraphrasing from the company's website.
    The Wikipedia article says: "The book [i.e. DXA NYC] explores DXA’s practice through 14 projects that consider New York City as a laboratory, embracing history as a constructive and critical influence."
    The company website [14] says: "The book presents 14 projects that embrace history as a critical influence; they use New York City as a laboratory to implement this approach that acknowledges context and constraint as constructive, rather than restrictive."
    It may be worth looking for more of the same, both on this article and others - especially given Netherzone's comments on existing text looking like advertising copy. Axad12 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly...
    The Wikipedia article says: "Before DXA studio, Jordan Rogove worked with set designer Tom McPhillips, Lucien Lagrange Architects, and Morris Adjmi Architects in New York City. Rogove received his Bachelor of Architecture from Virginia Tech in 1998 and is a visiting professor there"
    The company website [15] says: "Prior to establishing DXA studio, Jordan worked with renowned theatrical set designer Tom McPhillips, Chicago-based Lucien Lagrange Architects, and Morris Adjmi Architects in New York City. Jordan received his Bachelor of Architecture degree from Virginia Tech in 1998, where he is currently a visiting Professor of Practice."
    That and my post directly above were just 2 random spotchecks. Probably safe to assume there is a lot more of the same. Axad12 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto for the elements of the article covering: West Park Presbyterian Church, 827-841 Broadway and Wayne Norbeck. I didn’t check the links to the other references in the article, but presumably those are where some of the rest of the text derives from. Axad12 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference to the initial version of the article shows the same origin for much of the extreme promo material which has since been removed, including this sentence which used to be installed in the lede: "DXA’s work combines art and the science of architecture, blending a modern outlook with a respect for history and context". (That was a direct steal from the second sentence of the 'About' section on the company website).
    Okay, that's enough of that. Axad12 (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the same phenomena can be seen on Rene Gonzalez Architects, where the current lede is ripped directly from elements of the 'Firm' section of the co website, here [16]. I didn't look any further, probably more of the article comes from the same source. I also detected signs of similar but more limited activity on Michael David Kirchmann.
    No more of that from me now, I think we have proof of the user's basic modus operandi. What is the best way of dealing with articles created like this? Are there WP:COPYVIO implications? Axad12 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was alerted to this discussion from another page. Details like The six-story building consists of 16-unit condos attached to a glass lobby with a green roof surrounded by a landscaped entrance plaza and private garden. The façade features intricate masonry should be removed not because they constitute advertising—they should be removed because they're irrelevant to the topic. The design of the facade or the number of apartments in a building may be appropriate for an article on the building (and indeed might not pose any NPOV issues there, if worded properly). In an article about the building's architects, however, it really doesn't matter whether the building contains 16, 14, or 18 units, nor will the reader care what the facade is made of.
    I am, however, concerned about statements like DXA studio emphasizes authenticity, sustainability, and originality in architecture. This sounds like advertising because it tells us very little about the firm itself. Something like "DXA has designed several green buildings", on the other hand, would adhere more closely to WP:NPOV, since it sticks to the facts rather than using flowery language to describe the company. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Epicgenius:, Are you fluent on this subject matter? If so, would you say DXA easily passes the notability threshold for companies? Graywalls Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls, I haven't taken a close look at the DXA page, since my comment was meant more as a passing observation. I will note, however, that many of the sources on that page talk about DXA's projects, not the firm itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Macgirl in your response to my first comment about how you were able to get permission from professional photographers to upload their work that you use in your articles, one of the things you said in your response was: ...it takes me a long time to build these pages. If I'm working on a page is because the subject interests me, so I try various avenues to create a good quality article out from the start. Please understand that I'm not implying you are doing something incorrectly, but I just am curious how long it takes for you to write these articles by doing close paraphrasing such as the above, where only a few words are changed from the company's website? Netherzone (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone:, well I'm sure they took them a long time to make in the same sense it takes a lot of time to prepare photogenic food to use in menu photos and advertisement filming. Graywalls (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For new articles, I work on a few items of interest at the same time, with the bulk of the time spent locating worthwhile sources and saving them in a Word doc for future use. Once I think I have enough notability from good sources, I start formatting, which also takes me a long time (others are likely faster). I do this in my very limited spare time, so it may be weeks or months between updates to my Word doc and definitely months before I start drafting here.
    I was under the impression that sourced writing was preferred over original writing, that the content must be sourced from somewhere other than me, so paraphrasing seems to make the most sense to me. macgirl (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After all these comments, my plan is to review all my contributions to proposed edits that address these concerns, starting with DXA and working backwards. Given this discussion, am I even permitted to make edits directly to these articles? Do I need to touch base here? macgirl (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edits to make to clean up the language in the DXA article. Am I permitted to make the edits directly or do I need to clear them here first? Please advise. macgirl (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally figured out how to mention, so I will mention everyone who has been contributing to this discussion. @Station1@North8000@Netherzone@Graywalls@Epicgenius@Axad12
    As I mentioned last week, I would like to start cleaning up the articles to address the concerns brought up here, starting with DXA and working backwards as time allows me. I am ready to make edits. Am I permitted to proceed? Or do I need to clear the edits here first? macgirl (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I'd wait until the notability concerns have been resolved - unless you are talking about making edits that directly address those notability concerns. Otherwise you may find that you put a lot of work into an article which ends up being deleted in the not too distant future.
    However, it does look as though Rene Gonzalez Architects probably isn't going to AfD, so maybe you could start there. If so, perhaps best to discuss potential new content at the talk page for that article?
    It goes without saying, of course, that any newly suggested text cannot be taken directly from other sources or closely paraphrased from such sources. Also, best to acquaint yourself with the material that has been removed, and the reasons why it was removed Axad12 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Macgirl: There's no prohibition from editing. I don't know where this is going to go, but where AFD is being considered, IMO the main (and some would say only) thing that matters would be searching for and including GNG sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I looked here to understand what a solid GNG reference would be. I wonder if there is a category that is specific to architects and designers, as I think the sources I have used are appropriate. They are independent, reliable sources recognized in the industry, along with national publications covering the work and the people. When I review this article to address all these comments, I will take this into account. macgirl (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000, if there are valid GNG concerns on these articles, would it be better if they were just sent to AfD for deletion (especially given the additional concerns over the origins of much of the text)?
    If the subjects aren't notable then I don't see much point in the user undertaking onerous re-writes (which would probably also involve a significant amount of community oversight).
    Or do you believe that the GNG concerns can potentially be overcome and it's just a case of finding alternative sources?
    I'd be interested in your thoughts here. Axad12 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After seeing this thread I decided to look at the articles. Then I decided to give my thoughts on those thinking that it might be informative here, and I never thought any further than that enough to answer your questions. GNG sources (published independent sources discussing the subject of the article in depth) tend to cover the types of things that readers want to read. When an article on a commercial enterprise (or "people in the business") is built without these, it tends to just cover the things that a firm/the person would like to say about itself (even if not self-sourced) I'm an active NPP'er and tend to try to follow accepted norms regarding rigorousness of application of the wp:notability including it's guidelines. Which tends to be strict on commercial enterprises and commercial enterprise type people. If I NPP'd these and a search did not yield any GNG references I'd AFD #1, #2 and #4.(IMO N:geo does not cover #4) and would take a guess that #4 only got an article because #2 worked on it (and BTW there's another article 500 west 25th street with the same situation) #3 might be an edge case due to SNG influence due to the awards and I'd probably pass it noting that it's an edge case. Regarding here, I'd say give Macgirl a chance to quickly find and add GNG references and if none are found AFD #1,#2 and #4 (and the other building article). Not sure what to say regarding #3. Regarding this COI thread, I don't see this coming to any conclusion regarding UPE; there are many other common ways to have arrived at this without UPE. And I'm no fan of the broad vague net of other types of COI interrogations. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000: thanks for this, it seems like a very sensible proposal. Would you be happy to check in on those articles in, say, a week(?) and then nominate for AfD any that still fall short of GNG? Axad12 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve added notability tags to the articles for DXA Studio, Michael David Kirchmann, 177 Franklin Street and 500 West 25th Street, as per comments above by North8000.
    Ditto for two further Kirchmann building articles, Marcus Garvey Village and 25-27 Mercer Street, which I assume are affected by the same issue. Axad12 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to do that if there is a consensus here for that. With the understanding that I probably would not nominate the edge case ones and if somebody disagrees on those they can simply handle those rather than debating my non-action. In my NPP work I try to learn and follow the norms and in the past and in discussions, Graywalls and I have sometimes seen things differently, with them advocating or pursuing a stricter approach. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Marcus Garvey Village, note that this building is a NYCHA property, many of which have their own individual article given their and the program's significance in the history of urban development and affordable housing. Also note that there is a separarate article listing all NYCHAP properties with a tag from 2008 requesting assistance to complete the list. I would kindly request that this page is not deleted. It is an important building.
    See here: List of New York City Housing Authority properties
    25-27 Mercer are historic properties with continued architectural significance and were featured in a popular television show. If that doesn't meet the threshold for notability in your view, happy to concede the point. I've looked for additional sources and have not found any better than the ones currently in the article. macgirl (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not AFD and would weigh in as "keep" on Marcus Garvey Village. Regarding 25-27 Mercer. There isn't much content on the building there or in any of the sources, including in the last pdf which I searched through. I'd AFD that one if there was a consensus for me to do what was proposed above. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000, I can’t speak for others but my take is as follows…
    The promotional/content issues on DXA Studio and Michael David Kirchmann are going to be potentially rather complicated to work through due to the need to make sure that all direct lifts and close paraphrasing from company websites etc have been removed. That being the case I think it would be sensible to address the notability / AfD side of the problem first and then address the text issues only for those articles which avoid being deleted.
    I'm not sure that I can see a valid contrary argument here. Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree but for an even bigger reason. Without the GNG or near-GNG sources which the wp:notability of the people and company articles is dependent on, there really isn't material to build a real article from which is a big reason for the GNG requirement. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 177 Franklin (#4 above) might be notable not under NGEO, but under WP:NBUILD. The building does not have an individual heritage listing (which would make it presumably notable under NBUILD). However, it is a contributing property to a historic district, and has been AFDed once already. The previous AFD for that article resulted in a consensus that the sources prove GNG (if barely). I've removed the notability tag there, though it can certainly be sent back to AFD if it can be proved that the previous consensus was wrong. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor side note....NBuild is a part of NGEONorth8000 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WHATISCONSENSUS I believe that argument needs further evaluation. and is substantially covered in the LPC report, which by itself is enough for notability wouldn't be considered independent third party. https://www.nyc.gov/site/lpc/about/about-lpc.page You could have a handful of townspeople voting "the pink house is notable. pink is a great color and its importance has been noted in township committee report" and have numerically significant votes, but when policy/guidelines based arguments are applied, it would fail. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree that the LPC isn't a third-party source. It is indeed an agency of the NYC government, but the NYC government also doesn't own the building. Per WP:IS#Third-party versus independent, An "independent" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject. For example, the independent source will not earn any extra money by convincing readers of its viewpoint. A "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome. It might not be an independent source, since the landmark designation does likely give the LPC an interest in the building, but it is still third-party. The fact that the LPC is a governmental agency doesn't factor into this, by the way—if the LPC were not a city agency, it would still be a third-party source (albeit likely not independent, due to the landmark designation).
    That being said, I also don't have an objection to this being sent back to AFD. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    177 Franklin Street and Marcus Garvey Village are both certainly notable. If the issue is the mention of Kirchmann, just take those mentions out, as notability is in no way dependent on the renovations. Station1 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that if any of the various properties were referred to AfD there would be arguments made for both keep and delete, which is obviously a natural part of that process. However, the major issue in this thread really relates to the overtly promotional articles for DXA Studio and Michael David Kirchmann, in both of which cases nothing has been done to bolster the notability since concerns on that score were raised 5 days ago. Axad12 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability tag on 177 Franklin seems to have been a topic of some dispute (added 3 times, removed twice). Can I suggest that it stays for the time being, on the basis that...
    a) The tag says that the subject "may not meet the GNG" which is an accurate reflection of the discussion above.
    b) The past consensus at the AfD does not preclude the possibility that a new consensus may arise.
    c) The tag requests that users add any material which may help to prove notability. Given that the article may end up at AfD in the very near future the presence of that request can only prove useful to those who believe that the article should be retained.
    If I'm missing something here then please let me know, but I really can't see what purpose is served by two users continuing to remove the tag. Axad12 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there's no consensus for that tag. It was added 3 times because you added it twice. Two editors added it and two removed it. I don't agree that the subject may not meet GNG. I agree consensus can change, but until it goes through AfD again, we don't know that it has. We won't edit war, but if it doesn't go to AfD in the next few days, and no other editors want it up, it should come down. Station1 (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When there's an ongoing discussion taking place about whether a subject is notable, and a clear possibility of an article being taken to AfD where a consensus might be reached that overturns a previous AfD, removing a notability tag solely on the basis of that previous AfD result is obviously wrong.
    The tag was added in the hope that other users might provide new evidence that satisfies all parties on the question of notability. That is the purpose of a notability tag, so its use in this case was entirely appropriate.
    Indeed, it seems to have drawn your attention to this discussion (I linked to this discussion in my edit summary when I added the tag). As far as I can see, the more eyes that are made aware of this discussion, the better. I don't see any justification for you having then removed the tag on sight, thus preventing other users from following in your footsteps. Axad12 (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there's clearly a dispute over whether the notability tag should be in the 177 Franklin article, it should be sent to AFD so the matter of notability can definitively be settled. I'm not going to re-remove the tag either, but I agree with Station1 that the tag shouldn't be there permanently. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully the correspondence here from approx the 20th/21st onwards makes it clear that the tag was only ever intended as a short term precursor to a 2nd AfD.
    In fairness, the timestamps suggest that in both cases the tag was deleted directly prior to yourself and Station1 arriving here, so presumably you both deleted it without being fully aware of the ongoing discussion (rather than out of disregard for due process). Axad12 (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, for me it was a matter of not realizing that you had just commented about the building's notability (or lack thereof) on this page. I had seen some of the other comments, but not this one, at the time I initially removed the tag. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    UPE with autopatrolled and NPR rights

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Out of interest, what is your line of argument re: "if you interpret wp:coi broadly", etc?
    Is it simply a question of taking the sentence Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest and extending it ad absurdum to suggest that everything is a COI, and thus that COI has no real meaning? If so, I disagree. Axad12 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The strength of a COI influence varies from a negligibly small .00001% that covers a good fraction of all editing to a very strong 100% and wp:coi defines them all as COI and fails to make the distinction. And numerous problems arise from that failure. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To calibrate what I said, I didn't mean or claim that there is zero in WP:COI regarding that, I meant that it is overall lacking in making that distinction/ casts too broad of a net.North8000 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you say that the mention in the policy (re: the application of "common sense") is insufficiently clear to draw a distinction between the .00001% and 100% scenarios that you mention above? I would suggest that that is obviously untrue, as you must surely be aware. Axad12 (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does make such a distinction, it tells us that how singficant a COI needs to be before its an issue is governed by common sense. You seem to have a personal grievance against COI as currently written and are simply here to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by what I said, including how this actually plays out, but don't want to get into a general discussion here. Having an opinion that a policy needs to evolve is not a "grievance" and saying so is not "disrupt" (doubly so when it is simply a response to an inquiry) and "simply here to disrupt" is the opposite of AGF, it's falsely inventing bad faith. Please quit with the false accusations and mis-characteriations. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion noticeboard and I think editors should be welcome to share their opinions, civilly, without being accused of being disruptive.
    I also wanted to add that the IP editor who started this discussion also tagged a number of articles that Saqib had contributed to as having paid contributors. I spoke about them taking a big leap from COI suspicions to asking for sanctions but this was another leap, from bringing up a possible COI on a noticeboard to tagging their work as that of a "paid contributor". I don't think we'll be seeing them again, they logged on to Wikipedia on August 24th, stirred up a lot of trouble and left. I think I'd be taking this complaint a lot more seriously if it came from an established editor who we could see was familiar with Wikipedia policies like COI. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I don't think we'll be seeing them again This OP isn’t new. See this and this. I’m pretty sure they’re still around and probably watching this closely. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think there is cause for concern when a user misrepresents WP:COI and then holds to their own factually incorrect personal interpretation even after it's been pointed out that the policy does indeed distinguish between the .0001% and 100% scenarios that the user indicated. For the record, the distinction is given in WP:EXTERNALREL as follows: How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.
    In the vast majority of instances where the nature of a relationship is known, common sense is more than adequate to determine the existence (or otherwise) of COI. In a small number of borderline cases further thought and discussion will be required – but that sort of situation arises in the application of pretty much all policies and guidelines (whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere).
    I don’t disagree that WP:COI is far from perfect (which is a broader subject for discussion in another place) but on the very specific point that the user made, WP:COI is obviously significantly clearer than the user is prepared to accept.
    The idea that the whole point of the policy is in some way weakened by the existence of a grey area is pure sophistry and needs to be called out as such.
    The background is that the user and some of his WP:SCOUTING associates found themselves within that grey area earlier this year in some relatively heated discussions both here and elsewhere. That is presumably the reason that he seeks to misrepresent COI as an undifferentiated spectrum. Axad12 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There two different editors blended to one report in the OP. Let's split this up: North8000 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    By the heading it is accusing Saqib of UPE. I propose a finding that zero has been provided to substantiate this. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    It proposes removing advance editor rights of User:Saqib (autopatrolled, new page rights, AfC etc.) (or presumably to whatever this venue can recommend such) I propose a finding of "NO" North8000 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree @North8000. Ultimately this is a baseless complaint, at least as far as @Saqib is concerned. I took a drive into his article creation history and I do not see anything the suggests UPE. For transparency, I have interacted with Saqib at AfDs and trying to determine if sources are reliable. We have mostly agreed but not always and I have also expressed concerns on a couple occasions about him stating his UPE/sock suspicions when there's no evidence/CU findings to support it, though more often than not he is proven correct.
    While he has created over a thousand articles, the vast majority are Pakistan politicians, usually created in batches. The next bucket are also related to Pakistan's government (ministries, agencies, etc.) or not BLPs or businesses. I estimate over the past decade he has been editing here, he has created maybe 30 BLP or corp articles. As far as general COI, the only evidence presented is the Ghias Khan photo and like others have stated requesting a photo does not in and of itself constitute a COI as it is not an uncommon practice but I think can indicate one depending on the editor/history. In this case, like the UPE accusations, I don't see it and Saqib has been more transparent than required by revealing he has a business and the general industry.
    To those making these accusations, if you do not want to reveal who you are then email en-paid with all the evidence you have as Saqib suggested. Continuing to use IPs and throw-away accounts is highly unlikely to be successful and thus far is a waste of community time which will not be tolerated. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I don't have the knowledge of the situation and/or have you level of knowledge of the situation. Hence my narrow wording for this finding. I proposed 2. Would you care to weigh in on the other one? North8000 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If these are accepted, it still leaves the question of Crosji open. Also of a possible boomerang. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazareth University‎

    [edit]

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

    Username softblock has been applied by HJ Mitchell on Promotional Username grounds. Their entire contribs (from a non-admin view) is to that article (Special:Contributions/NazWeb) and with some of the breaks between editing, I agree with Elkev that their editing is SPA, and wouldn’t change, if Unblocked. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 11:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perran Moon

    [edit]

    This user appears to be Perran Moon. Aside from username being a big giveaway, their only edits are to that article, so a clear WP:SPA. They received a COI notice from LindsayH (Lindsay Hoyle, is that you? ) on the 13th Aug, but PerranM has continued to edit the article, deleting criticisms about himself, and has not communicated in any capacity. — Czello (music) 07:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this report, which he was notified of, he's continued to make disruptive edits. — Czello (music) 09:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, disappointing. I kept an occasional eye on the contributions for several days, and felt content that PerranM was paying attention to the notes i (not a notable person at all!) had left, so i am saddened to see this report from Czello. I suspect, the continuing editing being the case, a temporary block may be necessary, just to help/encourage the account-holder to communicate. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 14:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the negative publicity that Grant Shapps MP experienced after the claims that he was editing his own Wikipedia page, it seems very odd that an MP might be editing his own page under a user name so very close to his own. The degree of recklessness makes me wonder if it can really be the subject.
    However, looking at the sort of material that has been added (unsourced personal info) and the sort of material that has been removed (criticism), it all seems to suggest that someone close to the subject is editing the article - or potentially the subject himself.
    Or could it perhaps be someone trying to discredit him?
    Either way, a block would be good (or perhaps page protection?). Axad12 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my post above, mentioning the recklessness of editing under the username PerranM, edits on this article seem to have stopped under the PerranM account and commenced under an apparently similarly motivated account, Vonbrown446. This new account has removed further criticism from the article and left a note on the talk page [17] suggesting that the criticism wasn't reliably sourced (the grounds for which claim seem to be rather questionable).
    I have asked them if they have any conflict of interest. Off-wiki evidence suggests that they may well do.
    I think there may also be strong grounds for suspecting sockpuppetry here. Axad12 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have some strong suspicions that this new user is a sockpuppet. It's rather odd that their account was created after this thread was made (where I point out the similarity in the user names) and then they immediately restore PerranM's edits. Not becoming of a new MP, if you ask me. — Czello (music) 20:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for page protection a short while ago, on the basis that the page has been edited by an SPA/COI user (or users) who was edit warring. This was declined due to 'not enough recent disruption'.
    However, when I was at WP:RPPI I was surprised to find that an IP address had attempted to get page protection on the same article about 12 hours ago for exactly the opposite reason (to stop other users from reverting their edits). That IP address [18] geolocates to Falmouth University, in Moon's constituency. The user was advised at RPPI to raise the issue at the talk page, which they seem to have now done (after trying to install their favoured version and being reverted). Axad12 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: user PerranM has been blocked for username violation.
    (Note: any similarly formulated usernames resembling article subjects are easy to block by reporting them at WP:UAA. This is one of the easiest ways of putting a stop to COI editing. Requests also tend to be dealt with rather quickly, this one took just 43 minutes from request to block.) Axad12 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Winston's Wish

    [edit]

    Seems pretty obviously to be an account run by Winston's Wish staff. Replaced article with low-quality unsourced content. Catalyzzt (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Karma Phuntsho

    [edit]

    A whole bunch of users have been adding more or less the same massive amount of unreferenced promotional text to this article. Every time one user gets a COI warning, another pops up. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Simplellali

    [edit]

    The previous username of this user was EyyubVEVO. When you search for this name on Facebook, the profile that appears mentions that the person works at Azerbaijan Railways. Later, when you search the name and surname from that profile (not mentioning it here because of the privacy) on LinkedIn, the profile that appears indicates that the person works at Azerbaijan Railways as a senior social marketing specialist. Looking at this user's contributions, he have worked on articles related to Azerbaijan Railways, the head of the organization, and the Railway Museum on enwiki, azwiki, and ruwiki, and have uploaded related images. On the other hand, the user has created a large number of non-notable singer articles on azwiki, ruwiki, and enwiki, which raises strong suspicions of paid editing. Additionally, the user has created a significant number of items about clearly non-notable people on Wikidata. It's evident that the user created these pages for the knowledge panel. This also indicates paid editing. If it does not violate privacy, I can also provide the links of the mentioned social media accounts. Rosguill, could you please review this? Sura Shukurlu (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the user's talk page this seems to be a longstanding problem. The user has previously admitted to creating articles for people they know, for example: I have many friends such as musicians. Musician asks me to create their articles on english wikipedia [19]. It seems these articles have very often been deleted on notability grounds. Back in 2020 the user was given a final warning [20] by user:Girth Summit for not declaring COI. In 2022 there were mentioned on the Administrators' Noticeboard (here [21]) for persistently re-creating a deleted article.
    I wonder if it is time to start thinking about blocking this user?
    This [22] is presumably a related account or sock, both Simplellali and the sock have been warned for WP:COPYVIO.
    (Sura Shukurlu, could I ask you to do 2 things? Firstly could you please notify Simplellali that you have opened this thread, as is required by the note in red at the top of this noticeboard. Secondly please do NOT, under any circumstances, link to the user's social media accounts.) Axad12 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I worked as music editor in Public Television of Azerbaijan. I have created articles about them. What is the problem?
    I thought that they are notable. I have been editing, creating articles since 2012. I didn't get money for this activity.
    Now, I work in Azerbaijan Railways. Wikipedia is important for social media presence, so I must edit article.@Axad12@Sura Shukurlu Simplellali (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if you specifically receive money for posting to Wikipedia; as an employee of companies you're writing about, you have a very significant conflict of interest. You have not followed any of the steps to be in complicance with WP:COI.
    So, yes, it is a massive problem that you've written articles for Public Television of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Railways while an employee of these entities. You've made no disclosures whatsoever, as required, and given that you've been violating these rules for more than a decade, you shouldn't even be touching these articles except to suggest edits on the talk page. You also cannot claim that you were unaware of conflict of interest policies as there are still multiple notifications on your talk page about this, which you have appear to have ignored. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SIKH DIASPORA

    [edit]
    No evidence of Coi; this is a simple content dispute, seasoned with failure to AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 4 September 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.

    Revert of my painstaking edits to the Sikh diaspora article are lazy and bad faith. Reasoning -- "Reverting what appear to be motivated edits; please discuss on talk page." -- is absurd. All edits are motivated, in this case by a motivation to improve the article, which they do by removing OR and unsourced text going back almost a decade, among other things.

    User:Revirvlkodlaku behaves as though he owns the article. I left a message regarding his revert on his talk page to which he did not respond. I'll leave a notification re this noticeboard on his talk page after logging out here. 50.75.202.186 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 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.

    Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute

    [edit]

    I believe there's a conflict of interest at play here. The username of the editor making the edits has the same name as the director for administration of the institute in question (from a quick Google search), and has made 34 edits, all of them to this article, and was created the same day. Alongside the 34 edits made to the article, the user has also removed anything criticising the institute without explanation, such as [23] and [24]. Procyon117 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the best solution here? I'd suggest reverting all the edits and then getting the user to declare his COI on his user page and to make COI edit requests via the article talk page.
    Also, I don't think it was at all necessary to out the user (see WP:OUTING). Axad12 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Axad12. An alternative suggestion, if the edits the user made are cited from reliable secondary sources, that can remain, provided the information is presented in a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. The edits that removed information criticising the institute without explanation should be reverted.
    Outing the user (WP:OUTING) was completely out of order. MohReddy (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looked to me as though none of the changes were sourced, which was why I thought it better to revert the lot and then get the user to present his desired changes, give sources, explain the reasoning, etc., via COI edit requests. Axad12 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right @Axad12, my mistake. Your suggestion is the most appropriate solution. MohReddy (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A general question... In this sort of situation is it necessary to undo each of the edits individually, or is it possible in some way to select the last good edit and then revert back to that version of the article in one go? Axad12 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure. Is there not a way to just revert it back or am I wrong about how WP:REVERT works ? It seems tedious to revert every edit manually. But then again, editing can be tedious so that should not be an issue for any editor. MohReddy (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I have raised this question (and the point below re: outing) at the Helpdesk, here [25]. Hopefully we will get a response to both points in the not too distant future. Axad12 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for raising this at the Help desk. I am sure when there is a case of outing they will respond quickly to fix the problem at hand. MohReddy (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I apologise for that I did not mean to out the user at all and there was no malicious intent behind it. I even read the page about it beforehand so I don't really have any excuses there. Procyon117 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh yeah I did not mean to do that. It was 5AM in my timezone and I must have been tired and not noticed. Do I strike it out or just remove it completely? Procyon117 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian Army Corps of EME

    [edit]

    I've just reverted every edit this editor has made to the article, on the basis that none of them were sourced and a lot of them introduced advertising-style language.

    Two of their edit summaries are notable:

    • 06:49 30 August 2024 – The changes have been authorized by the office of the DGEME, Corps of EME, Indian Army and is being updated as per directions issued by the.
    • 06:32 2 September 2024 – The page editing was approved by higher headquarter of Corps of EME

    All three are obviously the same person, or people in the same room. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This reminds me of something rather similar described in this thread at ANI [26] and this thread at COIN [27], both from June 2024. Seems there was an enormous co-ordinated COI editing effort within the Indian Army earlier this year. E.g. here is a quote taken from an unblock request after action was taken against the various accounts involved This is the official account of the 172 Medium Regiment created post Orders from the higher HQ. The unit has been ordered to update the regimental information on the Wikipedia page that has been created by our HQ. Axad12 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the usernames and edits, this does seem to be a case of an apparent WP:COI editor. MohReddy (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3 users have now all been blocked. Looking back through the article edit history there seem to have been other similar editors in the past, at least one of whom was blocked.
    Interestingly, one of the blocked users from the June 2024 Indian Army activity (mentioned above) said that they had received orders as follows: These directions have been received pan Indian Army to Update/Create a page of the respective units under the following subheads i.e History, ONLY the names of the Operations participated (Not the details of it), Gallantry Awards (if any)/Citations and Achievement in Sports, if any. That is broadly speaking the format of the article under discussion here. I wonder, is the long list of individual gallantry awards usual in a Wikipedia article for this sort of subject, or should it be removed wholesale? A quick look at the articles for several (non-Indian) units suggests that it is highly unusual. Axad12 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists of names like this, as it was explained to me anyway (I can't find the guideline), should be blue links at best and individually cited for each name if there's no article for the person at worst. Lists of red or black names with no citations are a WP:BLP issue if the people are alive and just poor practice and a disservice to our readers either way.
    TL;DR: the list should be removed.
    I'd do it myself but as an IP someone (or a bot) would be guaranteed to revert such a big deletion asap despite a useful edit summary! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, many thanks. Now deleted (and then a further large section on 'Sports & Research' was deleted by the admin who gave out the blocks, Writ Keeper).
    Seems that there is an ongoing problem with articles for units of the Indian Army. Axad12 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting this edit

    this is the official account of the Corps of EME created from the higher HQ.The unit has been ordered to update the Corps information on the Wikipedia page that has been created by our HQ
    — User:TGEME serverroom1 (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

    for the record. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Copying in Writ Keeper and 331dot who dealt with the recent blocks and the unblock request…
    I had a look through the contribution histories of the articles listed in the section on “Arms & Services of the Indian Army” given at the very foot of the Indian Army Corps of EME article. Here are links to the contribution histories of a number of other (unblocked) users who seem to be involved in similar activity for other units in the Indian Army. Some are quite prolific, covering multiple articles (including those for senior figures in the Indian Army): [28], [29],[30], [31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37].
    Maybe worth taking a look at with a view to dispensing further blocks… Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to encourage these military personnel to move this up the chain to whomever is issuing orders to units to edit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that that is a good idea. However, the accounts I linked to above are responsible for the same kind of activity as the "TGEME serverroom" accounts and would appear to be working on similar instructions. That being the case, should they not be blocked? Personally I think we should be taking a consistent line on this with all the accounts involved. Axad12 (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Bradley_J._Franc

    [edit]

    Hello there! I have a very slight conflict of interest here as I edit The Succession Solution LinkedIn page which is one of Bradley J. Franc's company's.

    I am trying to get the page published and I have cited many publications including Forbes and independent podcasts etc. I hope that this is acceptable?

    I very much look forward to hearing from the experts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helena clegg (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Helena clegg: I don't think your problem is the conflict of interest you have declared. The main issue is with the draft itself, which fails on a couple of fundamental minimum standards we have here at Wikipedia.
    If you go to Draft:Bradley J. Franc, you'll see a big pink box at the top of the page which lists (in further grey boxes) the two main problems.
    If you can't correct those problems yourself, further down the pink box is the heading "Where to get help" with a little [show] button to the side. Click that and it will give you advice on the correct pages to ask for further help. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I also suggest that you formally declare your conflict of interest on your user page, as required by the relevant policy, WP:COI. If you work for one of Franc's companies (or are paid by him in any way) then you also need to declare that you are a paid contributor, in line with the Wikipedia terms of use. It looks to me as though the conflict of interest here is more than "very slight". Axad12 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Epik

    [edit]

    Articles

    Editor

    Discussion

    This editor has previously declared to have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing on behalf of clients of an advertising and marketing company. The editor has fewer than 270 edits and has gone dormant in the past for months/years at a time. However, since May 2024, the editor became more active and focused on Registered Agents Inc. and its corporate subsidiary Epik. In addition to initiating a failed attempt to have Registered Agents Inc. deleted, some of their more recent edits indicate attempts to whitewash the reputation of Epik following its acquisition by Registered Agents Inc. (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). Because this is a (formerly?) paid editor that has reacted rather hostilely to COI questions in the past, it would be useful to get thoughts of those uninvolved on whether there is more here than a simple content dispute and and whether there might be a potential COI at play. - Amigao (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    International Churches of Christ

    [edit]

    There as been previous discussion here about this article and these editors (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_207#International_Churches_of_Christ and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_203#International_Churches_of_Christ) however the discussions didn't seem to come to any conclusion and naturally petered out each time. Both editors have stated that they have connections to International Churches of Christ (see Special:Diff/1173776566 and Special:Diff/1200469908 respectively). Now there is a discussion at ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meta Voyager's tendentious editing in which some editors are stating that being a member of a specific denomination does not constitute a COI for editors editing that subject. Currently there are connected editor notices on the article and in its talk. There has been suggestion by some of those arguing that no COI exists or that the COI is weak that those notices should be removed. Can I please get advice from editors whether a COI exists, weak or not, and whether the connected editor notices should be removed. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Cordless Larry, @Secretlondon, @JamieBrown2011, @Hydrangeans, @Bon courage, @Meta Voyager, @Horse Eye's Back as editor involved in the previous COIN discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Isaidnoway, @Sectioneer, @Axad12, @WhatamIdoing, @ARoseWolf, @Doug Weller, @DeCausa, @Oaktree b, @North8000, @Snow Rise, @Traumnovelle, @XZealous, @Tgeorgescu, @Shushugah as editors involved in the ANI discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual interpretation of WP:COI is that it involves money, or an undisclosed financial interest. Merely being a believer does not create WP:COI—while that can be a WP:NPOV problem, it isn't COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflicts of interest can exist even when there is no monetary interest. For example if I were to edit an article about myself or my family in the unfortunate circumstance that any of us were ever notable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A COI of belief can be serious in individuals who are (say) zealously committed to nationalist or political causes, among many others. Religious belief can be a basis of a COI; as WP:COI observes "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI" (my emphasis). Any decent editor with a religious belief I'd expect to steer clear of editing about it. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but see also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI is not simply bias. A non-financial/non-employment religious COI would involve things like volunteering for a marketing project or being engaged in outreach programs. It would not involve being an ordinary member of an ordinary religious organization or simply believing certain things (though what those beliefs might be doesn't appear to be predictable; for example, most US Catholics support abortion rights [38] and the death penalty [39], which is the opposite of their religion's stance).
    As for expecting "decent editors" to steer clear of things they believe, I'd be astonished if Wikipedia:Featured articles#Religion, mysticism and mythology was written only by people who had no beliefs about those subjects. Actually, I'd be surprised if any of the FAC noms had no religious beliefs related to the subjects they dedicated so many hours to researching and writing about. Under the rule that "decent editors" steer clear of editing about their beliefs, editors subscribing to atheism would have to be counted just as strong a COI as editors subscribing to theism. The end result would be that all religious content must be written by apatheists – and they aren't interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "belief" is not a relationship. A membership or employment is a relationship, but general membership is not usually a COI for anything, although employment regularly is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that previous experience in the threads above (and the ICOC talk page) indicates very strongly that membership of this church constitutes a conflict of interest. I appreciate that membership of other groups (Catholic church, Boy Scouts, etc) has been presented as broadly comparable and as not representing a conflict of interest. However, I don't agree that those are at all comparable.
    Also, the suggestion directly above that COI has to involve money is demonstrable untrue, you only have to read WP:COI to see that. Axad12 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Paid referred to receiving money, which being a church member does not constitute. As for WP:COI, they’ve disclosed they’re a member and ARE discouraged but permitted to edit the article if COI applied. Even so, they’ve largely stayed within talk page and made reasonable edits. On all grounds, I am not seeing the issue. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shushugah, I'm not asking if there is an issue. You are correct that they've mostly stayed to the article's talk and suggested edits from there. I'm asking if a COI exists and if so should the connected editor notices be maintained, as there has been a little bit of editing of the article by them. TarnishedPathtalk 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, merely being a member of a congregation - especially one this big - doesn't constitute a conflict of interest, under any reasonable interpretation of policy. If there are actual problems with POV edits made by a contributor, we already have mechanisms to deal with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought here…
    The fundamental issue with this article is that users with some association with the church repeatedly try to remove certain material which reflects badly on the church (either removing it directly or attempting to create a consensus for such removal via the talk page).
    Unfortunately for them, that material is reliably sourced and there are no realistic chances of it being removed, regardless of how many different interpretations of policy they attempt to put forward. Hence their argument gets diluted and re-presented as a question about what constitutes due coverage, about whether those issues should be mentioned in the lede, etc. etc.
    Given that those disagreements appear to be never ending, would it not be better to resolve the issue by protecting the article in a compromise version (e.g. something like the current version, which mentions one of the 2 contentious issues in the lede but not the other one).
    I don’t really see the present discussion as being likely to result in any resolution. A lot of ink will just be wasted in further disagreement on COI vs POV and the underlying problem (which is really just the never ending content argument) will continue. Axad12 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lede has recently changed to remove the lawsuit material, which I was agreeable with once a reliable secondary source was presented which confirmed the lawsuit had been dismissed. The article can I think do with some reworking as parts outside the lead are repetitive. However that's not what I started this discussion to get clarity about. I started this because I want to know what the community thinks. Does a COI, however weak, exist and if so should the connected editor notices be maintained? TarnishedPathtalk 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I appreciate that membership of other groups (Catholic church, Boy Scouts, etc) has been presented as broadly comparable and as not representing a conflict of interest. However, I don't agree that those are at all comparable." Ok, so where is the line, then? I don't wish this to come off as unfriendly, but the fact that you say that attachment to some religious denominations should impute COI but not others, but then fail to clarify which suggests that you haven't really thought this through. For myself, that's one of the reasons why he proponents here seem to be playing an immensely high stakes game of hot potato with regad to project stability. SnowRise let's rap 20:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the article about International Churches of Christ, specifically the second paragraph of the lede. Then use your skill and judgement to guess the distinction I draw between, on the one hand, the ICOC and, on the other, the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. So only members of religions which have been described by a reliable source as a "cult" would be subject to this rule? Surely you realize that is a distinction without a meaning? Further, you don't think predicating whether users will be able to edit articles on their faith on whether or not there is content in the article describing their faith as a cult might not just make them all the more entrenched and inflexible on the inclusion of such coverage. Or that their rhetorical opposition would therefore be given an incentive to push even harder for such language in the article, that many tendentious editors would quickly avail themselves of in order to restrict the editorial privileges of those they are already in editorial disputes with.
    The standard you propose would accomplish nothing but to create a cycle of disruption that, far from ameliorating the issues it proposes to address, would deeply exacerbate them and inflame both edit wars on the article itself and needless personal disputes in talk space. SnowRise let's rap 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be under a misapprehension. I didn't say that the distinction I drew should be a universally applicable rule. I said that that was the difference that I perceived in those 3 particular cases.
    WP:COI states that the distinction between significant and insignificant COI is to be determined by common sense. As far as I can see, what I said was a reasonable application of that concept.
    Obviously different people will set the 'common sense' bar in different places and there is room for discussion on the exact interpretation on a case by case basis. To my mind, that is the strength of the current wording of WP:COI. If the wording aimed to be very specific and to cover all possible eventualities then it would actually end up being unworkable (which I believe is your general thrust above). Axad12 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, fair enough, but here's where that leaves us: the issue in dispute here (or at least the primary one consuming the most attention) is still whether or not affiliation with a religious denomination imputes an established COI for a given editor all by itself (and such that all the provisions and restrictions which adhere to such editors apply).
    If there are other arguments or factors for why JamieBrown or Meta Voyager should be listed as having an established COI on the talk page, I'm not prepared to address them until I see them. I've already said, as an uninvolved party at the ANI discussion, that they are wrong on the content issue, and (though I supported the consensus decision not to take action at this time) that there is potential for them to be found WP:Disruptive and face a TBAN eventually, if they do not accept the talk page consensus on certain content issues.
    But those are all distinct issues from the suggestion being made here that affiliation with a denomination creating a COI regarding that denomination, all by itself. And that rule just cannot be imputed from the policy, based on the fact that it obliquely uses the word "religion" once. That is very weak tea from which to construct a blanket ban on all editors and prospective editors of this project (including subject matter experts) from participating in all articles touching upon their religions, with massive implications for the project.
    By an epic margin, that would be the largest such mass editorial restriction in the history of the project, and such a rule simply cannot be promulgated by a handful of editors extrapolating such a broad mandate from one word in a very large and complex policy, which then goes on to provide no further elaboration. Such a rule (which I can't imagine the community countenancing, honestly) would at least need to be extensively and carefully vetted in a central forum, using the accepted community process and broad community involvement. Not a half dozen editors on COIN reading such a massive and questionable rule into existence from such a short and vague reference point. SnowRise let's rap 23:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said at the (current) foot of this thread, I don't believe that anyone is actually suggesting that membership of a religious group automatically constitutes an actionable COI. I certainly have not said that, indeed on several occasions above I have said the exact opposite of that. I suggest that we wait to see what Tarnished Path and Cordless Larry have to say at the (current) foot of this thread, where that issue is currently being discussed. Axad12 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think editing articles about one's own religion is a COI, unless you're working for the church/synagogue/temple in question. NPOV is of course important, which I think is the issue here. The editors seem to be trying to hide facts that don't leave a good impression of the religious institution; good or bad, facts are facts and we have to present them. I'd support a topic ban if needed for the editors. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I would define "working" broadly (to encompass, say, retired priests or volunteers responsible for hiring religious staff). I'd also say that a (very) few ex-members have a relationship that should be considered a COI on par with "disgruntled ex-employee" or "ex-spouse". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • SNOW Oppose per the the conclusions already reached in the presently live ANI discussion. And there's absolutely no surprise in that. The OP's proposed rule is utterly infeasible for this project. It would impute to the majority of the English speaking people of planet Earth (i.e. almost every prospective editor of this project) an automatic COI for their "denomination" (which could be as expansive a category as Catholics, Anglicans, or Shia Muslims, to demonstrate just a few examples of how broad such a rule would be). Further, it would, in one fell swoop by a handful editors in this one discussion, ban the vast majority of subject matter experts for religious topics from editing articles within their field of expertise. The impacts to subject matter coverage, article neutrality, editorial gamesmanship, editor recruitment and retention, and project reputation (to name just handful of the countless practical concerns) would be incalculable.
      This is clearly not what the existing COI policy contemplates by any stretch of the imagination. Any such rule would absolutely need to be authorized by the community and expressly memorialized in the policy. It is frankly difficult to express just how much the suggestion that the proposed rule is already implied by the existing COI policy does not pass muster. This is an ill-conceived and odious idea that conflicts not only with this project's open and pluralistic creeds and methodologies, but also basic practical common sense. SnowRise let's rap 13:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Snow Rise, a lot of what you said resonates with me, and I think that as editors, we might have a little disconnect with reality. I read a while ago that about 85% of the world subscribes to some religion or another. On wiki, I think we are far more likely to be "religious nones". If you get used to that as the default worldview (very easy in a place like San Francisco, where subscribing to any religion is a minority viewpoint [40]), and especially if your own is better described as "ex-religious for very good reasons", then it might feel like the actual majority is ...not what the actual majority of people are like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because some Wikipedian's may have something like a disconnect with reality, does not mean that group of "some" is broad, even if sometimes peculiarly or serendipitously up-front, on occasion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed: the only times I have felt embarrassed to be an atheist, in all my long life as such, it was because of other atheists. Typically self-styled rationalists convinced that they inhabit some kind privileged plane of perspective. Which dovetails with just one of the massive issues that would emerge if this community ever authorized the kind of rule the proponents here seem to think is somehow feasible: virtually every talk page and revision history of every article that touches upon religious and ethno-religious issues would, overnight, turn into an unremitting cesspool of ceaseless accusations about every other edit proving that someone is a member of a given faith. The chaos that would ensue would be indescribable and would forever change the tone of the project to the vastly more acrimonious and disruptive. SnowRise let's rap 20:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Proponents of such a rule – assuming there actually are any who would really go that far, and aren't just trying to wikilawyer in response to a bias problem (because we have simple rules that can produce a TBAN for COI, but not for ordinary bias) – would IMO do well to contemplate what would happen to WP:ARBPIA articles if we tried to implement a religious litmus test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been hanging out at that article since invited by the bot to an RFC in April. IMO the COI, by the real world meaning of the term does not exist, and by the Wiki meaning of the term is so negligibly weak that COI provisions and tagging should not apply. The main challenge at that article is that independent sources which thoroughly cover the topic in depth seem to not have been found/identified/used. And so in the tricky areas, the situation has been reduced to selecting tidbits from sources that don't meet that standard and debates about which tidbits (including characterizations of ICOC) to select. Including selecting tidbits which make them sound good or bad. Also, since they seem to have changed significantly, it's a more complex job to make sure that time-context is included information provided in those areas. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I 100% agree about the lack of reliable sourcing making it difficult. I've stated elsewhere that the article is too reliant of WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing and really those sections which are over reliant should be trimmed. TarnishedPathtalk 23:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there is necessarily a COI just because they are members of the church, but Meta Voyager appears to be a SPA whose primary objective is to change the article's content by downplaying negative aspects of the ICOC, and their edits have been confined to the talk page. As for JamieBrown2011, out of a total of 2494 edits, ~1306 have been to the ICOC article and/or talk page, and they are listed as one of the top editors by authorship to that page, but so is Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath. I didn't investigate the substance of any of those edits for NPOV or biased editing, so I can't say if there is any significant issues that should be addressed with any of those three editors contributions to the article. JamieBrown2011 is #2 out of the top 10 for added text, so JamieBrown2011 has definitely had a sustained interest in the topic over the last 13 years. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Isaidnoway, Wikipedia:Who Wrote That? gives a different set of numbers:
      I notice, though, that TarnishedPath's contributions, though reported as 11.4%, only seem to highlight a single edit as still being on the page, so I'm not quite sure what's being counted in these percentages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Similar figures have been raised by editors at ANI and I'm not sure exactly what they are trying to interpret out of those numbers. By my counting I've made 18 edits to the article since 3 May 2024. The largest of my edits (see Special:Diff/1222018308) was running IABotManagementConsole over the article to add archived links to references. That edit was 6,030 bytes and didn't change any of the prose. That one edit likely accounts for the lion share of the 11.4% of my contribution to the article. Again I don't know what is supposed to be read out of that? TarnishedPathtalk 23:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Here are the 18 edit you made in 2024, and anyone is free to examine and interpret them. Here are the 76 edits Cordless Larry made since 2023, and here are the 894 edits made by JamieBrown2011 since 2011, and anyone is free to examine and interpret them as well. Just so we are clear, I'm not casting aspersions about your editing behavior at the article or talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a la-la-la fingers-in-ears reality distortion field among some Wikipedia editors about religious COIs. Since I've been here we've had (just to name the most memorable examples) problems with Christian Scientists wanting to impose the Church View™ on Wikipedia, Sahaja Yoga adherents desperate to whitewash cult allegations away from the article, LDS editors with undisclosed connections pimping article, and don't even start on Scientology (those last two had arbcom cases). Of course it's an issue. It sucks up a lot of time. It's why WP:COI specifically says religious belief can give rise to a COI. An external connection to any organization gives rise to a COI to some degree. Religious types don't get some sort of special treatment exemption. Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But wouldn't you say that at some point it gets negligibly small? At one extreme would be a member of the human race editing articles on humans. Outright paid editing is at the other extreme. North8000 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "But wouldn't you say that at some point it gets negligibly small?" ← Yes. But editing about your religion is towards the larger end of things. I'd expect any ethically diligent editor to avoid it (I mean, why go there? Wikipedia has a huge range of topics that aren't COI-dangerous, for everyone). Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000, do you accept that there is a pretty obvious difference between (a) a member of the human race editing articles on humans and (b) a member of a church acting as an SPA to continually attempt to remove adverse material about that church?
    The issues surrounding the ICOC article are quite serious. It really isn't appropriate for you to continually use it as a proxy for the issue which is really of interest to you, which is of course downplaying conflict of interest around BSA-related subject matter.
    This whole "humans editing about humans" nonsense is a device that you have regularly used to try to downplay the general impact of COI (e.g. in this thread [41] further up this noticeboard) rather than to address the actual issues in whatever the case is that is under discussion. Axad12 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: Please read what I wrote more carefully and stop insulting me and falsely inventing bad faith. I identified it as the the extreme that could still fall under a "membership of a group automatically = COI regarding that group" rule to illustrate what could be included by using just that criteria. And the falsely invented bad faith is that my intention in such a discussion is to " try to downplay the general impact of COI" when I point this out, and in conjunction with IMO extremely weak COI's. North8000 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think "Wikipedians editing about Wikipedia" is nonsense, what do you think about Wikipedians editing the articles on Wikipedia? I'd bet that a lot of experienced editors feel more strongly about Wikipedia than about their (present or former) religious beliefs. Not only that, Wikipedians have publicly discussed their concerns about Wikipedia's reputation on thousands of talk pages. In your mind, do we have a COI for those articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Wikipedians do have such a COI, but at least it is obvious to the reader. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that there was a very obvious difference, in COI terms, between (a) an SPA repeatedly trying to remove adverse material about their church and (b) hypothetical weak (or non existent or abstract) COI alternatives. Let's not get diverted. Axad12 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Single-purpose account is something we throw around when an editor happens to have a narrow interest. Think about it: Most of your effort seems to go into chess and boxing articles, and you could be credibly accused of being an SPA. But that doesn't mean that you're a bad or unwanted editor, or that there's anything wrong with your contributions, right? Especially for someone who hasn't been around for decades, it's normal and even desirable for an editor to do one area deeply instead of flitting around.
    But let's talk about bias in editing. One of the editors who is claimed to have a COI has edited the article to say:
    • that the church split [42]
    • a key leader's children left the church [43]
    • that same leader was eventually kicked out of the church [44]
    • that there were some apologies from related churches, but not reconciliation [45]
    • that the same leader and the church were sued over sexual abuse [46]
    All of these edits survive in the article (some in modified form). It looks to me like this editor is adding "adverse material". Is that what it looks like to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two broad and totally unrelated topics that I edit in: articles on chess opening theory and articles on late 18th/early 19th century boxing. In addition, most of my work in recent months has basically been trying to help in resolving issues raised here at COIN. I really don't see how I could even remotely be credibly accused of being an SPA.
    If you find that sort of user profile even remotely comparable to that of a user whose almost sole preoccupation is trying to remove adverse material about their church then you are wrong.
    I don't consider SPA's to be a bad thing per se, but when the "single purpose" is also a COI I think it's fair to say that that is a bad mix. Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, re: the diffs you give, I wasn't referring to that user. I was referring to the other one. Axad12 (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are not likely to get far with COI unless the user says 'I am an elder' or some such, significant bias and revert war can lead to sanctions though. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bon courage, I think you are making a leap from "religious belief can give rise to a COI" to "religious belief usually does give rise to a COI", and I don't think it's warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, religious belief can lead to bias but is not automatically COI. Voluntary organization membership usually depends on the editors control or place in the org (or if it is a very small org) -- members can regularly have beliefs at variance from whatever the orgs official line is, even. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'd certainly resist interpreting it as "religious belief never gives rise to a COI" or "religious belief seldom gives rise to a COI", as some editors seem to want. If you're editing about your religion you are in the danger zone. Best avoided in my view. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with any of that, Bon courage, but I think you're somewhat misinterpreting the concerns expressed here if you think anyone is advancing the argument that "religious belief never gives rise to a COI". The question is what nature of affiliation with a given religiious institution creates a WP:COI in the meaning of the policy. The standard the OP has advanced is that mere declared association with a faith is sufficient to impute the policy such that all the most requirements and consequences of the policy adhere to them. That is clearly far too broad a rule to ever work on this project.
    You point out above that religious association is specifically identified in the policy as a possible source of COI. Fair enough, but it is clear from the rest of the policy that a relationship has to meet other criteria in order to give rise to a presumptive COI. We're not talking about interceding when a prominent leader of a church or their staff are involved. Few veteran editors would disagree that a COI would impute from their editing the article on their own church.
    But what is being proposed here is literally the suggestion that policy says that all members of a faith have an inherent COI for their religious "denomination" And that's just clearly an asinine conclusion to attempt to leverage from one oblique use of the word "religion" in one sentence of a massive policy. If the community had intended that to be the rule when it created the COI policy, it would not have been so circumspect about it: there would be clear language stating this denominational rule. It strains all credulity to suggest that the community requires all editors to avoid editing articles directly pertaining to their faith and yet somehow failed to say is much in the policy.
    And that underscores one of the biggest issues that I have with this discussion. If some here feel that such a rule would be advisable, that's one thing. As TarnishedPath was told at ANI, they or any other party are free to make such a WP:PROPOSAL at the Village Pump or the talk page for the policy. But attempting to get the rule put into effect through the back door here, by implying that it already represents community consensus is deeply problematic, in my view.
    If such a rule (which would be by far the most expansive rule of automatic restriction of editorial privileges ever promulgated by this community) was already meant to exist in the COI policy, it would be expressly and clearly stated in the policy. It's not. The entirety of the COI policy's treatment of religion comes down to one single word in one sentence. Trying to hang the proposed denominational rule from that one word is like trying to hang an anvil with a single string of sewing thread. With similar likely consequences for the community that has to walk underneath it, I might add. SnowRise let's rap 21:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, @Snow Rise, I don't disagree with that either. We do not need a change in the WP:PAGs, but at the same time it should be acknowledged that religious belief can be, and has been a problematic root of COI-tainted editing on Wikipedia, as we have seen from Scientology/LDS/Christian Science and so on (and I don't believe the problem editors involved in these cases were 'prominent leaders', more just ... true believers from the general membership). Bon courage (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I haven't the slightest disagreement with so much as a single word of that perspective. I simply think that 1) the existing rules are the best tools (if admittedly often labour-intensive) for dealing with the WP:NOTHERE editors who represent a small minority of our religiously-inclined editors, 2) that the denominational rule suggested here is not only clearly not authorized by the community through the existing policy, but also a rule that does not comport with out broad rules on user inclusion and would create (rather than solve) many problems, and 3) that this is not the forum to entertain such an expansion of policy anyway, and certainly not without broad notification and community involvement. SnowRise let's rap 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so. And every bit of the type of disruption that Bon courage and Axad12 are concerned about in their comments above can be (and is) routinely and adequately addressed through existing. Further, creating a rule that all editors with a religious affiliation have a COI with regard to their religious institutions and beliefs would create far, far, far more disruption than it could ever possibly hope to contain. Think this through, my friends: such a rule would unleash an absolute tsunami on virtually every article containing religiously and ethnically contentious subject matter on the entire project (particularly those relating to sectarian divides) of gamesmanship by the most tendentious of our WP:NOTHERE editors constantly leveraging this rule to remove their rhetorical opposition from the article. Further, it's an absolute certainty that it will encourage editors to to attempt to dig into the offline lives of our contributors in order to WP:OUT them for their religious affiliations.
    Those are just two of the unfathomably multifaceted and massive sources of disruption such a rule would both enable and encourage. The cost-benefit of the proposed rule is so obviously ill-advised, I'd be flummoxed at the lack of foresight involved in advancing it, if not for the fact that I've seen a lot of such short-sighted, shooting-ourselves-in-our-collective-foot-while-aiming-at-a-pest style arguments here of late. SnowRise let's rap 20:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for a rule change. In many cases the most damaging COI editors in the Project have either been unforthcoming (or flat-out lie) about their COI making such rules worthless anyway. Pursuing COIs on Wikipedia is usually a fool's errand that can drive you mad, or at least into sanctionsville. By their edits shall ye know them. Editors engaged in advocacy are bad news, COI or not, and there are mechanisms to deal with that. Bon courage (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm in agreement with every word of that. In fact, I'd take even a step further: creating a "your affiliation with this church subjects you to our COI restrictions" rule is actually counter-intuitive to restraining the bad actors. All it will do is encourage savvy LTA editors with religious biases so strong that they make them WP:NOTHERE to attentively hide their affiliations, depriving other participants in an editorial dispute of a useful data point for considering whether that editor has a problematic bias. In other words, the rule would make it more difficult to identify the actual problem editors while drastically restricting the good faith contributions of the much more numerous reasonable editors of faith, all while creating mountains of administrative and oversight headaches for the community as a whole. In short, a lose-lose-lose outcome. SnowRise let's rap 21:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TarnishedPath, I see you asking whether the {{connected contributor}} template "should be maintained", and I wonder if you could explain why you are asking this. As far as I can see from the talk page's history, nobody has tried to remove it recently. Are you proposing to remove it? Or are you primarily hoping that you can get an official ruling that the editors who disagree with you about the content of the article have a COI? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JamieBrown2011 is asking whether it can be removed towards the bottom of Talk:International Churches of Christ#COI editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing, there was a suggestion in the ANI discussoin that the templates should be removed because of an editor's intepretation that there was concensus that no COI existed. By my reading of those editors !voting oppose only three discussed COI and the rest opposed for other reasons. So I've brought it here to get a understanding of whether the templates should be removed. That's the extent of it. TarnishedPathtalk 23:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:COI guideline states that Any external relationship [...] can trigger a COI, but it immediately follows that up with How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense, and common sense is that mere affiliation with a religion is not usually a close enough relationship to become a concern—i. e., it's not an actionable COI. This coheres with the movement charter principle of inclusivity, and that this sense is common on Wikipedia was demonstrated earlier this year by a different ANI thread, where a user who believed that mere religious affiliation was an actionable conflict of interest and behaved accordingly—saying that Muslim editors should be disregarded in discussions on talk pages for articles about Islam and removing citations to academic sources solely because Muslims wrote them—was themself sanctioned with a community topic ban from articles about Islam. In any case, bias can exist in the absence of a conflict of interest, as can misbehavior. If a user edit-wars in material or edit-wars material out, or makes contributions whose content are contrary to consensus, that's actionable whether or not there are affiliations or conflicts of interest. But apparently the users under consideration have either been participating through the talk page rather than editing the article directly or have contributed additions to the article that weren't flattering for/biased in favor of the denomination? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JamieBrown2011 has made many direct edits to the article, some of them promotional, e.g. this, others removing material critical of the ICOC, e.g. this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well then: avail yourself of the many consensus formation, dispute resolution, and oversight processes available to you when they make edits which you believe violate our editorial policies. Nobody is saying that highly religious people don't occasionally create content issues--just as we wouldn't say that hyper-political or ethnically motivated users don't create issues, but we don't automatically create COI's for affiliations with political parties or ethnic associations either. What we're saying rather is that the proposed "if you have a religious association with a denomination, you are subject to WP:COI restrictions regarding articles about that denomination" rule is overbroad, untenable for this project, and rather than being likely to solve an problems, would beyond a shadow of a doubt create a whole bunch of them. This is not a trivial rule you and TP have proposed. It's implications would be massive.
    More to the point, this is not the place to propose such a shake up. If you really want to float this standard to community, make a WP:PROPOSAL in the appropriate space: the Village Pump or the talk page of the existing policy. The suggestion that has been made here (that the community authorized by far the most massive rule of editorial restriction in its entire history and then just neglected to expressly include it in the relevant policy) doesn't begin to pass the smell test. The rule is clearly not currently a part of existing policy, but if you want to advocate for it, absolutely go for it through the appropriate process in the appropriate forum.
    But in the meantime, stop trying to enforce what you think the rule should be via talk page fiat and attempts to conjure it from one oblique reference to religion in the policy. This is not the way, and I say that as someone who remains very much convinced that you and TarnishedPath had the right end of the stick on the content issue and identified a need to keep whitewashing out of the article. You two clearly started down this road in good faith and with laudable intentions, but you've both lost the plot at this point, big time. You've gone from "I think this editor has an agenda due to their religious convictions" to "the world's 1.4 billion Catholics should not be allowed to edit on the topic of Catholocism on Wikipedia." Friend, that's one hefty overreaction. SnowRise let's rap 22:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on a moment...
    Has anyone in this thread actually suggested that all religious people have an actionable COI? As far as I can see, all those who have commented on that issue have said the exact opposite - i.e. that it might or might not be actionable depending on circumstances. That is entirely in line with the current wording of WP:COI, surely? Axad12 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that such a claim is implicit in the assertions regarding these two individuals. That (merely) being a member of an affiliated church is sufficient to consider it to be a sufficient COI to activate COI editing restrictions and to tag the article as such. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My own understanding was that what might (or might not) be appropriate in this case would not then be extrapolated to apply to all adherents of all religious groups. However, it may be best to hear from Cordless Larry and Tarnished Path to see what they had intended. Axad12 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much a matter of their intention or an extrapolation. It's a matter that it was the basis given for all of the COI discussions and assertions. I.E. that just being a member was sufficient to be an actionable COI. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Unfortunately, because if this was just a matter of mistake, the issue would be much easier to resolve. But the proposed rule of thumb that a person acquires an actionable COI via mere association with a religious denomination is, aside from being pretty expressly inquired about in TPs opening post here, also baked into any suggestion that JamieBrown and Meta Voyager have a COI. Actionable COIs are created by off-project relationships. As far as I am aware, from the foregoing discussion at ANI and this thread, we know nothing else about JB and MV's relationships that would suggest an actionable COI.
    I think part of the confusion here is that there has been come conflation of the concepts of COI, bias, and tendentiousness. Hypothetically, MV and JB could have no actionable WP:COI as defined by the policy, and yet still be very disruptive to the article. Indeed, the initial ANI report was situated more in the question of disruption than COI. But the topic ban TarnishedPath proposed in that discussion was rejected because most respondents found that MVs conduct (while suboptimal around the edges and indicating a need for further familiarization with our content policies), did not at this time necessitate a sanction or other community action beyond a warning to get up to speed on said policies.
    The question here is therefor much more narrow (even if it's implications to the project are massive): does affiliation with a denomination lead to a direct, automatic, and actionable COI with regard to articles related to that denomination? Because if there is no such existing rule (and there isn't) there is no other grounds (that I have seen presented, anyway) that would justify a finding of COI for Meta Voyager and JamieBrown. Their conduct on the talk page could be hypothetical cause to find them disruptive or tendentious or biased in some way that would require other community action, but it is not cause for a finding of COI. COI is about off-project associations, by definition. And again, I believe we know nothing about JB and MVs off-project associations except that they seem to attend congregations which are in some way related to ICOC doctrine. If one of them had instead revealed that they were Kip McKean's wife, this discussion would have a very different complexion, but that's not the scenario we are looking at. SnowRise let's rap 23:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've barely commented here so I don't know why Snow Rise has decided that I'm proposing some wide-ranging rule. The issue with this particular article is that a small number of editors with an association with the subject are consistently trying to whitewash it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. And sincerely: thank you for making the effort to prevent said whitewashing. However much pushback you and TP are getting here, know that the underlying motivation is appreciated. But I'll repeat: in that case "avail yourself of the many consensus formation, dispute resolution, and oversight processes available to you when they make edits which you believe violate our editorial policies." A finding of actionable COI is a specific tool for specific circumstances, and if you can't provide evidence of a more specific relationship than "they are members of this faith", it doesn't apply to Meta Voyager and JamieBrown in these circumstances. Period.
    So utilize processes that actually do apply in these circumstances. Honestly, I don't like being on the side that is criticizing two editors who set off down this path because they were trying to prevent the whitewashing of sexual abuse allegations. If you knew me better on a personal level, you'd in fact know that's about the last thing I'd want to be doing on a given day. But you and TP very much have been pushing the angle that MV and JB have an actionable COI based on their association with a religious movement alone--even placing tags labeling them as such on the talk page, despite no affirmative community finding that such a COI existed.
    That dog won't hunt here. This strategy has been a huge and unnecessary distraction that has only hindered your ultimate ends. And doubtless halted many of us (certainly at least me) who would rather be supporting you on the underlying content and behavioural issues, but who have instead been diverted into opposing a radical and unsupported reading of COI that the community can't possibly permit, given the damage it would do to the project if we allowed editors to try to invoke it willy-nilly against their religiously-inclined rhetorical opponents. I applaud your motivations here, but you don't get to just create new COI standards out of whole-cloth in order to remove the other side from the editorial equation altogether, just to make the process easier. SnowRise let's rap 08:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not proposing any such rule, Snow Rise. I was replying to a comment that suggested that the editors concerned hadn't editing the article directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isaidnoway posted some links above, one of which shows that Jamie has edited the article 894 times and has been editing the article since 2011. TarnishedPathtalk 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sympathetic to the arguments of Bon courage, who points out various problems we've had with religious whitewashing, but what is the need to classify that as COI? We already have Wikipedia:Advocacy, which seems to describe these cases much better. As the page states, Advocacy is closely related to conflict of interest, but differs in that advocacy is a general term for promotional and agenda-based editing, while conflict of interest primarily describes promotional editing by those with a close personal or financial connection to the subject. Advocacy is an explanatory essay while COI is a policy, but ultimately everything in Advocacy comes from Neutral point of view. We already have robust policies in place to deal with POV-pushers, so my question is what do we gain from declaring that those religious POV-pushing edits are also COI? Pinguinn 🐧 02:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Helmut Maucher

    [edit]

    I’m not sure about the exact procedure for bringing this to attention, so I thought I’d start here. There’s an account that’s mostly an SPA whose focus seems to be adding one specific person as a source to as many articles within that area of interest as possible. The articles are royal connected ones, so nobility articles, honours articles, and the like.

    The source/person is “R.A.U. Juchter van Bergen Quast”. The editor is 54geren, who has added Bergen Quast, using two of Bergen Quast’s websites, to the following articles:

    • Order of Christ (Kongo)
    • Order of the Eagle of Georgia
    • Russian tradition of the Knights Hospitaller
    • Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam
    • Nobility of the First French Empire (prev. removed as promotional)
    • Orders, decorations, and medals of Portugal
    • Order of Orange-Nassau (prev. removed as “irrelevant blog link”)
    • Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (prev. reverted)
    • Helmut Maucher

    54geren has also added an award to Helmut Maucher’s BLP. The award comes from the Swiss Chamber of Commerce, which is run by R.A.U. Juchter van Bergen Quast, adding yet another tally to the SPA’s almost-sole focus.

    I am aware of the policy of not outing users. I’m not speculating on the identity of 54geren and don’t think I’ve run afoul of that policy. That being said, this account appears only to exist to insert Bergen Quast and his activities into as many articles as possible in the royal world.

    What should be done about this? CPR certified and forgetting it all (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Abu ali (Moved to ANI per advice)

    [edit]
    Discussion now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Abu_Ali_-_POV-Pushing_and_WP:NOTHERE. Please weigh in there to keep it centralized. Star Mississippi 14:49, 7 September 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.

    This report can be considered superseded by another at ANI, any relevant comments can be left there.

    Relevant context: The Trotskyist groups "Committee for a Workers' International" (CWI) dissolved in 2019 over a split in direction. Two new groups were formed as a result, with one choosing to "refound" itself under the old name (CWI 2019) and the other later moving to the name "International Socialist Alternative" (ISA). Both claim to be the continuation of CWI.

    The user linked above demonstrates an editing pattern that heavily suggests they have an undeclared COI when it comes to CWI 2019 and associated articles, namely they are a member of CWI 2019 or one of its constituent sections. It is also contextually important to note that the account was dormant for 12 years until 2020, and since then has almost exclusively edited articles related to the split in a non-neutral way.

    The two main throughlines of COI-suggestive behaviour are:

    • The user will make edits that favour CWI 2019 and their stances, such as repeatedly inserting claims that CWI and CWI 2019 are one and the same (while ISA's claims of being a continuation of the original CWI will not get the same treatment) or seemingly trying to use the CWI 2019 page as a means of promoting each section's website [47][48][49][50][51]
    • When it comes to ISA the user will instead only introduce negative content, sourced without reliable sources but instead inappropriate self-published websites (which in one instance looks to be from the CWI 2019 itself) or citing non-linked internal documents they claim support the edits.[52][53][54][55]

    Overall, it's hard to see such behaviour as anything but non-neutral and likely an undeclared COI. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rambler, looking at the rest of this user's recent history I wonder if you'd be better advised to take this to ANI and argue that the user is a POV pusher and WP:NOTHERE (which I'd say is self-evident) rather than that they have an undeclared COI (which is harder to prove and less likely to result in sanctions). It looks like this situation needs some admin oversight, which you'll be far more likely to get at ANI than at COIN. Axad12 (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Axad12, I was in two minds given the extent but if you think it's better placed there I'll do so. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth a try. I'd also mention the user's mass re-introduction of poor quality material to the Peter Taaffe article. Axad12 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12 I've done so and added in that too. If you'd be willing to add your view of their behaviour to that report I'd be extremely grateful. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, my feeling is that the recent activity by (now blocked) user Jamesation and the result of the recent AfD has clearly provoked a reaction from someone else involved in that argument. Unfortunately, as we saw with Jamesation, when people hold extreme political views they are unlikely to be able to edit in a neutral way.
    For the time being I'd prefer to wait for input from others over at ANI, specifically on the conduct side of the issue. Axad12 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 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.

    Users EastThermopolis & Lullaby09!/ Belmond Limited

    [edit]

    Concerns over COI/UPE with user EastThermopolis have previously been raised at COIN here [56] and here [57]. The user recently emerged from a 4 month dormant spell with this large edit [58] to the article for hotel chain Belmond Limited. History indicates that this user's larger edits are very often flagged as being PROMO. The user's talk page [59] gives some insight into the various other promo-type issues they have experienced.

    Also, not connected with this user, some of the hotels etc in the very long list at the foot of the Belmond Limited article may be worth a look for notability reasons, for example [60] and [61], or more generally for PROMO and sourcing reasons. It looks as though the company previously had an in-house UPE account here [62] creating/curating the various articles, similarly more recently the apparent UPE/SPA user:Lullaby09! has served the same purpose. Regardless of the individual content, I'm not convinced that the long list of hotels etc is appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

    In any event, the combination of a user where previous COI concerns had been raised (EastThermopolis) plus company articles with extensive UPE seemed worthy of raising here. User Lullaby09!, on the other hand, appears to be a straightforward case of UPE. Axad12 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Further potentially non-notable, inadequately sourced, promo, etc. articles relating to this hotel chain and usually originally installed by UPE/SPA:
    [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], and [75].
    Further eyes on these articles would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1244705964"