Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:
|
Samir.hashisho
Samer.hashisho just keeps resubmitting over and over drafts for companies that are owned by the same parent company. They've never responded to messages on their talk, including one asking them to disclose their clear paid contributor status. Never made a talk posting anywhere. valereee (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- It seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. The dairy article, that has been floating about for about two years in various forms. Now I recognise it. scope_creepTalk 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- And also undisclosed WP:PAID. I'll leave them a warning about that just so it's on the record. --Drm310 ? (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are still editing while refusing to communicate. I've had enough... I've contacted paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the relevant on- and off-wiki evidence. --Drm310 ? (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Samer.hashisho is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and all of their promotional edits have been deleted. Good report, Valereee. --Drm310 ? (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are still editing while refusing to communicate. I've had enough... I've contacted paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the relevant on- and off-wiki evidence. --Drm310 ? (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- And also undisclosed WP:PAID. I'll leave them a warning about that just so it's on the record. --Drm310 ? (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Emil.stanev
Another one, trying to create the same two articles from the same parent company. All the versions of La Crima Dairy that have been created so far need to be salted, IMO. Draft:LÀCRIMA DAIRY. valereee (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, definitely another undisclosed paid editor here. I've left a
{{uw-paid1}}
notice but if they come back without disclosing, I'm not going to wait around before reporting them. --Drm310 ? (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Crystal Head Vodka
- Crystal Head Vodka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dustintitus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SPA keeps re-adding long unsourced list of awards. No response to COI notice on their TP. MB 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MB: Thanks for bringing here. The have an obvious undisclosed COI/being paid to edit here and all of their edits have been promotional over many years. I've blocked them accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Engaging in UPE/COI editing will end in Nothing but Trouble. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Aniruddha Jatkar
- Aniruddha Jatkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- AnuragIC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Unfortunately, this is a repeat of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Aniruddha Jatkar from just two weeks ago. It seems be re-occurring. Cheers, SVTCobra 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- See my recent edits and edit summaries on this article. This user been insincere about this complaint as seen last time.[1] Whether this is a case of COI or not is not clear but the user is surely WP:NOTHERE. 110.227.234.16 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Vika007, User:Serebroo, User:Napoleonico007
- Lena Hades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Vika007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Napoleonico007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Serebroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User accounts Vika007, Napoleonico007 and Serebroo all are (almost) solely dedicated to edit articles related to Lena Hades. I have asked Vika007 to disclose whether she is related to Lena Hades (Vika007 has been editing Hades-related articles for 8+ years, often fixing the ever-moving "official website" for Hades), but Vika007 ignored my question.
I strongly suspect these user accounts are either operated by Hades herself, or are affiliated with her. Worth mentioning, in Russian wikipedia, there is ru:User:Serebro (notice the similarity to "Serebroo" username) who also edited mostly Hades-related articles. What's interesting is that both ru:User:Serebro and Vika007 describe themselves as "enthusiasts for modern art", art majors or in similar manner (texts on their userpages are almost identical). "Serebro", as I have discovered, has also been active at least in Spanish Wikipedia too (es:User:Serebroo).. where she also edits Hades-related articles. There could be more accounts belonging to this editor, but I only found three (or four, if you consider "Serebroo" and "Serebro" to be separate). 178.121.33.109 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Vika007 denied any connection to Lena Hades or the other aforementioned user accounts on her talk page. 178.121.33.109 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Nehme1499's paid editing
- Peter Khalife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Daniel Giménez (football manager) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ali Fayad (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Kazim Fayad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nehme1499 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Nehme1499 has advanced rights such as autopatroller and NPR, but they are a paid editor? Not sure, if Wikipedia community confers such rights to paid editors (or, at least remove autopatrolled because it has been abused?). Paid articles should go through AfC, so they can be reviewed by a neutral editor. Nehme1499 hasn't followed despite being an established editor. Also, they haven't declared where they advertise or how they acquire clients? It is required by Wikimedia TOU, so they should do that.
Perhaps, a warning and draftification of their articles should work? Biographies such as Kazim Fayad are completely non-notable. 95.233.30.130 (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- In accordance with the Terms of Use, I
must disclose [my] employer [...] in at least one of the following ways: 1. a statement on your user page (done), 2. a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (done) [...]
. What is not permitted ispaid contributions without disclosure
(my emphasis), which is not what I have done. Also, I make sure that, regardless of whether I have been paid or not for the articles I publish, they all pass the WP:GNG guideline (which, from my viewpoint, all five of the articles listed above do). Peter Khalife, for example, was proposed for deletion and kept (with no one voting to delete).Paid articles should go through AfC
andthey haven't declared where they advertise
: could you please point me to the guideline stating that these are necessary? Nehme1499 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The risk of the autopatrolled right being abused exceeds the small cost of other volunteers having to review articles. Best practice for paid editors is to use AFC. Looking at Kazim Fayad there are definitely issues with sourcing that AFC could have addressed. I will be removing this right for sure and will also look into the use of patroller too as we have often seen that abused. @Kudpung: 99% you'll agree with this, but just FYIng as you added the autopatrolled right back in
20202019 (I think prior to any paid editing). SmartSE (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- (I'm only here because I was pinged). It's not just holders of autopatrolled or NPP rights. There are possibly still some admins who secretly write for pay. I used to enjoy doing the forensics to flush them out and it's one of the reasons why I still strongly campaign for improvement of NPP even though I will usually run a mile from the New Pages Feed these days. I think all paid editors, whoever they are, should be ashamed of exploiting for financial gain what volunteers have spent thousands of hours building for free. Kudpung ?ุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've also draftified that article to Draft:Kazim Fayad. SmartSE (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've also pulled
new page reviewer
(courtesy ping granting admin @Swarm:). It's also too sensitive to trust to paid editors. - @Nehme1499: I find it a bit suspicious that you created your first disclosed paid article, Peter Khalife, four days after you requested the NPP right. Were you aware that you were very unlikely to be granted it as a paid editor? – Joe (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good decision on the Draft:Kazim Fayad draft. scope_creepTalk 11:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware of WP:PAY, so that's on me.
Were you aware that you were very unlikely to be granted it as a paid editor?
Not really. Actually, I had been advised to apply for NPP by another user. Regarding pulling my Autopatrolled and RPR rights, I'm fine with that. Though, I wonder what the benefit of my honesty is. I feel like had I not disclosed anything on my userpage + article talk pages we would not be here (just to clarify, this is not my modus operandi, I would still prefer to be upfront and disclose my COI). What is not seen in the background is that I refused service to many other individuals who had contacted me, on the basis that I felt that WP:GNG was not met. Just to be clear, I don't advertise my services anywhere: some individuals contact me privately via social media and ask me to create them an article (per what I said above, I usually refuse). Nehme1499 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- Just completely out of the clear blue sky, international footballers (or their representatives) contact you on social media? How do they even know you are a Wikipedian? If you ask me, this explanation stretches credulity. -- SVTCobra 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Knowing people in Lebanon is not difficult, it's a small circle. My friend works as a journalist, he knows other guys, these guys know agents, who in turn know the footballers, etc... It's all a chain reaction to get from the footballer/agent to me. Nehme1499 19:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So it's word-of-mouth advertising, as opposed to literal online advertising? -- SVTCobra 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I guess it's inverse advertising, if that makes sense. I never made any active effort in making myself known as a Wikipedia editor. The footballers ask a friend if they know someone who edits Wikipedia, they in turn ask others until they reach me. I guess having already made a few Wikipedia pages for some people, word spread. I never really specifically asked them to pay me as well. They asked me to make a page and offered money. If I see that WP:GNG is met, I accept. Otherwise I don't. Nehme1499 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This also doesn't even begin to cover your serious conflict of interest. Without getting too far into it because I'm not going to out you, it's pretty telling in many of the articles you've written, that the sourcing largely goes back to one company, specifically one that engages in sports coverage and said source(s) are largely added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you. PRAXIDICAE? 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also the only editor who deals with Lebanese football on Wikipedia, so naturally no one else is going to add sources dealing with that topic. Nehme1499 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- That...isn't even remotely related to the point that is being made and is also patently untrue. PRAXIDICAE? 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I answered your statement
added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you
. I don't know which website you are talking about, but I'd assume that since I'm (almost) the only one to use it as a source it must be about Lebanese football.That is also patently untrue
: you're saying that there are other regular Wikipedia editors who deal with Lebanese football? Lots deal with football, a few regarding Asian or Middle Eastern football, but no one specifically about Lebanese. If the website is Lebanese, I don't see how other users are going to care about using it in non-Lebanese related topics. I frankly don't understand what this is about. Nehme1499 21:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- You know very well that if I disclose exactly which sources I'm talking about it would run afoul of outing. So it's your choice, you need to also disclose your COI or the information can be sent to arbcom to avoid WP:OUTING here. PRAXIDICAE? 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I answered your statement
- That...isn't even remotely related to the point that is being made and is also patently untrue. PRAXIDICAE? 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also the only editor who deals with Lebanese football on Wikipedia, so naturally no one else is going to add sources dealing with that topic. Nehme1499 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This also doesn't even begin to cover your serious conflict of interest. Without getting too far into it because I'm not going to out you, it's pretty telling in many of the articles you've written, that the sourcing largely goes back to one company, specifically one that engages in sports coverage and said source(s) are largely added to Wikipedia almost exclusively by you. PRAXIDICAE? 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I guess it's inverse advertising, if that makes sense. I never made any active effort in making myself known as a Wikipedia editor. The footballers ask a friend if they know someone who edits Wikipedia, they in turn ask others until they reach me. I guess having already made a few Wikipedia pages for some people, word spread. I never really specifically asked them to pay me as well. They asked me to make a page and offered money. If I see that WP:GNG is met, I accept. Otherwise I don't. Nehme1499 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So it's word-of-mouth advertising, as opposed to literal online advertising? -- SVTCobra 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Knowing people in Lebanon is not difficult, it's a small circle. My friend works as a journalist, he knows other guys, these guys know agents, who in turn know the footballers, etc... It's all a chain reaction to get from the footballer/agent to me. Nehme1499 19:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just completely out of the clear blue sky, international footballers (or their representatives) contact you on social media? How do they even know you are a Wikipedian? If you ask me, this explanation stretches credulity. -- SVTCobra 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware of WP:PAY, so that's on me.
- Comment Either way, it is a clear COI. scope_creepTalk 21:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Chipmunkdavis
Suspected state/paid editor. After consensus was reached on article talk page for Russia a single sentence was added. Two users have tried to delete this text multiple times. After Chipmunkdavis was notified that consensus was reached on the talk page they continued to revert the edit. Ironically, trying to hide the fact that Russia is at war, they engaged in their own edit war. Any support would be appreciated here, as we all know Russia is actively engaged in information warfare on Wikipedia.
Colinmcdermott (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Three different editors have disagreed with you; I have now reverted your most recent edit, as there is no consensus on the talk page to add that sentence. I would suggest that you withdraw this before a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:EDIT WARRING and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with BilledMammal on this, there is clearly no consensus for inclusion at this point, and edit summaries like this and this contain clear personal attacks and aspersions. WP:VANDALISM also has a specific meaning, and this ain't it. Withdrawing your complaint now will likely save you a significant headache soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is clearly a content dispute and not a COI on CMD's part. I do not see any consensus on the article's talkpage. Seloloving (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Interesting to see how successful Russia have been infiltrating Wikipedia in this information war. There is a 3v2 consensus on talk page, yet this means nothing to editors with a strange history of making pro-Kremlin edits. People who should no better looking the other way. Colinmcdermott (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Everyone who disagrees with me is Russia. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Colinmcdermott: Even if we we went by raw headcount and not the merits of arguments, I see 3 supports and 3 opposes. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- "3v2 consensus" is an oxymoron; also please see WP:NOTVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Colinmcdermott: the chances that Chipmunkdavis is a Russian state agent are near zero... I can assure you of that based on extensive interactions with them over the years across a wide variety of topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like something a red would say! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, pipe down, 007! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like something a red would say! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
UPE Honkaku Spirits
Draft:Honkaku_Spirits contains clear signs of UPE with intent to game/conceal that. valereee (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The reference to the Shurtleff / Apyagi book is absurdly incompetent. It links to a search for the phrase "Ultimately, the whisky trust collapsed because of trust-busting legislation enacted by the Illinois General Assembly in 1891 and the depression of 1893", but not properly surrounded by quote marks. The result is naturally a swarm of hits for salient words like in, and, by, of etc etc. But nothing daunted, the editors offer this search as a "source". (By adding the missing quote mark, I found the sentence on p. 179, but that didn't fix the problem. It's a quote not from the text in the book, but from a footnote quoting a journal article, which I think was in turn quoting something else — it's not entirely clear. So there's everything possible wrong with this "source".) As detailed by Valereee in her rejection of the draft, here, the other sources don't support notability either, but bear the hallmarks of press releases. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC).
Weatherford College
- Weatherford College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jeanmay23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a single-purpose editor who only edits this article and has ignored multiple warnings and questions from different editors. It is reasonable to suspect a COI, perhaps even an undisclosed paid editing relationship. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have page-blocked the user indefinitely from Weatherford College. Bishonen | tålk 07:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC).
The Good Boss
- The Good Boss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Love Gets a Room (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We have a user repeatedly adding a bit-part child actor (which you can easily check her name in the diffs, but I will refer to here as "girlname") to the cast section of The Good Boss ([2][3][4][5]) (see Love Gets a Room for a similar pattern [6][7][8][9]) bringing imdb.com as a source. Despite several warnings, the user (featuring a username similar to that of girlname) refrains to edit with authoritative sources (instead of imdb) or disclose a conflict of interest and prefers to engage in edit warring, returning girlname to the cast. Imdb review section for both films is full of people extolling girlname, purportedly relatives of girlname.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. No. No. I have added ALL the cast of the 2 pages: The Good Boss (El buen patrón) and Love Gets a Room in the right order, with references and lots of dedication. My editing is accurate and ads important and valuable information to Wikipedia. This user (Asqueladd) is reverting and reverting my editing, with ugly comments and threatening language. The "girlname" in question appears in both movies (with important roles) and she also appears in both trailers. I'm not promoting anybody, only adding important information to Wikipedia. This user (Asqueladd) argues that IMDb is not a reliable source. IMDb is the most reliable source in cinema today (worldwide). This user (Asqueladd) is making that Wikipedia becomes an unpleasant community. Please take some constructive action. Thank you very much & many greetings Antonia Tejeda Barros (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just a comment regarding the content dispute: sources other than IMDb, such as this and this, also credit the girl as being part of the cast. Nehme1499 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Antonia Tejeda Barros, your comment that IMDb is "the most reliable source in cinema today" is the opposite of what has been agreed by the wikipedia community. See WP:IMDB and WP:UGC for why it is considered unreliable here and therefore why you should stop using it. Melcous (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of the Conflict of Interest, it is fairly easy to see from edits here + IMDB what the relationship between the editor and the subject is. Editing about family members is a clear conflict of interest, and should be disclosed and the talk page used to propose changes. Melcous (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Antonia Tejeda Barros, your comment that IMDb is "the most reliable source in cinema today" is the opposite of what has been agreed by the wikipedia community. See WP:IMDB and WP:UGC for why it is considered unreliable here and therefore why you should stop using it. Melcous (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just a comment regarding the content dispute: sources other than IMDb, such as this and this, also credit the girl as being part of the cast. Nehme1499 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Big Ayeh
- Draft:Paa Kwasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dobble (music duo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Kumi Guitar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Big Ayeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Connection can be proven on Commons: commons:File:Paa Kwasi (Artist).jpg#Summary. There was a VRT ticket confirming their permission to upload to commons. More at User talk:Big Ayeh#June 2022. They should ideally be page blocked. 0xDeadbeef 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Notice that the user's YouTube link goes to BigAyehMedia, which houses Official Videos for Dobble and Paa Kwasi. If the person is not associated with these musical acts, they need to change their username here, but it's likely they are associated, given how long they've been constantly editing on these pages and their own user page to promote their artist. AngusW??F (bark • sniff) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Jon Entine
- Jon Entine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- NGOWatch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Runjonrun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The account seems to have tacitly admitted that they are the subject, but has not been explicit about it. Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: The edit summary in this edit is a pretty clear disclosure of their identity. --Drm310 ? (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not really sure what the specific issue is here? Those of us that edit the actual BLP have been aware of this for some time based on previous talk discussions and generally have handling any egregious promotional edits that came from them. Most of the time it's just been run of the mill BLP subject wanting to add material and tension with Wikipedia standards. They made a few minor edits to their BLP recently that were rejected (some rightly so), but that's about it, and it's been extremely quiet just prior to yesterday. I'd suggest using the article talk pages for minor things like this rather than jumping to a noticeboard. KoA (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Otrium
- Contentsquare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Cambrian Biopharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Orgain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- LoanDepot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- TechnoTalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This account seems to be created a a large number of spammy articles on private businesses. Over the last few couple of years, a good number have been deleted, csd'd, drafted, images deleted by commons and so on. 7 out of 26 have been deleted and many of the remaining ones look like brochure articles. I reviewed one of their articles, Otrium, it went to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otrium and was deleted.The account went off the deep end during the Afd, and opened a spurious Ani notice: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2. Several weird things came to light including, rapid article output. I asked whether they were being paid, and they said no. More eyes are needed. scope_creepTalk 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Retaliatory filing for an ANI report I filed highlighting abusive behavior from a seemingly experienced editor. Detailed response is given at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scope_Creep:_revenge_and_disruptive_editing_part_2. This is an exaggerated report. One article I wrote was just deleted, but that's the first in 6 years. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ventures was also recently deleted, but I didn't write it. As I explained in the deletion discussion, I just improved it and moved it to mainspace, until it was wrecked by insiders. Logo deletion activity on talk pages is common when they are replaced with a new version. Nothing I wrote has ever been draftified. This report simply substantiates what I reported at ANI. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- With Otrium deleted, my comment about recent additions to the article in the Otrium AfD is less clear because I did not identify which editor made the additions - to clarify, the diffs point to additions by TechnoTalk. Other contributions by TechnoTalk are also discussed in the Contentsquare AfD and the Cambrian Biopharma AfD. As a general matter, I think it can take some time to learn how to identify promotional sources, and TechnoTalk's conduct in these AfDs may indicate some assistance is needed. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Beccaynr: I'm always trying to learn. I spend a lot of time at the AfC help desk helping other editors with poorly-sourced articles. As far as I know, none of the publications I used as sources are flagged as problematic on the reliable sources board, and indeed they are used in many articles, without drama. I'm unclear how I'm supposed to know to not include them just because another editor doesn't like them. If someone doesn't like the sourcing, wouldn't it be better to try to get them blocked or declared unreliable so this issue doesn't keep coming up again. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- TechnoTalk, the issue isn't always the source itself but the specific content of the article. A source can have useful articles mixed with churnalism, advertorials and routine transactional information that do not indicate notability. After awhile you will get a feel for what's a press release even if it has a byline. If nothing else, avoid using any sources that discuss funding rounds as they are consistently dismissed by the community as not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Slywriter (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Beccaynr: Thanks for clarifying. I've seen some discussion about funding rounds where they distinguish unicorn funding from routine everyday funding. We have a unicorn (finance) article and List of unicorn startup companies suggesting that not all funding rounds are treated the same by Wikipedia. But I'll avoid them as much as I can. And LoanDepot listed above is now public anyway. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- TechnoTalk, that was Slywriter, not me - my reply is below. As to the potential for unicorn funding to be distinguished, the WP:CORPDEPTH guideline seems to already accommodate this, because a reliable source discussing the significance of unicorn funding could also provide
an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization
, that per WP:ORGIND, includesoriginal and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
, and then it could support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- WP:SIRS encapsulates that point and it holds true regardless of whether it is related to "unicorn" coverage. The issue I'm seeing is Techno not listening/understanding/accepting their opinion that unicorn funding rounds make the topic company notable and announcements mentioning this fact must be acceptable for establishing notability despite being told multiple times by multiple editors this is not the case. Techno is still pushing sources that are clearly based entirely on promotion/announcement/PR. I can understand Techno's dismay at seeing articles he created being at AfD, those articles having been nominated by SC. But it isn't SC that decides at AfD, it is up to the community and the closing admin who reach a consensus. I can understand why he believed he was justified in filing a complaint at AN/I but again, Techno isn't listening to what is being said by *others* at AfD and AN/I. Others have now said to him that he isn't "reading the room" and in danger of WP:BOOMERANG. It shouldn't happen this time but I'm less positive if Techno continues in the same manner. HighKing++ 11:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) (edited for clarity)
- TechnoTalk, that was Slywriter, not me - my reply is below. As to the potential for unicorn funding to be distinguished, the WP:CORPDEPTH guideline seems to already accommodate this, because a reliable source discussing the significance of unicorn funding could also provide
- @Beccaynr: Thanks for clarifying. I've seen some discussion about funding rounds where they distinguish unicorn funding from routine everyday funding. We have a unicorn (finance) article and List of unicorn startup companies suggesting that not all funding rounds are treated the same by Wikipedia. But I'll avoid them as much as I can. And LoanDepot listed above is now public anyway. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- TechnoTalk, in the Otrium AfD, HighKing commented, "there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability" before an extensive analysis of applicable guidelines and sources [10]. I quoted part of WP:ORGCRIT in the Contentsquare AfD [11] and Cambrian Biopharma AfD [12], specifically
The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion.
These are established policies and guidelines designed to protect the encyclopedia. I agree with how Slywriter describes the general landscape, and I think this helps explain why only focusing on whether a source is reliable is not enough, because we need sources that are reliable and independent to build an article. The guidelines for independence are detailed for organizations and companies, and this helps determine whether there is sufficient sourcing to overcome the second prong of W:N, i.e. whether the article should be excluded per the What Wikipedia is Not policy, including WP:PROMOTION. Beccaynr (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- TechnoTalk, the issue isn't always the source itself but the specific content of the article. A source can have useful articles mixed with churnalism, advertorials and routine transactional information that do not indicate notability. After awhile you will get a feel for what's a press release even if it has a byline. If nothing else, avoid using any sources that discuss funding rounds as they are consistently dismissed by the community as not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Slywriter (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Beccaynr: I'm always trying to learn. I spend a lot of time at the AfC help desk helping other editors with poorly-sourced articles. As far as I know, none of the publications I used as sources are flagged as problematic on the reliable sources board, and indeed they are used in many articles, without drama. I'm unclear how I'm supposed to know to not include them just because another editor doesn't like them. If someone doesn't like the sourcing, wouldn't it be better to try to get them blocked or declared unreliable so this issue doesn't keep coming up again. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Special:Permalink/1051303009 - Potentially useful RfC that got archived without being closed but discusses Unicorn funding rounds and notability. Not sure whether I should (or is even proper to) drag it out of archive for a proper close. Though TechnoTalk, it may be a useful starting point if you wish to pursue a fuller community discussion at the proper notability page. Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It is likely that there is no COI and that Techno was over-enthusiastic instead without a firm understanding of our notability guidelines. HighKing++ 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Coincidentally I just stumbled across FabFitFun, which is so spammy I was surprised to discover it had just survived an AfD, so I did a source assessment, which is at Talk:FabFitFun#Assessing sources. It's not pretty. I went to TechnoTalk's talk to discuss and found this COIN. I am pretty concerned about the article creations by this editor. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if this editor doesn't have some sort of COI with all of these companies, they need to start using AfC for a while to help them learn what is and isn't a usable source for supporting notability. valereee (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee: That is excellent wee table you have made there. Mighty handy. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Scope creep, there's a handy wee script called SA Table Generator. Lets you define number of rows and just fill in. valereee (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee: That is excellent wee table you have made there. Mighty handy. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm going to take the suggestions to heart. I'll look at AfC. I've never used it myself, but see a lot of rejection frustration coming from it. Looking at Valereee's sourcing table, I still disagree that coverage based on press releases shouldn't be used to source articles, or specifically to show notability. It's more nuanced than that. A press release is how companies alert the media that there's something noteworthy happening, and the media can decide to cover it or not. The vast majority of press releases immediately disappear, only to exist on the company's "In the news" page. The reliable sources noticeboard should be our bible for sourcing, not whether we think a piece is based on a press release or not. Otherwise it's the same discussion rehashed over and over again. As discussed above, I also disagree about the general disqualification of funding news. That also seems to be a popular one accompanying delete votes in deletion discussions. Some funding announcements are major, especially if the company gets unicorn valuation as a result. Such announcements should be considered on a case by case basis, rather than dismissed outright. I wish there were more people in these discussions who actively contribute business articles, but I can understand their shyness after seeing where my efforts have gotten me. Thanks for that permalink Slywriter. That looks like the one I read, but I couldn't find it. I'll see if I can rekindle interest and get a definitive consensus on the funding and press release subjects. If I can, that will effect not only my article creation efforts but the advice I give at the AfC help desk. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnoTalk, you wrote: I still disagree that coverage based on press releases shouldn't be used to source articles, or specifically to show notability. It's more nuanced than that. It's really not. Press releases are not independent, period. Full stop. They represent what the company is saying about itself.
- This is why we are telling you that you do not understand sourcing and notability. This is why your articles are getting AfD'd by editors with 50x the experience you have. You need to start listening to what more-experienced editors are saying to you about WP policy, especially those surrounding sourcing and notability. It's an absolute necessity that you stop arguing that you, a relatively inexperienced editor, must be right and multiple experienced editors must be wrong. You are noobsplaining here. valereee (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee and now, despite admitting their lack of knowledge, they are responding to every question at the help desk (and bad advice, at that)...so @TechnoTalk you have to pick one. Either you're experienced enough to know better, or you aren't and shouldn't be engaging in areas you don't know what you're talking about, especially with regard to sourcing. PRAXIDICAE? 13:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae, Valereee I agree that TechnoTalk has displayed a general ignorance here and at AFD about our policies and guidelines when it comes to sourcing and notability. The requirements for editing at the help desk include "a demonstrated understanding of the policies and guidelines mentioned in the reviewing instructions, including the various notability guidelines" and "reasonable evidence of understanding the deletion policy (experience in areas such as CSD/AfD/PROD or page curation, while not mandatory, are beneficial)". I think we have clear evidence that neither of these criteria have been met by TechnoTalk, based on the content of the articles he has created, his comments in this discussion, and his comments at the AFDs of his articles. As such perhaps a ban from assisting at the help desk is warranted and a requirement that he use the AFC process for his article creation until he has demonstrated an understanding of those policies.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: Where did I admit a lack of knowledge? Are you saying that because I just said I never used AfC to create an article? If that's what you mean, that's a bit unfair. It's like saying I have a lack of knowledge if I didn't do the Wikipedia Adventure. I've made 202 edits to help novice article creators at the AfC help desk. Please show me the bad advice you are referring to that 4meter4 feels is grounds for me being banned from volunteering there. If it's so bad that I can't be trusted to give advice, I'll step away and find another place to contribute. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I agree with you 100% that press releases are unsuitable. No debate. Please don't take my clarification as noobsplaining. What I was talking about is coverage based on a press release, in a reliable source. That's how a lot of news stories get started. I read Wikipedia:Independent sources#Press releases and it says
Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called "churnalism"). Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article.
If that's what you're referring to, then by all means I agree that we should exclude lazy cut and pastes of press releases, especially if there's no author in the byline, just "staff". I often reject possible sources when I see the telltale fawning tone, and have accordingly excluded many cut and pastes from my sourcing. I also exclude syndicated content, which the policy doesn't seem to mention, but is essentially the same as churnalism. I think where our disagreement comes from is with how much independent reporting and interviewing we require be added to content derived from a press release before it can stand on its own as a decent source. When you flag my sources as pr-based, it helps me understand your concerns and hone my radar. So thank you. Peace. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)- By you saying you didn't understand the nuance between promotional material, press releases and sourcing. You either do, or you don't. You either have the experience to determine what is appropriate or you don't and if you do, as you imply by your posts to the help desk, I can't help but think this is all an act to get away with some covert WP:ADMASQ PRAXIDICAE? 16:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnoTalk, multiple (I always find three before deciding to move to mainspace) instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is what's required to prove notability.
- You said how much independent reporting and interviewing we require be added to content derived from a press release; interviews also do not count toward proving notability. Just like press releases, interviews tell us what the company is saying about themselves. We. Don't. Care. And anything that's simply being added to content derived from a press release is not going to help. We need an original story, completely independently written from any contents in a press release. A reporter writing such a story might include a tiny amount of info from the press release to fill in their article -- maybe they use "according to company sources revenues were $300M last year" -- but most experienced editors wouldn't include that in the WP article. Unless what is in the PR is completely noncontroversial, such as date of founding or how many retail stores, we don't use it. I am starting to feel a little frustrated, here. valereee (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: An instance of bad advice I've given please. I was going to ping the other prolific editors there but don't think I need to drag them into this. You can instantly end my help desk efforts with a good example of my unworthiness, if you can please provide one. I linked to my contribution history above. And @Valereee: thanks for the clarification. Rest assured that I'm not going to keep beating the PR issue here, since I'm feeling under attack and am also frustrated, and am trying to be nice to deescalate. This is supposed to be fun. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You missed the point. How is it that you think you are qualified to assess sources for an article to help someone else, when in this very thread you repeatedly claim that you could not properly assess the sources and in fact asked others to explain it to you? I can actually provide diffs though: diff at least 2 of those sources are blatantly unreliable, blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE? 17:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnoTalk, absolutely. It's supposed to be a fun hobby. And it can be, if you educate yourself and listen to others. The reason this became unfun is that you tried to create articles before you understood notability, and then you refused to listen. Creating articles is hard, and there is a very steep learning curve. There are many things you need to know, but the most important, the absolutely most crucial of those, is notability. Creating articles before you understand notability is a bit like deciding you're going to jump off a cliff and hope you sprout wings on the way down. valereee (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: An instance of bad advice I've given please. I was going to ping the other prolific editors there but don't think I need to drag them into this. You can instantly end my help desk efforts with a good example of my unworthiness, if you can please provide one. I linked to my contribution history above. And @Valereee: thanks for the clarification. Rest assured that I'm not going to keep beating the PR issue here, since I'm feeling under attack and am also frustrated, and am trying to be nice to deescalate. This is supposed to be fun. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think it would be a good idea if the editors new article creations when through Afc. That is a standard approach for this situation, re:Florida Army. Would that need a ANI discussion? How would I get consensus for that? scope_creepTalk 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Sagar Wahi
- Sagar Wahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Shruti Bera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sagar Wahi is a long term spam targe for paid/coi editors and there doesn't appear to be any change with the new iteration. Shruti Bera originally disclosed incorrectly on their userpage and now is claiming they "made a mistake" when they said they were paid. This is pretty transparent and like the rest of the spammers before them, they refuse to adequately disclose and thus should be blocked. PRAXIDICAE? 15:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Asheema Vardaan does not appear to have been ready to move from draft to mainspace. --SVTCobra 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- And it was moved in less than an hour after Praxidicae questioned the editor. --SVTCobra 23:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's at AfD now where a couple of us have called for deletion and WP:SALTing. --Drm310 ? (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- But what about Asheema Vardaan? It's barely two sentences. SVTCobra 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's at AfD now where a couple of us have called for deletion and WP:SALTing. --Drm310 ? (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Brandon Friedman
- Brandon Friedman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rakkasan Tea Company ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nmd1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There's been what looks to me like serial UPE at this article going back to its creation, and I tagged it. Editor Nmd1978, who recently created an article for Friedman's business Rakkasan Tea Company, came in and untagged it. I retagged and opened a discussion at Talk:Brandon Friedman. Nmd1978, who is new enough to perhaps not realize that's where they should have gone next, instead removed the tag again. I pinged them again to the talk, and we've been discussing, but they're quite insistent that the article not be tagged. I thought another set of eyes might be helpful. valereee (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Valereee, I initially added COI tag but after doing cleanup, removed it since whatever damage COIs have done is currently not in the article. Guess time will tell if a COI editor is still lingering. Slywriter (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Alfred University
- Alfred University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mindemoyawikieditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has acknowledged being an employee of the university paid to edit its Wikipedia article but refuses to communicate in any way and continues to edit the article in problematic (WP:POV, WP:UNIGUIDE, etc.) ways. ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've put it on my watch list, if only because I was encouraged to attend this institution many years ago (though I did not do so!). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Operation Atalanta
- Operation Atalanta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Eunavformedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Eunavformedia 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The article Operation Atalanta appears to have been subjected to long-term editing by the organization's public affairs office (see two blocked accounts above). I haven't had the opportunity to sift through their additions, but there appears to be a lot of WP:PRIMARY source material, a lot of which I will guess isn't suitable. If anyone else is able to evaluate and pare back irrelevant content, it would be appreciated. Drm310 ? (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
TerraCycle
- TerraCycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The TerraCycle article has been the subject of a number of edits whose sole focus seem to be deleting critical content or hiding it in other sections (which frequently are unrelated to the content).
These are from numerous IP addresses, listed at [[13]], but all share the same pattern of editing behaviour. The most recent IP address making these edits is additionally from the same /16 as a previous IP in the list.
In terms of the content, in every case that the entity has claimed that content was unsourced, I have provided details of source material in increasing detail. Where there have been some errors on my part, I have corrected them. The person/s has/have also claimed that their interest is in the quality/conciseness of the writing. In response, I have improved clarity/conciseness in good faith despite my belief that this is a bad-faith claim on their part.
The person/entity behind the IP(s) has been invited on several occasions to make a statement declaring that they do or don't have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, and has ignored the request on each occasion. Most recently, I did this on the latest IP's talk page at [[14]].
The person/s in exchange continue to make the claim that I have a conflict of interest in relation to this article, specifically that I have a connection to the BBC or Panorama. I have specifically gone on record stating that I have no connection to either of the two, or anyone else in the article. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the comment attached to the most recent re-deletion, by the editing party, of section headers at [[15]] for an example of the type of justification given for the edits, as well as (untrue) assertions that I have a CoI. My only link to the documentary is that I have watched it, which is what led to my initial addition to the article. If Wikipedia has a mechanism for private verification of (non-)conflict of interest, I'm happy to do participate in it.
- In the above edit comment the editor also makes (verifiably) false statements about the nature/subject of the documentary itself, which I believe to be in the hope that most people will (understandably) not want to sit through it to see which party is making accurate characterisations. It can however be seen at [iPlayer page for the documentary] that the summary states "Mobeen Azhar investigates TerraCycle’s green credentials and its relationship with major brands", despite the editor/s assertion that "The documentary talks about TerraCycle for all of five minutes, then moves on to the greenwashing conversation about plastic-producing companies". I'm using this as an example of what seems to be a pattern of dishonesty from this person or people, as it would demonstrate that they either have not watched the documentary or are intentionally mischaracterising it. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I've watched the so-called documentary, and it does only discuss TerraCycle for five minutes. Editor at 81.187.88.97 is associated with the documentary, and markets it maximally, in a forum not appropriate for it. 47.198.242.207 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nonsense, and as clear a case of projection as I've ever seen. 81.x is obviously not here marketing for the BBC. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The person/entity has now added abusive material on my talk page. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Mehdi Mousavi , سیدمهدی م?س?ی
- Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi Mousavi
- Template:Https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=بحث کاربر:Mahdi Mousavi&action=info
- Template:Https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید مهدی م?س?ی
- Template:Https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=بحث کاربر:Mahdi Mousavi&action=info
I’m a new member; created a page and edited several pages, and then ended up in a page which because of my background I know had problems. see [[Mehdi Mousavi]);([16]) There were no references for most of the page -except one paragraph- and a couple of lines that had references, it would lead to the first page of a news agency; the text more resembled bragging than a biography. I added everywhere it needed references and decided to check out the same page in my mother tongue (Persian).
It was much much worse and virtually no references to speak of. Again I added that it needed references and that the references were to wrong pages. I was asked to write a summary of the edit with I did but then everything went back to the way they were and I was amazed that the guy was boldly editing his own page with the username the same as the name of the page! (https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_م?س?ی) by Mehdi Mousavi,
But all I had done was adding 12 references to the page which was in real bad need of references. Then he told me that he has also reported me for “advertising” which I hadn’t done; all I did was adding a page that I found, as a reference so the reader can follow the reference and see if there is a book; something that is not possible on the page Im reporting since some times you read he has published 10 books without even the books names, much less any references. see [[Mehdi Mousavi]);
(https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_م?س?ی) by Mehdi Mousavi, Actually its so bad that you don’t even need to speak the language, to be able to recognize something’s really wrong; just look at the paragraph after paragraph with no references -except the part of the page which is about an arrest- and all the references to the other parts lead to nowhere related to the text and a couple that do, are references to his own interviews and he basically doesn’t need any references since even when he uses one, it refers back to him! I felt helpless, regretted joining and don’t think I would waste my time editing pages -even though its much needed especially in a language like Persian- because after spending a couple of hours the “owner” of the page can come along and return it to the same old baseless window dressing for his business. I’m just gonna wait and see the result of this report since I’m really pissed by what what happened. I know and appreciate the fact that you guys also spend your time and energy to elevate people and I apologize for being so pessimistic; please stop fake people from dragging down Wikis; thank you.
(https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_م?س?ی) by Mehdi Mousavi,
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Minaghahraman (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)