Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Andrew Ousley and Andrea Baccarelli[edit]

Both were created by a UPE. Need an independent review so they comply with BLP policy.

User:CressidaA[edit]

The editing pattern smells strongly of single purpose account that is part of a paid and/or connected contribution possibly working for public relations firm or working through Upwork or the like. Their editing habit is clearly not a new user just starting out. It's not natural to start their edit with adding rosy contents into multiple articles in companies and people category half an hour after creating one's account. Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That article's had editing from the firm itself and other COI editing issues for a while. Special:Contributions/38.140.62.138 active just a couple of months ago geolocates to guess who? ☆ Bri (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an incorrect assumption. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits to any of the firms or individuals listed, nor is there any conflict of interest. No relationship exists between the companies / individuals and myself. I am simply interested in art and architecture, and follow the local awards landscape. CressidaA (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CressidaA:, @Bri:, CressidaA, there was an appearance that your edits may potentially be COI. You denied on talk page that you do not COI. So, further discussion is brought here for the community to determine if they have further input. As for removal of contents, it is reasonable to remove awards when it reads such and such received Award X where the cited reference is the organization that gave the award. Verifiability of the contents added is mandatory; but this does not mean that anything and everything that you can verify should be included into an article. When there is a disagreement, per the guideline WP:ONUS, editor seeking to include the content has the burden to establish consensus in favor of inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bri:, and they continue to disregard the policy WP:ONUS and continue to re-add disputed contents. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this board is visited by admins much anymore. You might have better luck at WP:ANI but beware that you are also one edit away from 3RR on ZGF Architects if my counting is right. Look out for WP:BOOMERANG which sometimes is the outcome of the noticeboards, if you are also doing something against the rules. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bri @Graywalls' talk page is full of claims that the user habitually makes unjustified and retaliatory edits across a broad spectrum of subjects. This, in addition to a long history of unfounded COI accusations. Most people seem genuinely confounded by Graywall's conduct and suspect an inappropriate agenda. User is certainly a good candidate at this point for being at the receiving end of a WP: BOOMERANG. I say this because it seems as if Graywalls is becoming an impediment to well-sourced, factual information dissemination, forcing users to retroactively and pointlessly defend their legitimate edits. This is not an efficient way to edit, nor is it in the spirit of Wikipedia's objectives. (CressidaA (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Editors who deal with COI and other sorts of promotional editing will have a lot of complaints on their talk page. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with anti-promotional efforts, it just means promotional editors complain a lot. Graywalls is a valuable editor here. It is natural to be a bit frustrated when you are in conflict with someone, but expressing that frustration through personal attacks as you have here is not acceptable. MrOllie (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Graywalls "Further discussion is brought here for the community to determine if they have further input."... It seems as if no one has further input about your allegations of COI, so I am requesting that the erroneous accusations are retracted and the matter is settled. (CressidaA (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
If the user maintains that there is no COI, then it seems difficult to assert otherwise. That being said, the edits are indeed that which you would expect from an employee or other connected individual. At the very least, CressidaA, you should keep in mind that the editing pattern you displayed so far does indeed ring alarm bells — most users do not dive right into adding obscure awards etc. to companies' pages, such as in Special:Diff/1132028958. Would you mind explaining what previous experience you have had with Wikipedia, if any, and what drew you to focus on specific architecture firms and architects? That may help provide a clearer picture. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhinyTheYounger I follow the art and architecture awards landscape closely, and I feel I have something to contribute. The awards I cited may seem "obscure" to those who don't follow architecture, but they are notable and very relevant to those who do. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and this is a way that I felt I could be useful -- I think that adding awards and new notable projects is a good way to round out a firm's history and identity. I was planning to make edits across a wider spectrum of arts organizations and firms, which undoubtedly would have consisted of more than listing awards, but I was immediately flagged by @Graywalls and have not wanted to spend time making edits only to have them immediately reversed. I would like to get to the bottom of this so that I (and @Graywalls) can move on -- I would welcome some guidance on how I can stop these confusing personal attacks. Thanks. (CressidaA (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
CressidaA, if the awards are notable, then where is the independent coverage of the award being issued? If no one else is independently discussing the award, then neither should Wikipedia. "Obscure" is not an exception to that. So the best way to move forward is to locate secondary sources, otherwise chances are the edits will be reverted again. Slywriter (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Independent coverage cited. Issue should be resolved now. Thanks for your feedback, @Slywriter (CressidaA (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
@CressidaA:, I also addressed with you that verifiability is obligatory, but verifiable isn't entitlement to inclusion and when there is dispute, WP:ONUS defers inclusion until consensus is achieved in favor of inclusion and the editor seeking to include it is responsible for getting consensus. This means that it falls on you to start discussions in talk pages, start a WP:3PO, or WP:RFC to achieve consensus. Despite this, you have not been unwilling to go along with this. Graywalls (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you then for desiring to contribute to Wikipedia, and I'm sorry you've got caught up in a bit of a snafu. What is notable and worthy of inclusion for a field or industry is not always so for Wikipedia. By way of analogy, we tend to avoid listing individuals' honorary degrees, even from prestigious institutions. Whether or not the regional chapter of a certain industry group's awards fall into the "worthy of inclusion" category is up for debate, debate that should take place on the talk page when someone reverts your edits.
COI editing is a huge problem here and it degrades the quality of our project while taking huge amounts of effort to combat, so please try to understand why many editors are rather pointed about it, even if it comes off as accusatory. I might gently suggest taking some time to edit other architecture related items (or anything that interests you) to better understand the various norms around editing and help establish bona fides as someone who is interested in building an encyclopedia here. You're more than welcome to continue noting awards, too, but I'd advise being very sure that the awards are notable (a good rule of thumb is if the organization, or even better, the award, has a Wikipedia article itself) and cited to independent, secondary sources. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phillips Academy[edit]

IP is registered to Phillips Academy. However, these IPs (which are the same) are engaged in an edit war in which they want to blank the section "The Phillips Academy Poll" and replace it with a redlink to "The Alex Shieh Center for Gender Studies" for the sake of "relevance". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a bunch more IPs in the 198.140.203.x range editing the article. SVTCobra 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to just be a case of some kids making a joke about their classmate—albeit with the unusual twist that their classmate has significant RS coverage while still in high school. I would handle as routine vandalism, p-block the /24 if necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been a long-running edit war on the Phillips Academy article around the Phillips Academy Poll content. It is likely to continue until COI issues are addressed.

The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phillips Academy Poll was to merge it to Phillips Academy. That lasted about 6 months, until NCD2004, who has an undeclared conflict of interest, figured no one was watching. It may also be useful to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pallster/Archive. Round and rounder (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I re-redirected the poll to the school, per the AFD. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi DMacks, I undid your edit your edit to The Phillips Academy Poll, as the org has received significant, independent media coverage since the merge. As mentioned above, there has been a lot of vandalism recently on the Phillips Academy/The Phillips Academy Poll wiki pages, including the edit war mentioned by @Aaron Liu (see: Talk:Phillips Academy#Alex Shieh Center Controversy), where a Phillips Academy-based IP was blanking the Phillips Academy Poll section of the article and adding unsourced material about the Alex Shieh Center. I noticed that @Round and rounder’s account was created yesterday (possibly to evade the semi-protection), and has been engaging in similar behavior by trying to delete Phillips Academy Poll related content, as Alex Shieh has been verified to be one of the poll's founders and leaders. All of @Round and rounder's contributions pertain to this one specific topic, suggesting it is a single-purpose account. Nicholas D. (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NCD2004 Hi, Nicholas. I have never edited either article and I have no conflict of interest with either subject. You and TheLonelyPather, on the other hand, have not declared your conflicts of interest. Would you care to do that now? Round and rounder (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My take is that the pages should be protected and disruptive accounts blocked... However looking at The Phillips Academy Poll it does appear to have received significant coverage since the last AfD and thus a new AfD or merge discussion would be required. Also looks like it might pass WP:GNG this time around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can confirm that many students at Phillips Academy use its IPs to edit Wikipedia and it is not uncommon for inside jokes to spread here. 198.140.203.135 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with Horse Eye's Back for the reasons he listed. Perhaps a merge discussion should be started on the talk page. 198.140.203.141 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Rounder and rounder,
I have declared a COI on my user page, using the {{UserboxCOI}} template. I think my issue is addressed. TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheLonelyPather Thank you. I appreciate your honesty and I hope NCD2004 will do the same. Round and rounder (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi. No, the proper course of action, as per normal processes is for the article to be created in AfC after such a recent AfD, and go through the AfC process. Especially in light of the COI issue. Onel5969 TT me 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Onel5969,
    I do not intend to create any articles related to the Phillips Academy Poll at this point. Thanks for mentioning this for other folks who may want to create such article. TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DMacks: It might be worth considering a range block of Phillips Academy IPs (User:198.140.203.0/24). It doesn't look like there are any productive edits coming out of that range. Round and rounder (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's too early for that. You can't block an entire school just because some of its students are doing disruptive stuff. And there are clearly useful contribs from this range. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to second the opinion of Aaron Liu. It seems that the faculty of Phillips Academy uses Wikipedia to teach and host activities. Please see this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Phillips Academy 2021. TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arthur Graaff / webnetprof[edit]

It has been claimed that the editor who created this article has a conflict of interest Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Graaff, while the IP user didn't exactly behave well (editing the article with their accusations, and some defamatory comments, [1] rather than coming here to discuss it), I think there's some evidence from the NL wikipedia that there is a COI in this case [2] (From an IP user blocked as a sock, so I don't think I'm 'outting' anyone that hasn't outted themselves).

The user has replied to a COI notice with a very un-reassuring response (I read this as implying there is a COI but they will somehow "manage it because they're an author so they know how to" User_talk:Webnetprof#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest). I have to say that as the subject is an anti-fascist, I am very worried about accidentally furthering the agenda of people who may want to discredit his work; but I do think this needs investigating further. JeffUK 10:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello JeffUK,,
thank for your concerns, they seem realistic enough. It is a fact of life that anti-fascists are not received everywhere with great enthusiasm. I have no great experience in handling that kind of situation on WP.
Please see some more remarks here: User talk:Webnetprof.
Thanks
Webnetprof (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Arthur Graaff was originally written by user Webnetprof who has admitted he is Arthur Graaff on this Wikipedia. I have made several edits, correcting and removing things that had source references that did not support the article text. Several of these have since been undone by Webnetprof, even AFTER the above confirmation that he has read the COI rules. I don't want to get involved in edit war, nor do I want to spend the time on this article that is full of lies, exaggerations, half-truths, and fantasies. Advice on how to proceed is welcome. Wammes Waggel (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have submitted the article for deletion [3]. I don't see it as salveageable, given the apparent large-scale falsification of sources and misstatements of fact. - Who is John Galt? 02:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user: Morbidthoughts[edit]

I informed user Morbidthoughts about the following. They completely ignored everything put before them and made a veiled accusation about me. As such I'm hoping for someone to help mediate.

Below is the public evidence I've found.

Information they have posted about themselves:

  1. 14 November 2009 03:10 Revision History[1]
    • They linked their wikipedia user page to the Flickr user page "Morbidthoughts".
    • They identified the account as theirs: "If you would like to use an image from my Flickr account for an article..."
  2. Flickr user "Morbidthoughts" "About" page[2]
    • They suggested having personal and/or financial external relationships with certain individuals in the images uploaded.
    • They wrote, "Many people in my pictures are my friends or people I work with on a professional level."
  3. Photo DSC02110 2009 AVN Awards uploaded by Flickr user "Morbidthoughts"[3]
    • The photo is tagged "Mandy Morbid" and "Kimberley Kane."
    • The male individual in the photo is identifiably "Zak Smith."
      • See: Wikimedia Commons File:Zak Smith.jpg "Zak Smith by Elena Hill"[4]

Edits by them

  1. Talk Page, Zak Smith[5]
    • Theirs is the most mentioned wikipedia username on the Zak Smith talk page (23 mentions).
    • They are particularly proactive in discussions on the topic of sexual assault allegations made by Mandy Morbid about Zak Smith
      • "I should go ahead and ping the non-banned people involved in these discussions[9][10] the past year about the allegations and the sources. @NekoKatsun: @Merxa: @Nick: @PeterTheFourth: Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)"

This is one example. There are 14,440 adult film industry-related photographs on their Flickr page and edit summary searches for pornography terms and them turn up many results. They have identified themselves as an SME on the subject at large.[6]

The situation appears to be that on subject of pornography, SME derives from their photography background, and therefore their personal and financial external relationships. I have a hard time imagining it deriving from elsewhere, and they themselves have noted there are "sparse independent reliable sources"[6] available on the subject.

As for the case of the "Zak Smith" page, the Apparent COI is concerning, as they have been weighing in persistently and with gravity on the contentious matter of a professionally-harmful subject related to the lives of individuals identifiably within this personal and/or professional circle they share.

This is a bad look, no? BLP must be written conservatively. This surely extends to the optics of our influence on what in a BLP can and cannot be written about.

Thank you.

  1. ^ "User:Morbidthoughts: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2023-01-12.
  2. ^ "morbidthoughts". Flickr. Retrieved 2023-01-12.
  3. ^ morbidthoughts (2009-01-10), DSC02110, retrieved 2023-01-12
  4. ^ "Zak Smith", Wikipedia, 2022-10-30, retrieved 2023-01-12
  5. ^ "Talk:Zak Smith", Wikipedia, 2022-07-08, retrieved 2023-01-12
  6. ^ a b "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Morbidthoughts". Please give a precise explanation of what you believe WP:BLP means. When should one ignore the policy?
    A. I believe that BLP means that biographies must be written conservatively with respect to the person's privacy and strictly adhere to all of the wikipedia content policies. Any material that is contentious and unsourced should be removed immediately without any discussion. The purpose of the policy is to for wikipedia itself to do no harm to its living subjects and I can't imagine a scenario where one should ignore the policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)"
    "What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
    A: My best contributions have been in the pornography-related subject area of wikipedia. I scrutinize every article I come across to make sure it complies with WP:V and W:BLP (when applicable) because of the sparse independent reliable sources available that covers the subject. I edit mostly in pornography-related articles because I know a lot about the subject. The available knowledge on the internet tend to be sensationalistic and many people assume that if something is repeated enough on the internet (without regard to RS) it must be true. Even though I know a lot about the subject, as Epbr123 noted, I do not hesitate to research further any issue when there are any WP:V or notability concerns with an article. I also plan to expand my editing (and scrutiny) into other fields of interest such as basketball and boxing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jehmbo (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Jehmbo (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note:Jehmbo has been blocked as a sock. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another editor on huge Afd run[edit]

Here is another WP:SPA editor who came in on the 9th and did a huge Afd !vote run on the 11th including a couple of TimTempleton's Afd entries. Its seems more odd today than it did yesterday. Same pattern? scope_creepTalk 11:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I don't know what you mean. I reviewed many AFDs and have given many my support to continue as well as others which I felt should be deleted. I did not create more than one or two which I actually worked on and made better. I was fair about it and will continue to edit articles. I don't have to be lazy here but can work hard and learn. I can have niche interests, too. But they are also diverse. Please look more closely at my work and be inclusive please, thanks. JRed176 (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You aren't editing very carefully, as you are also tag-bombing leads of articles (even TFA); see WP:LEADCITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't the lead. It was a good faith section edit you're referring to. So it's ok to not cite sources and just let it be? I think not. You should be thanking volunteers who are well-intentioned instead of ripping them to shreds and trying to damage their reputations. You're acting like a bully. I'm a real person and demand respect. Stop with the harassment, please. JRed176 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like the lead of the TFA from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darshak.parmar, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Toon_X_TV[edit]

Chrisvalentin92 has, using edit summaries [4], disclosed that they are "directly involved" with Toon X TV. I have notified them about the COI editing guidelines twice now, but they continue to edit the article, even submitting it for WP:AfC. Incidentally, it looks like the draft will almost certainly fail AfC. Schminnte (talk contribs) 19:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft has now failed AfC Schminnte (talk contribs) 19:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am talking to Chris on my talk page now. Schminnte (talk contribs) 19:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faith Theological Seminary[edit]

WP:OUTING prevents me from saying precisely why I believe this editor has an undisclosed paid relationship with this seminary but I trust that other editors can easily come to the same conclusion with only a few seconds of work. They continue to edit this article and have not disclosed their relationship with the seminary. ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor named their connection here years ago, but has not acknowledged a conflict (and under WP:PAID employment could be considered paid as well). Melcous (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Bida thomas[edit]

This user has created a large number of very similar articles in the past two days, mainly about Sudanese politicians or political organisations. The user did create a couple of draft articles, but they got held up for a number of reviews by editors who didn't like the spammy nature. Another article created got AfD nominated. So rather than bothering with that standard route of drafting an article, he/she created a bunch of thme following on from those directly in main article space, and did so in fairly rapid sequence. Looking across all of the articles and they way they have been written, and the speed, I believe this Bida thomas is an employee or journalist who is being paid. For now I have also moved all the articles into draft space, in response to which Bida thomas has now submitted all off the drafts for publication. I am more familiar with sockpuppetry than paid editors, but if I was applying the WP:DUCK test from the former I'd say this looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, so my assertion is that it's a duck.--10mmsocket (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no doubt whatever that much of Bida Thomas's editing is highly promotional, and I have warned him about that. I am, however, not sure whether it it is paid editing. It may be more a case of someone with strong views about politics and social justice trying to use Wikipedia to promote what they believe is just and right. JBW (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have had a terrible experience with Wikipedia just at the start of a new year. I will be excusing myself from here. Bida thomas (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@10mmsocket, good day, you would notice that the above articles are not primarily about politicians or political organisations. Two of the articles are about catholic bishops, one is for a school, one for a human rights watch dog, one about a Ghanaian journalist, and four about governors and commissioners in South Sudan. You maybe worried about the speed, but yes, I am a busy person, so this year I had wanted to dedicated my weekend only for working on Wikipedia articles about South Sudanese.
It is also unfair that you categorise an entire article as spam or just delete it. That, in my opinion is too harsh. I expected that as reviewers, you point specific sections of an article that need review or citations and references that you feel are not credible. In one of the articles that got AfD nominated, the reviewers in the discussion page admitted that they were unaware of the South Sudanese local context, but still you read the references that we share.
This, to me is quite frustrating. Bida thomas (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was not me who deleted your existing drafts, nor me that nominated an article for deletion. Your behaviour has been bad - you get stopped from publishing your drafts because they need much more work / are not notable, so you decide to bypass the draft process and publish articles directly. I am sorry, but despite your words I remain unconvinced that a journalist is not being paid to write. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a journalist. Bida thomas (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually undertake research before writing, so I ensure that the subjects are notable. Also the reviewers give very vague feedback, but I wish you the very best of luck! Bida thomas (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be interesting to see what an admin thinks of the claim that you are not a journalist. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Above, I extended an assumption of good faith, but I have now seen proof that Bida Thomas has not been acting totally in good faith. That, together with the fact that he persists with promotional editing despite warnings, has persuaded me to indefinitely block him from editing. JBW (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prewrath Rapture[edit]

Persists in adding a book they wrote despite warnings. Says because he donates the revenue he has no COI. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does the article even exist? It cites nothing but primary source evangelical Christian material, and appears to be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As with basically anything to do with Christian eschatology there is volumes of academic work on it... I just don't see it being notable independent of rapture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ouch. Sometimes I can’t see the wood for the trees. Of course. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doug, to be clear, I have never received and will never receive compensation for my edits. However, I appear to have a COI in that I want to list under "Further Reading" a book that I published in 2003 (and again in 2014) - a book that explains and supports the Prewrath Rapture interpretation. I am working to understand the COI disclosure steps I should take in order to list that book. SanJuanCat (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On what grounds do you believe your book merits inclusion in 'further reading'? From a quick Google, I can't see anything resembling a review anywhere significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been reviewed on Amazon (4.1 rating), Goodreads (4.1 rating) and other places, including as shown in Book Reviews | PreWrathProphecy. Over 5000 copies have been downloaded on Kindle. And it's one of the oldest books on the prewrath interpretation, originally published in 2003. SanJuanCat (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SanJuanCat And now you’ve added a diagram from your website. Clearly promotional and self-published. And Amazon etc reviews are never reliable sources and the more a book is fringe the more no one reads it accept believers so the worst books often get 5 stars. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doug, be that as it may (regarding "worst books"), I'm just interested in making information available to people who might want to see it. Regarding the diagram from my website, you told me earlier that I needed to cite a reliable source ...so I added the diagram and cited the source. I'm just trying to understand the rules of wikipedia and add some info to this page ...definitely not looking for any confrontation regarding people's beliefs. Thanks SanJuanCat (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reviews on websites selling the book are no evidence of significance.
The article needs deleting. I can't see anything in it that merits merging with the Rapture article - nothing approaching scholarly analysis, just primary sourced/unsourced content, with nothing to indicate it is even representative of the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was WP:BOLD and redirected the article to Rapture. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Prewrath Rapture" is a term given to a particular end-time interpretation that involves much more than just the rapture. It is unique from other end-time interpretations not only from its timing of the rapture but also because of a number of other material differences, including 1) it limits the Day of the Lord to a certain time period within the 2nd half of the "70th week" (of Daniel 9:27), 2) it equates the timing of the return of Christ with that of the rapture, 3) it differentiates the persecution of Antichrist with the wrath of God, 4) it interprets the seal judgments as being the persecution of Antichrist, and 5) it has the great tribulation starting in the midst of the 70th week as opposed to the beginning. To claim the prewrath rapture interpretation should be included in a general rapture article makes very little sense. Yes, it is referred to as the prewrath rapture interpretation, but it is actually a unique and comprehensive interpretation of all the events of the end times. That's great to be WP:BOLD but not at the expense of the value and virtue of the encyclopedia. SanJuanCat (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have an ongoing issue with apparent COI editors (on both "sides") in articles related to private boarding schools for "troubled teens" and this user seems pretty obviously to have a COI with regard to Provo Canyon School. The account has only a few edits, all of them to the article on that school. They appear to drop by every few years to try and whitewash the article, and now have added the new wrinkle of implying some of the content is against the law. I can't imagine a reason someone would be doing this if they did not have a direct relationship with the school. They were warned for COI nearly two years ago but that clearly had no impact. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Eddieguillen23[edit]

User appears to be of candidate in upcoming election. Their edits also confirm this. (see here).. - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree that this user appears to be the candidate mentioned as it is a new account and has only made two edits to the 2023 Chicago aldermanic election Grahaml35 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Prismart Productions[edit]

Karuna kala appears to be a paid editor who has ignored all the COI inquiries on their talk page. This seeming WP:SPA first asked the Help desk "‎how to create our company profile page in wikipedia" on 22 December.

They then made an initial, copyvio edit in order to (unsuccessfully) create trust in their NPOV "good faith". They then made a revdel-ed edit to CCVS. Another post to the Help desk, how to crate a article page, then submitted Draft:Prismart Productions and saw it declined on 2 January 2023.

On 17 January 2023 he asked for help at the AfC Help desk: hiiii didnt get this helpdesk but i just want to tell that the draft i submited about prismart production is geniune its my compamy i am working here since 2 years and added 4 categories to his draft and also added his draft to 3 list articles. This needs to be stopped.Quisqualis (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, after I warned Karuna kala on their talkpage, they came to the Wikipedia IRC Help Channel. We discussed WP:COI, WP:NCORP, and WP:BOSS. They expressed understanding that further edits without a COI declaration might lead to a block. They expressed that they intended to discuss with their supervisor, and to my knowledge, they have not edited on-wiki since my warning. Also, for what it's worth, I understand that IRC discussions are off-wiki. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honaker High School[edit]

Continually adding non-neutral minutia with zero sources suggests the editor has some level of personal involvement with the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it's just a high school kid editing local schools without knowing any better? Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guy Bloch[edit]

Came across this editor during NPP. SPA editor who focuses on subjects dealing with the Silberman Institute. There are clear indications that they are affiliated in some way with the institute, or the researchers. Onel5969 TT me 13:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editor @Onel5969
I have been working in the Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences for over 35 years. All these articles and others I may write in the future concerning noteworthy institute members have been written in my free time, as a present to the institute before I retire in two years time. As far as I intend this is not a paid contribution.
Please advise me how to proceed.
Thanks 132.64.65.146 (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. You need to declare your COI on your userpage. And any articles you create need to be submitted through AfC. Once in mainspace, you should not edit the article directly, but ask for any changes you wish made on the article's talk page. You can also read WP:COI. And, btw, enjoy your retirement. Onel5969 TT me 10:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPE finally blocked[edit]

TransGobbledygook (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) was blocked on 16 January as they were accepting paid work through an online marketplace. All of their work remains undisclosed, so need an independent review. Some of their articles were accepted through AfC process so a UPE tag would be good for them, rest I believe should go to AfC for an independent review. Except David Brandon Geeting, Quality Digest (magazine), William Brewer (novelist), Luke Yankee, and Loay Elbasyouni, all went live without a review by an AfC reviewer (such articles are listed below):

74.15.64.107 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I redirected Dan Perlman to the show for which he's known. Cleaned up Derek Frank and SLO Food Bank a bit.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved the rest to draft per segregating UPE editing. Onel5969 TT me 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coi editor[edit]

UPE coi editor making edits on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maven Clinic Afd. Says he is from the company but its a TimTempleton article. Not disclosed. scope_creepTalk 00:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another WP:SPA coi editor turned up. scope_creepTalk 02:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Oscarcopper123[edit]

There appears to be possible connection between the user and the Del E. Webb Construction Company and possibly other organizations, companies and people in architectural and construction field. Overwhelming majority of their edits for years consist of inserting architectural firm and construction names into articles about buildings that were worked on by the names being inserted; and especially intense working of Del E. Webb Construction Company and the website delwebbsuncitiesmuseum.org as a source into different pages. For example,Welton Becket, Bally's Lake Tahoe, Edward Hotel & Convention Center,HRL Laboratories. On articles that include delwebbsuncitiesmuseum.org as a source, almost all of the insertion have been made by this user. Editing related to Del E. Webb goes back to 2017 and continues to date. Also, Inserting McKee Special:Diff/1127716029 Graywalls (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Anne Ammundsen and George Washington/Asgill Affair[edit]

This user came to my attention today via a close request for At Talk:George_Washington#Requested revised edit. Ammundsen has been acting tendentiously to push their fringe viewpoint on the "Asgill Affair" (an article which they basically wrote entirely) being a major facet of George Washington's biography, to the point that it should get hundreds of words in the main article as well as the 50KB article and various spinouts. This has been going on for years is clearly their main goal on Wikipedia, as judged by their own user page, User:Anne Ammundsen, which smacks of an editor here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. When confronted by the fact that this is UNDUE, she has repeatedly doubled down and refused to entertain alternate opinions. The result is trying to bludgeon the discussions, and continually trying to insert her POV into articles, including making legal threats: see Talk:Asgill Affair, and the repeated attempts to insert this information: [5][6][7] Given that this editor has a conflict of interest with the subject (and indeed, almost all their editing appears to be to issues they have a personal connection to), I think they need to be formally restricted from the topic, especially since they have the potential to distort Wikipedia's coverage of the subject through a very selective and biased lens. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considered whether this or WP:NPOV/N was a more suitable venue, but feels like this should be where it goes because the issue is more with the contributor over multiple articles than a single locus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When a person discovers that history has been misrecorded, and therefore misrepresented and skewed, it stands to reason that they want to do something to correct bias which has existed for 2.5 centuries. Wikipedia seemed the natural outlet. However, as time has passed, I no longer feel this way and have no problem being banned, and no problem should all my work here be deleted, especially since it is some time since I last edited. Outside of Wikipedia, my work is considered of value, and my findings have been published several times. The fact that those findings don't appeal to some editors is not my problem. Lexington Books, a prestigious American academic publisher, will be publishing my book, covering everything, and they are really excited about this. It goes without saying that I am too, so I will not allow Wikipedia to bring my sprits down. All this has helped shape my outlook, and I now know that the real world is of greater value to me. The fact that the George Washington page cannot be sullied with the truth tells me all I need to know. Anne (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as Asgill Affair goes, I believe this is a case of WP:SELFCITE at worst, and to be fair to Anne, she has asked me to check the article thoroughly for compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines several times (which I keep putting off because of other demands on my time). With George Washington, I agree that the amount of material that Anne wants added is disproportionate to its coverage in sources, but she has been proposing these changes on the talk page of late rather than adding it directly to the article, which is precisely what our conflict of interest guidelines suggest. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bringing it up multiple times over the years and hitting people with something like 18 substantial comments (and 37 edits in total) on a talk page over just five days is absolutely tendentious though. That she hasn't edited that article isn't much the point, especially when there's other COI issues (like creating articles on relatives and the self-citing.) Virtually her entire editing history is devoted to propping up a fringe POV about her great-however-many-times grandfather (citing herself, of course) and the supposed earth-shattering injustice visited upon him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point taken about the talk page comments, but I'm still not sure a topic ban is necessary. It doesn't sound like Anne has much appetite for making further substantive contributions to these articles, but since she appears to have a book forthcoming with a major press, having her in the conversation about future improvements to the articles seems valuable on balance (particularly if she's willing to concede the argument about additions to the Washington article). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Cordless Larry - yes, it is three years now since I asked you to check the articles and ensure they were Wikipedia-compliant. As for self-citing, never, ever, have I done so on an article on Wikipedia. I have always asked other editors - often Cordless Larry (an Administrator) to do so for me. Had he ever been unhappy to do this, I am sure he would have said. If I have referred to my work on talk pages, then that would only have been to make a point, but frankly, it was to ensure editors on the GW talk page realised that I know what I am talking about, that prompted me to mention a forthcoming book deal. I am being attacked by an editor who does not like my "message" and the irony is that it was the Lancaster Historical Society who turned up the evidence about missing letters - not me. Their work seemed worth promulgating. It is a matter of historical fact that Washington violated a solemn treaty and condemned an innocent man to gallows. Is there anyone on earth, who happened to be related to him, who would be happy about that? It is also a historical fact that the French saved his life. I only have one concern, and that is that Washington covered up the truth, 2.5 centuries ago. A small mention of that ought, in my view, to be on his WP article. I appreciate that my first draft was too long. I voluntarily tried to shorten it, and if someone with better précis skills can do so further, that would be fine too. It is the total ban of anything negative on that page which bothers me, but as I say, I care less and less with the passing minutes and have publisher deadlines to meet, which interest me far more. Anne (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly your citations are poor. Local historical journals are not good, high-quality reliable sources, and I intend to prune out the excessive reliance on primary sources and questionable additions, whether or not they were added by a proxy or not. Your biographies are massive inflated and predicated on weak sourcing. If you actually get a book published by a reliable press, that will be a far sight better than the output you have put out. That others recognize that and aren't rushing to include it in an already-stuffed biography about Washington is evidence of good judgement on their part. I'd believe you actually care less and less if you didn't respond militantly to every discussion on the subject and it wasn't your entire reason for editing Wikipedia in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to push back on the suggestion here that I've been proxy editing. Here is the sum total of my contributions to the George Washington article. I've made more edits to the Asgill Affair article, but many of them have been formatting fixes. My main role has been answering Anne's questions and adviser her on policy - stressing the need to use secondary sources wherever possible, follow WP:BRD, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cordless Larry, I wish I knew what you are talking about - you have never proxy edited for me - however, you (and others) have often helped me with inserting references since that is my bête noir, and, quite literally, terrifies me. You so often misunderstand me and misinterpret me, so considerably add to my stress levels as a result. Anne (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My comments above weren't in reply to you, Anne. Cordless Larry (talk)
Cordless Larry, this is a terrible slur on the Historical Society in Lancaster. Having been there, I cannot begin to tell you how impressive it is; it is a huge and awe-inspiring organisation, on a very large site, even having its own museum. The staff are amazing, and really dedicated researchers. You have the Journal yourself, so you know the quality of their work. Anne (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may well all be the case but as far as I know, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, which means it's not regarded as highly by Wikipedia's policies as journals that are subject to such review. Cordless Larry (talk)
Cordless Larry, I see where you are coming from. Lexington Books feels the same way about Wikipedia, and so it has been necessary for me to remove the fulsome praise I gave to some editors in the acknowledgements section - which, as you know, I wrote before then going on to write the book! It's a dog eat dog world out there! Anne (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's certainly worth bearing in mind what Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia has to say on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anne isn't being bullied as she claimed at WP:CR diff. Frankly, that accusation is deeply upsetting. Nor is she being attacked as mentioned in her post above, which is even more upsetting.
The issue is that she refuses to understand that Wikipedia isn't a platform to host her work and she refuses to adhere to basic policies such as consensus. Furthermore she seems to believe that there is an editor class system so if one person explains patiently she calls an "respected admin" or "long-time editor" for help, diff.
She spams with tl;dr edit requests lacking any kind of formatted sources diff, and when weight and page size explanations are made, follows with additional tl;dr edit requests, example diff. The sourcing is usually not up to standard.
Her comments are sprinkled throughout with out-of-context information (a closer who apparently told her it's okay to add one's own material directly as an external links diff) and appeals to emotion.
These are only a small selection of comments and do not make for a collaborative and collegial environment.
Anne must understand that there are reasons such as consensus, page size, weight, sourcing, etc., that must be considered when editing Wikipedia.
In the end she seems to want only an edit that includes her name, though the sourcing is not great, it's not well-written, and is undue.
She's been here long enough to have learned but she habitually leans on others to do her work and in my view abuses the privilege to edit. If she's willing to collaborate and learn, then she'd be an asset. Victoria (tk) 00:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's do a re-set Victoria. Back in May 2022 I was under the very very clear understanding (after a lengthy discussion) that a Closer had given me permission to go ahead. I was not the only editor who believed that to be the case. Another editor realised, as I did, that I really could not do this myself. That editor gave me an undertaking, on 20.5.22, that they would do this for me. Months went by - promises were renewed - and, in a conversation on 21.12.22 I was told that it would be done by "the end of the year". I am afraid my patience snapped, after 8 months of waiting. I did not have a backup editor to do this for me, so I could see no alternative but to go ahead myself, on the GW Talk Page. You know the rest. Yes, I have a mental block that it is disallowed to point out GW's failings on his page. It has also transpired that it is disallowed to give Moses Hazen the praise offered to him by all the British officers on 27.5.1782 - he was extremely unhappy about the orders he had been given by GW, and he showed remarkable compassion. I also find WP policy mysterious, and I apologise to you and other editors for not understanding what was being said. If I may repeat myself, I was acting, as I believed, on the authority of a Closer and I could not really see beyond that. It may not be comprehensible to you, or others, how nerve-wracking it is to come to a place which is inevitably going to be hostile towards my aims - as a lone-voice, with no backup support. I did not say I was being bullied - I said it felt like I was being bullied. I never wanted to repeat an earlier experience some years ago. That may have clouded my thinking too. That, coupled with my appalling IT 'skills', which always puts me in a cold-sweat every time I go anywhere near WP. Never mind, you guys have had your revenge. My work is being deleted and challenged all over the place. I really am done now and seriously have no interest in whether or not I am banned, or anything else now. It is not worth it for what it is doing to my mental health. I am happy to retire and do the things which interest me, and see no reason on earth to perpetuate my experiences here, or elsewhere on WP. It was nice, and very refreshing to come across you, though. You see, as you know, I remembered you immediately (you were the only editor to show kindness to me). Anne (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anne, I think the best thing all round would be for you to focus on your forthcoming book for the time being. Once that's published, then we can look into how to use it as a secondary source for Wikipedia, which will hopefully make discussion about the interview redundant and also help address the over-reliance on primary archive sources that we have at present. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cordless Larry, we'll have so see about that! I have reached burnout and the process involved in publishing is the hardest gig I have ever encountered. I expect I will throw the towel in when the book is on the shelves! But, tell me, can other people, or Wikipedia, remove an article from my watch list? I have not been receiving notifications about posts here. The 'star' had reverted to white. Now reapplied it. Anne (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cordless Larry in my view comments like the one you've made above might be be misconstrued as a guarantee that something will happen, i.e that Anne's book will be widely used to source the relevant suite of articles, which creates another weight issue. We should wait until the book is published, read and evaluated.
Anne your comment above about the watchlist is the type of thing that I find frustrating. It's best to learn how to use Wikipedia rather than continually asking for help. I'm considering an offer of mentorship to teach you how the site works and how we edit articles. I took a quick look at the Asgill Affair and Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. Both articles are overly long and need extensive pruning throughout. I'd undertake that challenge with you looking over my shoulder and having me explain each if needed. Along the way I'd teach how to use WP:DIFFs, how to format per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, how to evaluate sourcing per Wikipedia:No original research etc., etc. For example, the section called "Court cases" on the Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet diff is original research. In the video you explain having learned researching techniques from an ancestry site, which emphasize primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and so two degrees removed from that type of research. Beyond learning and understanding the fundamentals of using this site, learning and understanding our sourcing expectations is needed. Would you be interested in such an arrangement? Take your time to mull it over before replying - I'm just in from a medical appointment and won't be immediately back online. Victoria (tk) 19:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I should have written "then we can look into whether and how we can use it as a secondary source for Wikipedia" (although I find it inconceivable that a book on the Asgill Affair published by Lexington wouldn't be judged usable as a source for at least the Asgill Affair article). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I was trying to say is that a single book shouldn't become the single source for an entire suite of articles. That's why I mentioned weight. And, regardless, the COI still exists. Victoria (tk) 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Victoriaearle, thank you for your offer, but I never was, and never will be, cut out for Wikipedia. I have never enjoyed myself here, and my temperament is entirely wrong for this terse environment. I'm a "hugger" by nature! Why make myself more miserable than I need? I have been criticised for having some personal involvement with the articles I have created - I couldn't have created them without the personal knowledge which has gone with it - is that a chicken and egg scenario? I really don't think there is more I would even want to do, and don't want further involvement, if at all possible. However, were you prepared to sort out the AA and CA articles, I would welcome that as help. I think I can trust you to do this honestly, bearing in mind that CA comes from his own perspective, not Washington's - the article is also in British English! All I ask is that you give a good edit summary, so I can see quickly and easily what you have done (some editors have really confused me in this regard). If I seriously object, I will let you know! Nothing from me either means I am happy, or I am terribly tied up with deadlines (of which there are many). One thing though - if you want to take on this task, that is fine and dandy, but please don't place the onus on me to fix something. Messages, such as "citation needed", will be ignored by me. I am past that stage, and the only really important thing now, in my life, is seeing through my commitments to Lexington. P.S. Please don't be too hard on Cordless Larry - I think that was a personal message to me - (he tipped me over the brink, having told him I really couldn't write a book, and his persistence did the trick)! He's a bloody good Admin who would never flout the rules. I am far more often at the end of his ruler slaps, than not! Anne (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify: this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard and the proposition on the table is a topic ban. Were you interested in learning how things work, even something as simple as being able to click the history tab at the top of an article, then click the radio buttons on the left to compare diffs so as to look at edits instead of asking for detailed edit summaries, I believe you might find engaging in Wikipedia more rewarding. Sitting on the sidelines, mentioning BrEng as though one has never encountered it is rather patronizing, and then saying "If I seriously object, I will let you know!". That's not how to learn how to use the site, how to edit Wikipedia, how to become involved.
In my view there is a strong argument for stubbing down a number of the articles you've worked on; I'd hoped you might be interested in becoming engaged enough to learn our processes to understand why and when text is deleted and to help salvage what can be salvaged, based on a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies. Regardless, deadlines are deadlines and of course must be seen through. In the meantime I leave it to the other editors to reach a decision here. Often in cases like this mentorship will stave off other actions. Victoria (tk) 21:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Victoria, have you not noticed that I don't want to be involved here? Have you not noticed that WP has brought nothing but misery into my life? If I don't want to be here, then that is a sort of self-banning isn't it? You said you wanted me to stand over your shoulder, and I seriously misconstrued that as meaning you would value my insight vis a vis Asgill, and that we would sort-of do the job together, but clearly you were only talking about "instructing me". The other factor is the time difference. For the past week, I have been unable to get to bed before 2am. Perhaps someone as invested as you cannot see another point of view? Ban away if that is what you and others think I deserve. Anne (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you misunderstood. No I'm not invested. I simply thought you might like an alternative path to a topic ban that others might accept. Apologies for having bothered you. I'm unwatching this page now. Victoria (tk) 23:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anne, you've headed into territory that makes me doubt your basic fitness for editing Wikipedia at all. You keep saying Wikipedia has brought nothing but misery and saying you're going to disengage, then you do not disengage and keep editing. You said earlier in this thread you would stop bringing up the issue on the George Washington page and you've edited it a further nine times since 23:05 yesterday. If this is causing you pain an actual block seems warranted since you are incapable of actually stopping yourself here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By editing WP I thought creating or editing articles was the issue here? This I have not done for some time and have no future plans to do so. That was what I thought you wanted me banned from doing. Setting aside the GW Talk Page, for which I have given detailed explanations for why I went there (having been badly let down) I have had to return when serious errors have been introduced to articles - for instance, incorrectly changing Asgill's wife's name and his place of death. Am I supposed to leave errors of that nature in situ? I do not want to do the former, but would prefer to be able to address situations where errors are introduced. Some people love WP and spend their entire lives here. That's fine, but there may also be a place, as outlined by Cordless Larry, for people who know about particular subjects. I was unaware that one could be banned for not enjoying the Wikipedia experience. I must have missed a trick somewhere, but aren't you the only person wishing me to be banned? It "feels like" you have a vendetta against me and have made it your personal crusade to kick me out. Yes, it would be relief on the one hand, but then I would have to email Cordless Larry every time I saw a glaring mistake being introduced. You sound rather desperate - like a sinking man who sees no hope of being saved. Anne (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StrawberryFrog[edit]


A series of SPAs have been editing these two articles and it stands to reason this is UPE. Past warnings to these editors hasn't resulted in better behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Isaacs[edit]

See edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:F4F6:A73A:AAAA:3F62 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]