Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:16, 2 December 2020

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. 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-wpwikipedia.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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Moriah Films

• Moriah Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Richard Trank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Abraham Cooper (rabbi) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dbernwies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All pages created and edited by the user are related to the Simon Wiesenthal Center and/or its staff. These pages may also be covered by the WP:ARBPIA thing. ImTheIP (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User:ImTheIP - Moriah Films was properly submitted through AFC and was reviewed by multiple neutral reviewers. The revewers concurred both that the subject satisfies notability as a producer of documentary films and that the article was neutrally worded. No comment on any other articles or editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Dbernwies has since extended the article significantly. A lot of the material is quite poorly sourced. This seem to me to be a problem but I don't know. ImTheIP (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreeing with User:ImTheIP: User:Dbernwies has made a poorly formatted conflict of interest disclosure on their talk page, which should be treated as a conflict of interest disclosure. An editor who has a conflict of interest should not be editing an article about which they have a conflict of interest. Moriah Films was properly accepted by neutral reviewers, and is now being edited by an editor who is not neutral. I suggest that we move this discussion to WP:ANI and request a partial block. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. scope_creep 12:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks fine. The references for the most part are decent. He has declared correctly on his user page. The draft has no chance being passed. I can't see what the problem is? scope_creep 13:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)

• Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• IOHKwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk:Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform)#Removing_'exaggeration' - I would like another admin to see if I am correct in my statements here, that IOHKwriter needs to make a COI declaration and pick a non-corporate name pronto. (IOHK is the company that runs the Cardano blockchain and its ADA cryptocurrency.) Their editing is undeclared paid COI editing. The editor has received notice that WP:GS/Crypto applies, and so should be assumed aware of the penalties available under it - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

'Their editing is undeclared paid COI editing'. My role is declared in the following places: On my user page; in what was probably my first Cardano-related post in January 2019; to the Numismatics group; on the WikiProject Cryptocurrency page; in conversations with Џ , David Gerard, the MagikCow, and various others. IOHKwriter (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The IOHKwriter name was chosen as a way of making it clear where I was coming from. On several occasions I have declared the concerns of potential bias on the English language version of Misplaced Pages, and the deletion of the Cardano page after discussion among a very small group, that led to this work. IOHKwriter (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You are not correct. From WP:ISU: "...usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc.". Since January 2019, the user's user-page has said "I am a writer working for IOHK, a blockchain development company", which meets our requirements for declaring both COI and paid editing. Their only edit predating that declaration seems unrelated to IOHK. I'm not an admin, but you don't need to be one to see these things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pigsonthewing: I posted this on the Cardano page and saw David had dragged this to the admin page so will comment here as well. I say the following as a casual observer of the Cardano page (as recent admin changes are prohibitive to any edits). In all fairness, surely David could also be perceived as having a conflict of interest. I couldn't help but notice David* has written a book against cryptocurrencies/blochains? Surely this is a conflict of interest when editing cryptocurrency pages? As long as IOHK is factual with good referencing, honest and doesn't push false information it doesn't seem to be an issue...Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think you can make an edits-based case based on WP:COI, then go for it - David Gerard (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(repost of my comment on the Cardano page) No, not at all - I think your edits are reasonable and useful so I sincerely thank you for that. Was merely pointing out that you seem to be in a similar situation to IOHK from a purely objective perspective that is all. IOHK should be judged upon their edits and merit - so far I can only see a well balanced attempt to remain objective and impartial having read some of IOHKs suggestions as sources are always provided. Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing, User:ASIA TOURIST and User:WIKIPAGEUSER

• WIKIPAGEUSER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ASIA TOURIST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WIKI's edits smelled a bit promotional, and the suspicion of socking was borne out real quick; both are now CU-blocked. Checking the histories will show overlap, and of course the exact same user page. This is unproblematic, but I am posting here to ping a couple of editors who have had suspicions here, and who might know of more such articles made by similar accounts--on Indian films and technology, for instance. So, here we go: Yamaguchi先生, Praxidicae, Passengerpigeon, Cabayi, Jimfbleak, Timtrent, Liz. I see now there was an SPI, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ASIA TOURIST/Archive, but the CU evidence right now leaves no doubt. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the BolsaOObsequios abuse pattern. MER-C 18:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, Thank you for the ping. Real life has interfered with my being online here much. I am here casually right now rather than solidly Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Timtrent, thanks for coming by and all the best to you. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Brigham Young University

• Bassknight(byu) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cstickel(byu) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orson Scott Card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the great grandson of BYU namesake Brigham Young
• Patrick Madden (essayist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a professor at BYU,
• Church Educational System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), parent organization of BYU
• Leonard J. Arrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) former BYU Professor
• Hugh_Nibley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) former BYU Professor
• Merrill Bradshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) successful BYU alumni
• Brian_Kershisnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) former BYU Professor
• David Dalton (violist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BYU Professor emeritus

These are three paid editors who have disclosed their status on their user pages, and even in their usernames, but aren't disclosing at the articles they create or edit. Rachel Helps according to her user page is the program coordinator; she was asked to also disclose and have her students disclose at article talks but has said she doesn't think it's necessary, and from a quick check of the most recent article creation of each, they aren't doing so.

They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable. But I do think they probably need to disclose at article talk, and since there's already been discussion at Rachels Helps' talk, I thought I'd bring it here and see if others had concerns. —valereee (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Should definitely be noted on the article talk pages. Other editors can add them with a ref to the disclosure. (I agree that they should be doing so themselves.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I would just like to echo what was said above by Valereee, @Bassknight(byu), Cstickel(byu), and Rachel Helps (BYU): are writing quality, well researched and sourced articles, which are neutrally written. They have added "BYU" to their sigs, perhaps a slight change to "Username (PE from BYU)" would solve the disclosure issue.   // Timothy :: talk  13:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  TimothyBlue, I don't think that solves the problem. The article talk pages need to note COI creations, not just the usernames. Usernames can change -- once these editors are no longer with BYU, will they prefer to change them? Readers and editors need to know the COI history of an article with something permanently in the article talk page history, IMO. —valereee (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light. You have yourself acknowledged that our edits are generally NPOV and well-researched. Maybe this is a discussion more relevant to paid editors in general? Why do you want to require that I and my students tag every talk page we edit when it isn't required? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Rachel Helps (BYU), I'm sorry to bring this up, it just concerns me when anyone is paid for editing without doing full disclosure (which means something permanently on the talk, IMO), and in this case, it could have the appearance of BYU paying people to edit in their own interest. It's not that I think you and your students aren't doing good work; I do. But whenever an entity pays someone to edit, it's concerning.

  I want this because it seems like a service to readers who investigate to easily find this information. Please know I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but may I flip the question: why do you want not to do this? It seems like a pretty minor addition to your/your students' workload to add a notification to a talk page: a person being paid by BYU created this article. Why would that be a big deal? —valereee (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee Like I mentioned on my talk page, it sets a precedent for other WiRs. Some WiRs don't edit Misplaced Pages itself, but some do. If there is consensus on Misplaced Pages for WiRs or paid editors to make talk page notifications, I will happily comply, but I don't want to let my people-pleasing desires make other people's jobs harder. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Rachel Helps (BYU), perhaps we can compromise: place the notice for articles which there's an apparent potential COI? For instance, A Little Lower Than the Angels (novel), Death in 19th-century Mormonism, I Don't Want to Kill You, etc. If there's no connection to BYU/Mormonism, no COI tag? —valereee (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee I'd prefer that you change the rules, which I would then comply with. "Strongly encourage" does not mean the same as "require." Why should my case be special? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Rachel Helps (BYU), it's not. I'd have the same concerns if Notre Dame hired editors to edit about ND alum/Catholicism. "Strongly encourage" means "Best practices." 3RR is a rule; 1RR is best practices: the best editors go to talk after the first revert rather than the third. BYU -- IMO, any academic institution -- should be striving for best practices, not minimum requirements. —valereee (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough. In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job. Are there very many editors who disclose a a COI on every page (or every page related to a religious institution) they edit? What do other editors who frequent COIN think? I confess that I've rarely seen other editors do this. I'm going on wikibreak next week but should respond to the discussion on Nov. 30th. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  No worries, no deadlines. :) —valereee (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Rachel Helps (BYU), if it helps assuage any concerns, I found my way to this discussion because I think I need to ask the same thing (disclose at least on related pages) of an editor affiliated with a non-religious institution of higher ed. So yes it does happen elsewhere/it’s not only about BYU. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee I've asked my students to create different accounts for their personal accounts and link them to their work account. After they stop working for me, I don't have any power to enforce my preference, but I hope that will assuage concerns about usernames changing in this specific instance. I feel like disclosing my paid library job on my userpage is sufficient to fulfill policy and ethical obligations, and I don't plan to change my username or userpage disclosures in the event of a change in job status. I have edited a non-trivial amount of pages that would require talkpage disclosures if I included all BYU alums and members of the LDS church. Honestly, the pages I feel a true "conflict of interest" on aren't those. I don't consider BYU professors to be my coworkers, let alone other church employees. There was a bit of a discussion when I discovered a copyright violation on the Harold B. Lee Library page and ended up rewriting the page. Two or three other editors edited the page to help me remove some peacock language that was a holdover from previous editing and to explore topics like banned media that I hadn't thought to research. Basically, I think the current system is working for catching potential COIs from me regarding my employer. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Rachel Helps (BYU), Bassknight(byu), and Cstickel(byu): the three of you are required to abide by the WMF terms of use. See WP:PAID: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." The terms of use also say: "community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" (bold added). You are being asked here to abide by WP:COI, including WP:COIDISCLOSE.The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work, and if you were writing about historical events and figures, it's unlikely there would be a problem. But you're not doing that. You're engaged in PR, writing about living people who are BYU staff and alumni, including creating articles. The COI is not (as you implied above) that you have a relationship with those people; it's that BYU has a relationship with them and is paying you. SarahSV 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm going to add something here. I hope it doesn't sound harsh.

  If other people are telling me ethically I should do something, and I’m reluctant to do it, but if someone else did it I wouldn’t object, maybe I should examine why I’m reluctant to do it myself. What exactly is my objection?

  I could go through all the articles created by BYU paid editors and insert a COI template for any that had a potential COI. That’s a lot of work for me because I have to first find, then investigate each article, assess it for its connection with BYU, etc. Oh, yep, the book this article is about…click to the author, yep, the author’s an alum, so yes, this book’s article should be tagged. Tag it. Why are you putting me through this when you knew when you created this article that the author was an alum and that was how you became interested in creating this article? You could have just tagged the talk page, done. Why would you object to doing that? It’s not a lot of extra work for you. It’s a work-saving for me.

  So as someone who wants to move the project forward, why object? To me, objecting to making this part of the normal operating procedure is a symptom of the underlying COI. A contributor who wouldn’t object to that addition as a problem, who isn’t being asked to do significant extra work to add it, but objected to adding it themselves, is maybe opening themselves to assumptions that they were hoping it never got added. Which inevitably means we have to ask: Why? Why would you be hoping this wouldn't be added? It’s troublesome. And I would have thought it would be troublesome to BYU, too.

  I reject the premise that this is “setting a precedent”. We examine each case on its own merits. The fact BYU voluntarily decided to do this would set no precedent other than to show what a best-practices approach would be. We have a strong tradition here of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So why not simply comply with the strong recommendations rather than requiring an actual rule? It’s so easy. Why not just do it? —valereee (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  SarahSV says: "The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work" That is a dreadful slur on Wikimedians in Residence; the community does not "turn a blind eye" (viz: "To ignore or deliberately overlook, especially with respect to something unpleasant or improper"), it positively and actively encourages Wikimedians in Residence; and the good work they do - and rightly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee, I know Rachel from the Orson Scott Card article. I peeked at a few of her contributions, and based on the most recent one, I don't see any COIs there. She edits BYU alumni and Mormon-related articles, so what? No COI with BYU itself. A COI is from a direct affiliation and not a tangential topic relationship. Elizium23 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Elizium23, it's paid editing. IMO this should be disclosed on talk. I know it isn't required, but it is recommended. It's fine if the community disagrees with me, but I think paid editing needs disclosure that can't go away. How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it? —valereee (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it? I concur. That's really a pretty cut and dried case - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The relevant section of WP:PAID, which is a Misplaced Pages policy, says: "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.". Note the use of "or", not "and". Also note that WP:CURATOR applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what David Gerard and Andy Mabbett have said. While BYU is a reputable and noteworthy subject, and the edits are being made in an NPOV way, the edits are nevertheless being made in clear violation of WP:PAID rules. It is disappointing that editor Rachel Helps (BYU) does not seem to accept the need to follow these rules when making even NPOV edits. She and other COI editors should simply disclose their PAID and/or COI relationship on the article talk page and make an open edit request. That would solve the problem. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I said; in fact it's directly contradictory to what I said, in which you will note, I quoted policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I fear there is a large disconnect between the (a) Wikipedians in Residence project and its participants and (b) editors concerned about conflicts of interest. More specifically, I fear that this editor's interpretation of the guidance that is provided to WiR participants is an accurate description of that guidance that says that WiRs are not subject to our COI policies and practices. I don't know if this has ever been addressed head on but it's a big problem that is only going to grow until a resolution is forced. ElKevbo (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been a Wikimedian in Residence several times (at more instiutions, I believe, than any other editor), and no-one has ever suggested to me, verbally or in written guidance, that "WiRs are not subject to our COI policies and practices". Quite the contrary, every WiR I have discussed the matter with has been clear that CoI is an issue that must be considered when undertaking the role. However, "our COI policies and practices" are not as limiting as some people (especially, but not only, on this page) either think or wish, or pretend, them to be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, re: I fear there is a large disconnect between the (a) Wikipedians in Residence project and its participants and (b) editors concerned about conflicts of interest. I agree and I don’t think it’s a new problem. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• No action needed - There is nothing in our policy that requires every page that has been edited with an "apparent potential COI" (whatever that means) to contain a declaration and we should absolutely not pursue this as a norm. I do not understand why Rachel Helps (BYU) is being singled out here and being treated unfairly by folks who are veterans and should know better. A disclosure by a possible COI editor is not a requirement as stated in the Terms of Use, as the TOU covers paid editing only and it provides for three different options for disclosure. Disclosure of "apparent potential COI" is not a best practice of the Wiki Education Foundation and the hundreds of classes and thousands of students it has supported over the years. This impractical and misguided dragnet taken to its logical extremes would make for talk pages megabytes long as people would need to declare apparent potential COI for their hometown, their alma mater, their relatives, their vacation spots, their favorite foods, their pet preferences, their phobias, their medical conditions, their dislike of horror movies, et al. With all due respect Valereee and other commenters here, stop the intimidation of Rachel Helps (BYU) and her peers for what you have already pointed out are productive and non-problematic behavior that operate within our policy. Paid editing does not automatically equate to problematic editing. Similarly, volunteer, unpaid editing is not all virtuous and pure, as we see from sports/scifi fandom, school alums editing the articles of their alma mater, and thousands of other edits we see everyday, especially from those of us on the front lines of Recent Changes patrol. This has the hallmarks of a solution looking for a problem that has very serious downsides and terrible cascading effects if implemented. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I work on a paid basis for The Metropolitan Museum of Art as a Wikimedia strategist and, as I have declared on my user page, I have made contributions to Wikidata, Commons, and Misplaced Pages related to content related to that institution, as well as developing documentation, best practices, training and software for the Wikimedia environment. I am open to any discussion or audit of any edits and contributions made with regard to my position as a Wikimedian in that paid capacity.)

I object to the characterization that anyone is being treated unfairly here by someone "who should know better". I object to the characterization that I am intimidating anyone. Students in classes are not being paid. I am not paid by my hometown or my phobias. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I agree completely with you that User:Rachel Helps (BYU) has fully disclosed this on her User page, fulfilling requirements of discloser for WP:PAID, especially considering editing related to GLAM. FULBERT (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, as far as I know, it isn't required that editors with a (potential) COI need to place {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}} themselves – you (or anyone else) can just do that yourself and link to a diff where the connection has been disclosed. Regarding the rest, I think it's generally a good thing to disclose paid/COI editing in as many places as possible, though I'm not sure we should make requiring talk page notices a matter of policy. Blablubbs 01:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs, yes, I know anyone can do so. And clearly we shouldn't even try to require every paid editor to template every article they create or add to; obviously there'd be vociferous objections just like we're seeing here. But I guess I kind of do feel it would be best practices for editors paid by cultural/educational institutions to do it voluntarily for any article they could be perceived to have a COI for. I guess I don't understand why there's such passion against doing something that seems like it represents the most transparent rather than simply doing the minimum required. Honestly I would think museums and universities would want to do this to make it absolutely clear that they're behaving ethically. I'm honestly kind of surprised that a place like BYU wouldn't make this a requirement all on their own. My general feeling about Mormons is that they work very hard to behave ethically. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I for one am not objecting to anyone making open and transparent disclosures; I'm objecting to you - or anyone else - pretending or implying that a certain form of disclosure are a requirement, when they are not; and I object very strongly to people who are acting in good faith and complying with all applicable policies being dragged to this noticeboard, which exists - as stated at its head - for cases where "you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality", and which should only be used - again, as stated at the top of the page - for issues "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, if there's a better place to discuss this, I'm happy to go there instead. I tried to figure out what would be a better place. I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions. I only want to discuss this issue. —valereee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What issue? You've been told that the policy you apparently thought applied, does not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue of whether paid editors editing articles for which they/their institution could be considered to have a COI even when they're completely free to decide what to edit/create. The issue of whether we need clarification on that. For BYU, I say articles about BYU and its faculty/alums and Mormonism could be considered to represent an apparent COI. For articles on Utah, probably not. For a museum, the museum itself and its staff, certainly, but probably not the items in its collections. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There is certainly merit to what Valereee is asking. The problem is that our policies are not entirely clear. There is a difference between what has been said about paid editing above (which has been properly disclosed on the user's page) and our WP:COI guideline, which says "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content." The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page. Following that intent, it certainly does make sense that a user would disclose a conflict on the talk page of the article in question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You're making the presumption that the editors listed above have a CoI in the articles in question. And again, the edits do not meet the requirements (as evidenced by "I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions") for a report on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Andy. This is a discussion noticeboard. Queries like Valereee's are entirely welcome, whether you like it or not. It says above that Rachel Help (BYU) is an employee of Brigham Young University. They would therefore have at least connected contributor status on these pages where they have edited:

• Orson Scott Card, the great grandson of her employer's namesake Brigham Young,
• Patrick Madden (essayist), a professor at BYU,
• Church Educational System, the parent organization of her employer, BYU.

I agree that Rachel Helps' contributions are very positive. That does not change the fact that she has an apparent COI in some articles that should be declared on the repective talk pages, per WP:COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I invite you to read and consider the large panel at the top of this page, headed "Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)" and including the part headed "Additional notes", which incudes the parts I quoted, has been there for a considerable time, and remains so by consensus. You are, of course, at liberty to raise an RfC to rewrite or remove it.

But thank you for confirming that the required "using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality" and "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period do not apply.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. The fact that one's contributions to an article are minor, uncontested and neutral do es not release one from the obligation to declare their connection on the article talk page. I've added a few more articles for which there is COI to the the list at top. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Obligation"? What was it I was saying about how "our COI policies and practices are not as limiting as some people (especially, but not only, on this page) either think or wish, or pretend, them to be"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel like I'm missing something here, but don't these accounts have the name of an institution in their WP:USERNAMEs, hence constituting WP:ORGNAME? This seems like a circumstance in which someone is going to be unable to get very firmly below the level of WP:APPARENTCOI.So, while it sounds like there's no cause for sanction or even criticism of the users themselves, it seems strange to me that what appears to be a suggestion that article talk pages be marked with possible-apparent-coi templates is getting indifference and pushback. (Or why anyone would be, at COIN of all places, acting as though APPARENTCOI and WP:POTENTIALCOI are anything other than familiar terms that not only appear in the COI guideline repeatedly but have their own shortcuts, and are hardly exclusive categories.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 23:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I think is the short answer. WP:ORGNAME was designed to prevent company or corporate branding or sponsoring. I think everybody in the know, knew that WP could be subverted by business types in the beginning and that was one way to to prevent it, by making identification easier. The majority of folk above are academics for the most part. Its a completely different domain. These are straight up folk. I don't think you can't get better. I think we should close this immediately. scope_creep 12:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There really was no need to shorten the answer to a two-paragraph comment down to just one word. WP:APPARENTCOI does not have an exception for "...unless you totally know that they're the super bestest people ever—in that case you should immediately shut down any discussion of COI." (Also, btw, paid editing policy was not here in the beginning; IIRC it was the product of more than a decade of work and debate in the community.)As our community experience has shown, even though it's important to keep an eye on where content is coming from, highlighting an apparent COI is not an accusation of terrible dishonor and malfeasance—it's simply a statement of fact, which is why I am bewildered by the Sturm und Drang over noting in article talk pages that declared paid editors with WP:ORGNAME usernames related to the article topic have edited... as Valereee notes, Usernames can change and WP:PAID declarations can be removed once the user is no longer an employee. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 08:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Rachel Helps (BYU), Bassknight(byu), and Cstickel(byu): I've added {{Connected contributor}} to Talk:Orson Scott Card. Please take a look to see how it's filled in. That should be added to any articles or drafts you're paid to work on (or that you regard as part of the compensation package you have with the university), including when you're active only on the talk page. Any articles you create can be taken through WP:AfC and you can use {{edit request}} for longer sections you want to add to articles; anything short and harmless can probably be done directly. Using the template makes disclosure pretty straightforward. There should also be something about your status on your user pages. Hope this helps. SarahSV 06:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As noted above, none of the things you ask for here are required. In particular, a recent proposal seeking to force WiRs and others to go though AfC when creating articles has failed to gain consensus (and rightly so). Suggesting {{edit request}} is facile, when reasonable requests can remain unanswered for several months. All of the users named above already have the appropriate declarations on their user pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• No action needed. She has met all requirements for COI and PAID. She's had a COI statement on her user page since January 2016, and a PAID notice since April 2016. She solicits feedback on her userpage from anyone who questions any edit she's made, at the same time acknowledging that she may have some biases that she can't see. SlimVirgin added a notice to the Card article on November 30. She's working with Barkeep49, a respected editor who apparently has no problems with what she's doing in the GAN. No one here has provided a diff showing even one problematic edit. Unless someone can provide evidence she's making bad edits, there's no reason for her to stop or limit her editing. As far as I can tell, she hasn't violated any of our policies and guidelines, and has made every effort to act above the board and completely within policy and guidelines here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How can you say she has made very effort to act within the COI guideline, when that is so manifestly false? If you want to nominate COI for deletion, please go ahead, because that's what this amounts to, that people can just do whatever they want. If that's the case, we can all look for paid-editing positions. See my response to you on Rachel's talk page and my post to her about some of the POV issues in the article. One reason having policies and guidelines is a good idea is that everything doesn't have to be discussed from first principles every single time it happens, with the enormous waste of other people's time that entails. SarahSV 22:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I suggest bringing up your concerns on the GAN. I've looked at your concerns, and they are really minor in comparison to how much the article has improved. Some of what you discuss there is even discussed already at the GAN, as well as reasons some things were done. It is not "manifestly false". Rather, you appear upset that she's not doing things the way you want them done. Card is a very controversial topic, and there are many ways things can be worded in the article. Take the concerns to the GAN so they can be discussed there. Rachel is working very well with Barkeep49 at addressing concerns he's brought up, and that seems a more productive place to discuss the issues with that article. As I wrote on her talk page, she's already jumped through all the hoops (COI and PAID disclosures). She's got not affiliation with Card beyond them both having attended the same university 40 years apart. She's shown over and over and over again that her edits are clearly within policy and guidelines, and she's shown a willingness to make changes if someone brings up a legitmate concern. How about trying to work with her on the GAN rather than wasting her time here? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly tangential?

Can anyone clue me in on why this issue is apparently seen as a major problem by Wikipedians in Residence? Or point me on where to look? For me, one institution/institution's participants voluntarily deciding to declare COI at potentially-perceivable-as-COI article talk doesn't seem like it "sets precedent" that other editors similarly paid by institutions would be therefore required to follow, but editors here who have been WiR are disagreeing. I'm not trying to fuck with WiR and similar programs here. What am I missing? —valereee (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that you're seeing a disagreement between those who believe that (a) a COI is inherently bad so declarations of a COI must therefore have a stigma and should thus only be used in circumstances where we believe that someone is "deserving" of bearing that stigma and (b) there is nothing inherently wrong with having a COI or declaring one. This doesn't ever appear to have been definitively worked out project-wide so disagreements continue to fester. I also suspect that many editors are not familiar with conflicts of interest in their personal or professional lives so they have a different view or little experience with this concept compared to editors who have some experience with the concept and how it's addressed in other contexts. The WiR project explicitly works with editors who are clearly connected with specific organizations so it's unsurprising that this broader lack of agreement and understanding directly impacts that project. ElKevbo (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, for the record, I often work with well-intentioned COI editors (am actually actively doing so now; just came from some of that work) and occasionally even straight-up work-for-hire editors. I don't like working with the work-for-hires much, but I'm quite sympathetic to well-intentioned COIs and don't consider them inherently bad. Thank you for the explanation of the disagreement. —valereee (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You have brought a group of good-faith users, who are, in your own words, "writing good, well-researched articles which appear... to be neutrally-written and -sourced", to a noticeboard which is for cases where "you are concerned that an editor ... is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality", and which should only be used for issues "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period, and having had that pointed out to you, you still want to know why anyone would see your actions as a "major problem"? Beats me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, and I'm doing it in good faith because I have a concern I think is valid and that maybe we should consider how to/whether to address. If BYU is hiring editors who write about BYU alums, which they are, they have an apparent or potential COI. I've offered to take this to a more appropriate forum. Maybe VP (Policy)? Maybe we need to tweak policy specifically for well-intentioned institutions that have hired well-intentioned writers to edit on topics that institution is connected to? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee: No, I think this is best handled here rather than at the Village Pump.Pigsonthewing: If we're going to split hairs about whether or not this is the board upon which notice concerning issues connected to conflict of interest ought to be discussed, then I would say yes in response to your last quote from the header: the editors in question have repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period; material which is not necessarily problematic due to their own actions—as it is not, so far, conclusively clear what multidimensional eigenpolicyguideline state would have previously held sway from the combination of, as ThatMontrealIP puts it, The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page—hence until this discussion is concluded in a consensus-establishing way, the problematicness of the material derives with certainty only from a confluence of external factors rather than from anything these editors have done.Overall, I share the sentiments valereee expresses above: ..I kind of do feel it would be best practices for editors paid by cultural/educational institutions to do it voluntarily for any article they could be perceived to have a COI for. I guess I don't understand why there's such passion against doing something that seems like it represents the most transparent rather than simply doing the minimum required. The simple matter of fact is that, the way the MediaWiki software and administrative processes presently work, as pointed out above, if at some future point a user page paid disclosure were to be removed for legitimate reasons, and the user name changed for likewise legitimate reasons, it would be very difficult to discover the apparent-COI connections to the material.I'll go a tad further than valereee though: while I don't think that a WP:PAID and/or WP:ORGNAME editor failing to place a talk page template COI notice on an article they've edited where an apparent COI could reasonably be said to exist, should be taken as prima facie evidence of the violation of any policy or guideline, I think it should be valid to regard failure to do so as an aggravating factor should concrete COI or substantial NPOV concerns arise. (Which, again, I have seen no evidence of in this particular case.) I mean, there's a reason why the basic {{uw-coi}} warning template advises the receiving user to simply avoid editing connected articles, and {{coi-stern}} says, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged (emphasis mine.)I'd also highlight that, although Scope creep made it sound as though paid editing and conflicts of interest are all about companies and brands and filthy capitalist lucre, which academics are above, in matter of fact there's a vintage 2004 essay Misplaced Pages:Avoid academic boosterism all about this kind of behavior in the noble Academy—also edited as recently as 63 weeks and 5 days ago, and with a specific talk page notice template, {{Academic booster}}, which grew out of it, though that doesn't appear to have gotten much use. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to raise an RfC to attempt to turn the fantasy version of policy you express above into reality, but this is not the place to do so, and pointing out that it is not reality is not "splitting hairs". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Defining the scope of any conflict

For me there is a qualitative difference between a WIR writing an article about someone else employed by their organization or about a department of their organization and someone more tangentially connected - for instance an alumni of a university. So in this instance I specifically bring up Orson Scott Card which I'm interested in as I'm currently doing a GA review of that article. There's been a second claim of a COI for Rachel which is that BYU, which she works for, is named after Card's great-great-grandfather; that's way too indirect for me. However, to the extent that there is a COI do Alumni for a sponsoring organization qualify? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep, it makes no difference whether it's staff or alumni or anyone else. The issue is that Rachel is doing PR on behalf of BLP subjects at the request of an organization that is paying her to do it. That means WP:PAID and WP:COI apply. There are also POV issues with the Card article. I'm about to leave a note about this for her. I'll ping you when I do. SarahSV 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedians-in-Residents have generally been considered, in my experience, to be considered mission aligned with Misplaced Pages. This is certainly my view on them. You seem to be suggesting that there's no way for a WiR to write, without declaring a COI, about any BLP. I'm not quite there myself. This is why I wanted to have a specific discussion about the potential of alumni. I get from your POV that alumni aren't OK because no BLP would be OK but I'm not sure myself how widely that view is held and hence why I started this more focused subsection. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused about the argument here. Wikipedians-in-Residents are mission aligned when doing mission-aligned work for mission-aligned organizations. Being paid to do PR on behalf of a living science-fiction writer by the university he attended isn't remotely mission aligned. The argument seems to be that if the BLP subject were to pay for the editing himself, COI and PAID would apply, but if someone else pays, the policies and guidelines somehow don't apply. SarahSV 19:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. So if someone at BYU were to edit Shannon Hale, to pick another Latter-Day Saint young adult author, would you have the same concerns? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

For me the concern is whether, unintentionally but because of their inherent COI, a well-intentioned paid editor will focus on some things and not on others, and that this can affect the article. If the COI is disclosed at article talk, other editors know they should be aware they may need to assess that. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, WP:NOPAY currently says that editors are strongly discouraged from editing directly. (When I last checked, that said "very strongly discouraged", so someone has changed the guideline.) Paid editors should put new articles through WP:AfC unless it really is "mission aligned" (e.g. writing about ancient Egypt based on access to a museum or library archive), or post it on talk for other editors to judge. The paid promotion of living people is unlikely ever to be mission-aligned work. SarahSV 19:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Connected contributor: Br Ibrahim john

• Br Ibrahim john (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• This user has disclosed his membership in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, and evidence indicates that he is a monk or member of the clergy in this church. The Indian Orthodox/Catholic Churches have been ground zero for a good deal of disruption, partisanship, and especially WP:COI with some seminary professors and perhaps even a few bishops getting involved in their own topic areas.
• Question: if he is a professed religious or cleric, is he considered a "paid contributor"?
• Appeal: More eyeballs, opinions, and admonishments are welcome according to the needs of this situation. It is rather lonely sometimes in this topic area, against the sockpuppets. Elizium23 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • CU speaking here; can't judge any other issues now. They are also on a range that Callanecc blocked in May for disruptive editing, but I don't see much evidence of socking here. I know you weren't asking about that anyway, Elizium, but it was something that I thought might make sense in this area. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not a Religious brother or cleric in any religious institution. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 1:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I withdraw my accusation because BIJ's recent comments have clearly proven he could not be clergy or religious, just another layman. Elizium23 (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

CHUM (AM)

• CHUM (AM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TSNMacDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"TSNMacDonald" has edited only CHUM (AM) (also called "TSN") and OverDrive (radio show), a show on TSN. All edits are unsourced, and TSNMacDonald has started edit warring to add non-notable, unsourced names to the "notable staff" list (what this editor calls a "talent list"). Removed this criticism of the radio station, and removed a different negative comment about the station four times: . Left this message on my talk page saying: "I am not paid for my editing. Erroneous information and unnecessary edits to the page have been put in place. Cease and desist on what you're doing." Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Good point--thank you. The user may explain on their talk page whether they see any way forward here. I blocked not just because of the pretty blatant COI, but also for their edit warring, uncollegiality, inclusion of unverified information (including BLP information), and whitewashing of critical content. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Another spam solicitation

I received another spam email today asserting that I was "Now Eligible for Misplaced Pages Profile". I didn't click the link, but the root domain is http://us21.besteml.com/, although this appears to be a parking spot. The email was signed (obviously facetiously):

Edward Snowden

Misplaced Pages Consultant

9049 Hilpert Stream Lake

Deshawnbury, GA

There doesn't appear to be a Deshawnbury, GA, so the trail runs cold there. BD2412 T 21:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Hilpert Stream Lake" is obviously not a real street address, either. Probably expecting the mark to mentally autocorrect? —A little blue Bori v^_^v 03:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hayford Peirce

Hayford Peirce ie. User:Hayford Peirce (newly deceased) also wrote the articles Napoleon Disentimed, Dinosaur Park (novel) ie. books by Hayford Peirce. There could more to it as they were an active 16 year editor with proficiency in multiple languages. -- GreenC 16:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Peralta Community College District

• Peralta Community College District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jmlatimer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jmlatimer has admitted to being employed by the subject, specifically in communication multiple times. He or she has been asked to not edit the article but continues to do so by adding material that appears to promote the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Admitted"? Or do you mean "openly declared, in accordance with our policies"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This user has disclosed their COI, but continues to edit the article extensively, well beyond what is considered appropriate under WP:COI editing. The editor should cease direct edits to the page and use COI edit requests through the article talk page. Other interested editors should also review the user’s recent edits to the article, which stray into the territory of WP:Puffery, WP:DUE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NPOV concerns. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

MWellmann

• MWellmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daria S. Ustinova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emily Escobedo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Matthew Richards (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chris Reid (swimmer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor User:MWellmann has created multiple articles on swimmers associated with the New York Breakers team in the International Swimming League. These articles have been tagged for A7 by User:John B123 and other reviewers. MWellmann has then replied: 'I don't quite understand why it should be deleted. The International Swimming League requests Misplaced Pages pages for every athlete on the league. The athletes are named on their Misplaced Pages Page and I just created one for Matthew Richards with a reference to the ISL Global page. Best, Maike' (and mutatis mutandis . This is not how Misplaced Pages works, and appears to be a statement of a conflict of interest, but not in the proper form.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Included at the head of this page is the notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". Please can you link to the relevant discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dragon Group

• Dragon Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dragon Sweater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mqsobhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently edited the article for Dragon Group when I came across the old versions of the article edited by User:Mqsobhan. Check for example this version:

• "The Group's Chairman is widely known as the Father of Bangladesh's sweater industry."
• "The group is among the world's largest sweater suppliers and is the largest sweater industry in south and southeast Asia."
• " which produces most supple and excellent yarns and the quality is among the best in South And South east Asia ."

All unsourced. The account also created an article for Dragon Sweater, a subsidiary of Dragon Group, with some sentences the same word-for-word. The connection of the editor to the group can be checked fairly easily by reading the article itself. The article has been nominated for deletion before, but I think its now in a state worth keeping. However, I'm not familiar with CoI and so unsure what to do with User:Mqsobhan. I've notified him of the potential CoI on his talk page, but got no reply. His last edit was in 2016. Zarasophos (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Zarasophos, no trace of those edits is left in the article and the editor has not edited in four years, as you note. Your note here and on the user talk page serve to note the potential COI, but your diligence was probably unnecessary. Admin action is preventative, so no action is needed. Fences&Windows 00:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! Just to make sure, this is in fact a case of CoI editing, right? And while I agree that it's unlikely the user will cause any further harm, I'd like to note that the account already returned from a long hiatus once (from 2009 to 2016). It's also true that there's no trace of its editing left now, but that's only after my recent rewrite of the article - until then, most of the article was left as written, since Bangladesh hardly gets any attention. Thanks again! Zarasophos (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Tedder

• Tedder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Profile Defenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like Tedder is a paid editor and has a vendetta against a company Tedder is attacking due to a non-payment to Tedder for paid edits to their page that is up for deletion. It was written about on their website warning others about Tedder's paid service: https://profiledefenders.com/blog/that-time-wikipedia-editor-tedder-offered-us-paid-wikipedia-editing-services/. Eric Carr (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You They could have at least _pretended_ to have some proof. That's some piss-poor blogging. Can I suggest centralizing this discussion at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jilljoejack? tedder (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You could at least pretend not to be a paid editor geesh If you're going to send out emails offering to make wikipedia pages and edits for people you shouldn't be here. Go fish elsewhere Trumper Eric Carr (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, publish your proof. There isn't any now. tedder (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Evelyn Knight (singer)

• Evelyn Knight (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 40serasongstress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account (formerly User:KnightFamily) is the self-declared offspring of 40s-era songstress Evelyn Knight. They are protective and a bit belligerent, with quite a lot of ownership in the mom's article. Orange Mike | Talk 03:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Included at the head of this page is the notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". Please can you link to the relevant discussion? Also, I note that 40serasongstress is currently blocked; by you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The name-block has been removed. The relevant discussions can be found at User talk:40serasongstress, at Talk:Evelyn Knight, and at Talk:Evelyn Knight (singer). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Not so. There are no discussions on either of the latter two pages. On the other hand, there are seventeen discussion sections on the former page. Please be explicit, and link to the specific discussions which meet the above criterion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Try User talk:40serasongstress#Your edits on Evelyn Knight should have been made at Evelyn Knight(singer) and User talk:40serasongstress#File:Evelyn knight & friends.jpg listed for discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Neither of those sections in any way constitutes an "attempt... to resolve the issue". So I ask again: please link to where such disucussion took place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I'm not sure what the point of this side-discussion is. Orangemike has opened this thread in good faith and notified the user in question. Many discussions will benefit from outside input. I don't see a need for anyone to guard the gates of COIN, so to speak: If those who are interested in discussing the substance of cases brought here feel that they are premature, they will say so. Blablubbs|talk 23:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In other circumstances, it would be amusing to be told, on the page where Misplaced Pages's most vociferous gatekeepers gather, that gatekeeping is not necessary. I think my questions - far from being a "side-discussion" - are both clear and relevant, and that the page's requirements which I quoted are equally if not more clear. Also clear is the fact that I am interested in discussing the substance of cases brought here and that I feel that it has become apparent that this one is premature. Your apparent assumption that COIN is a venue which a novice user might find a congenial place to discuss their edits is a massive one, and at best naive; I imagine most people brought here without knowledge of Misplaced Pages would run a mile, once they see the hostile tone often displayed. But in this case this is academic, as one again the relative of an article subject is blocked, without there being any apparent attempt to welcome and discuss matters with them in a collegial and good-faith-assuming manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing,

1. Nobody else here seems to think this is premature
2. It's not a block, its a page block. They cannot edit those specific pages. They are free to continue the discussion if they're genuinely interested.
3. As per Blablubbs, you don't need to guard the gates of COIN. Other users are interested in continuing the conversation without you if that's how you wish to handle things.
4. This was an editor that admitted to SEO. There's a point at which their edits are no longer in good faith, and violate our trust. That is, in fact, what this notice board is for. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 11:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And there's the problem in a nutshell; you bandy about a trigger phrase like "SEO", as though a family member trying to ensure the legacy of their mother is acknowledged is the same as a black-hat agency trying to manipulate Google on behalf of a nefarious client. And if you look at the suposed SEO edit, its not SEO related at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I am aware of the contents of the edit. I'm not stupid. I understand their intent, it's never-the-less content for this noticeboard, worthy of discussion, and also good use of a pblock. The editor should be using edit requests and talking with us as is standard. This has been an ongoing issue for several years, admitted COI, and stuff like this is rather problematic.

I don't see any issue with this thread, and at some point we need to enforce standard channels.

And again, admitting to SEO is not exactly a great look. The point is the edit description, not the contents of it. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Orangemike, after looking at their history (thirteen years of this!), I've pblocked them from Evelyn Knight (singer) (and Evelyn Knight for good measure) due to their ongoing COI editing, ownership, and the fact that their recent edit summaries outright admit that they're trying to SEO. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sam Sloan

• Sam Sloan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sa57arc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sam Sloan is an article that seems to have had various issue with its content going back years. A few weeks ago, a new editor Sa57arc showed up and has been working the article pretty much non-stop ever since. Lots of the edits seem OK and might be considered improvements, but there's also lots of content being added to the article that's unsourced/questionably sourced or otherwise has BLP problems. The editor has been engaging in discussion on the article's talk page, but some of the content being added is giving the impression of at least a WP:APPARENTCOI and the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this. I've also asked about this at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN as well as on talk pages of various WikiProjects, but I think it would be good for even more people to look at it as well. The subject of the article was blocked back in 2008 for NLT reasons and there have been lots of IP editors of it over the years. Looking at some of the edits made to the article over the years (like this one from 2013), there might have been some family members or friends editing the article. I'm not sure whether this latest burst of editing to the article (394 and counting since November 15) is related to anything like that, but perhaps some others could take a look and assess things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Included at the head of this page is the notice: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". You say "the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this"; please can you link to, and quote specifically, the relevant queries? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

​The first time I queried Sa57arc was in this post and the response was this. The next time I asked was here and the response was this. The third time I asked about this was in this post and the response was this. Perhaps it would've been better if I had been more direct with my inquiries about this the first two times, but I tried to broach the subject without it seeming as if I was attacking the other editor. Anyway, another editor (Wallyfromdilbert) asked basically the same thing here and got this response, which is fine. However, when Wallyfromdilbert asked for further clarification here, he got this response. That led to this which has yet to be responded to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In your OP you say "the editor hasn't responded to any queries about this", and yet in your latest you list three responses. I also note that the first mention of CoI on Sa57arc's talk page was the notification of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sa57arc posted "responses" to my queries in the sense that they posted something, but their responses didn't really answer the question of whether they had any connection to Sloan. As I posted above, perhaps the fault is mine in that I should've been more direct and simply asked whether they are Sam Sloan or whether they have any connection to him in a separate post instead of mixing it in with other comments. Anyway, if you and others feel there's no cause for concern, then that's OK by me. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am also concerned by the editor's repeated refusal to state whether they have a personal or professional relationship with the Sam Sloan. I have asked directly multiple times, including now for a second time on their talk page, and have received no response other than a single "I am not Sam Sloan". Give that this person is aware of obscure, unsourced details of Sloan's life and has said that they intend to email Sloan personally, I don't think the concern is unfounded, especially given how much the editor keeps trying to puff up the article with OR or trivial nonsense. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that Sam Sloan has had a alleged history of others putting him in a negative light. This revisit of past drama very well may be an extension of old grudges. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I edited the Sloan article a few years back, but it was still on my watchlist when this post was made to the article's talk page. I responded in good faith and wasn't aware of any off-Misplaced Pages issues that Sloan might've had with others regarding content about him on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else. Anyway, my only main concern is whether the article content is in accordance with BLP; the APPARENTCOI concerns I raised above only have to do with the detail of some of the content being added, especially since it's not being supported by reliable sources. If these concerns aren't shared by others, then I'm not going to belabor the point. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I do share the concerns that Marchjuly has given the seemingly non-public knowledge that the editor has about the article subject, their statement about emailing Sloan, and their repeated attempts to puff up the article about him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Neste

• Neste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jjanhone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A paid editor have made massive edits in last weeks. While some of edits are useful, some others are clearly promotional and also some critical information was removed. Therefore those edits needs checking for neutrality. Beagel (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The red-texted header at the top of this page (and when you're editing it) says that you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion here. I have done so for you. - DoubleCross (‡) 19:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've edited the Neste article in Finnish which was then translated to English and I've added the text here and I'm happy to get improvement ideas or feedback about the page. Should we discuss about the edits here or on the article's talk page? I've removed stuff from Neste's own releases, and replaced links to WWF's and Greenpeace's releases and added a media source instead of them. It was a bit hard to edit the page as Beagel kept removing stuff before I had had time to make the whole picture clear. So the article is not what I had in mind in the first place. See the Finnish article with help of translator and see if it is ok or not. I've used mainly notable media sources on the article. Jjanhone (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Jjanhone, if you're being paid to edit you generally should make specific edit requests on the article's talk page using the {{request edit}} template (and disclosing that you are paid to edit the article). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See my talk page for a long discussion we had about my paid editing on October 2020 on admins' noticeboard. I think I got permission to continue editing then. I added 33,854 characters to Neste's article so if I proceeded with request edits it would be very complicated IMHO. If you know a good process who to do it please tell me! 16,161 characters (about 48 %) are still live. The content is translated from the Finnish Misplaced Pages article and as we've been using notable media sources it should be ok so I see no reason why they would not be ok for English Misplaced Pages as well. Jjanhone (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jjanhone. It might be a good idea for you to replace the AN comments you copied and pasted onto your talk page with a link to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325#Blocking a paid Misplaced Pages editor or maybe clarify things a bit by using a template such as {{talk quote}}. The way you added that content makes it seem (at least at first glance) that each one of those editors posted their comment on your user talk page and not as part of a discussion on some other page. This is a bit misleading and might even be a problem per WP:CWW.As for WP:PAID, each Misplaced Pages project is different with their own respective communities. Perhaps the Finnish Misplaced Pages community is a bit more tolerant of PAID editing, but many on English Misplaced Pages are quite suspicious of it. That's probably why PAID editors on English Misplaced Pages are encouraged to use article talk pages to make WP:ERs except for really uncontroversial edits. In principle, a PAID editor should be OK as long as they adhere to relevant policies and guidelines even when they directly edit articles themselves, but big changes or additions tend to be seen (perhaps unfairly) by many as not a good thing. Have you tried following WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement? Perhaps that would be one way to gain the trust of others. If you can establish to others that your edits are not a problem because you're PAID, then perhaps they might be willing to cut you some more slack after a little time has passed. Is there some reason why you need to be the one who makes the changes you want to make? Are you working under some kind of time constraints that make edit requests not very practical? While it's true that WP:SILENCE applies to us all, even someone without a COI or PAID issue would be expected to use the talk page if someone at some point felt discussion was warranted and challenged the edits that were made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly and thank you for your answer, tips and ideas! Seems that I keep learning new things after over 10 years of active editing and over 15,000 edits. :) I've now corrected the link to the Admins' board archive and added talk quotes. I'm a soloentrepreneur so my time is very limited, and that's why I'm selling editing services based on time. If I started charging about the discussions with other Misplaced Pages editors that would be out of the understanding of my customers and also difficult to measure. If I needed to wait for answers for months it would just not work – as Wikipedians are volunteers I cannot push them answer right away. I try to start proper discussions on Neste's Talk page soon about the content that should be changed so I'm thankful if some of the people following this board would come and evaluate the situation.Jjanhone (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ruth Williams Cupp

• Ruth Williams Cupp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Remember (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Amakuru suggested I post here (after User:Yoninah suggested I talk with Amakuru) on Conflict of Interest issue. I created the article Ruth Williams Cupp and I am trying to get the article up to DYK status to be posted on December 16. However, I have a conflict of interest on the article since I knew the subject and her family. I wanted to clean up any COI issues before the DYK date (if that is possible). If you have any advice or suggestions regarding how to resolve this issue, I would love to hear them. Remember (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Robbie Blackwell

• Robbie Blackwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Robbie Blackwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Robbie Blackwell has repeatedly created unsourced autobiographies of themself. They don't appear to have responded to any of the many warnings or speedy deletion templates. There was an IP editor, who I can estimate is probably Robbie Blackwell themself who had simply logged out, who has removed the speedy deletion tag from the most recent article. In full disclosure, I restored it in a somewhat |"ignore the rules" fashion (technically, only article creators are disallowed from removing CSD tags).I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

​ noting that the user in question has now been blocked. Blablubbs|talk 12:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

National Pension System

• National Pension System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ankita3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears that the editor linked above is inserting links to a company they may be associated with. They were warned and edits were reverted in the past but the action persists with their latest edits Vikram Vincent 11:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Vincentvikram, it looks kind of suspicious to me too (though Google indicates that the website they're replacing rebranded or something). I've asked them very directly on their talk page, please let me know if they keep editing without answering. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

G Fuel

• G Fuel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GFUEL212121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the article G Fuel a new account with 'GFUEL' in its username removed the word 'caffeinated' from two sentences. There seems to be some controversy(?) over said caffeination. This seems suspicious, though there's not enough evidence to say that they're definitively paid. What do you guys think? MuBoSko (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

MuBoSko I'm just curious that your account was created 8 hours ago and you are already reporting COI. That's fast learning :-) Vikram Vincent 04:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vincentvikram I actually have another account, but even that one is relatively new- I just use the name of my other account elsewhere, so I wanted to make a 'safe' account for reverting vandalism in case I get anyone mad at me and they want to follow me off the site. That's pretty off-topic, though. I hope I replied to this correctly, it's my first time using a talk page. MuBoSko (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

MuBoSko Oh cool! I assume you are already familiar with Template:User_alternative_account_name but sharing it if you are not. Best! Vikram Vincent 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vincentvikram Thanks, I haven't seen that specific userbox before (or maybe I have and I just don't remember it). That said, I think putting the name of the main account on this one's userpage would sort of defeat the purpose of having this one, but I found a similar box that I'll be using now. Thank you, and if you want to reply to this it's better to do it on my talk page. Additional edit: if necessary I can contact a checkuser and verify the other account? MuBoSko (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

So I've put a uw-coi msg on the user talk page. I suppose if they continue editing the article then the matter could be escalated. PS: MuBoSko When you create a report on any of the discussion forums, it is important to notify the said editor(which I have done now). Vikram Vincent 10:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Vincentvikram Thank you, I’ll do that in the future. Is there a template I could/should copy and paste, or will anything letting them know work? MuBoSko (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

MuBoSko Have a look at Category:Wikipedia_behavioral_guidelines. Each category will link to specific templates. Best! Vikram Vincent 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"Edits not authorised by company owner"

• WCPWowner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Windy City Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• page history

Edit summaries and lack of response to October COI notice slightly concerning. I would've reverted some of the edits but some of the content before also seems problematic, though some of the removals are as well (removing critical language). A lot of it is also unsourced, before and after. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits and tagged the artcile as needing more sources. I've also reverted the blanking of talk page discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And I have blocked WCPWowner from editing the article (not from the talkpage, but that may follow if they continue to disrupt it). I have told the user they may be unblocked once they comply with the terms of use. Bishonen | tålk 11:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC).

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages conflict of interest editing