Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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 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:

Jason Maza

Subject of article, Jason Maza, was involved in the controversy around sexual assault allegations of their business partner (Noel Clarke). The article been subject to repeated attempts from various accounts and IP addresses, most recently Omranduk, to remove the section on the page relating to this and/or minimise Maza's direct role in the allegations (which is sourced from The Guardian and directly quoted).

A previous edit attempt by a different user contained a thinly-veiled legal threat and is obviously from someone linked to the subject: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chichickov (talkcontribs) 18:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome, brand-new editor whose only edits are to push for including contentious material about a living person.
I wonder if you could consider ways to re-write that section that are both truthful and clearer. For example, the current quotations feel rather sensationalistic, which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do. Maybe instead of alleging that if the allegations were published, then "that's me for the short term done", it would be clearer to write something like "Maza privately expressed concerns that the publicity would ruin the business he and Clarke were running". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - this seems fair and this incorporated language is now in the article.
However, I still think there are continuing attempts to edit the article in the subject's favour. The most recent edit said "[the allegations] had nothing to do with Maza" (which is plainly untrue, as the sourced Guardian article clearly sets out how he was involved", and that "[the police] found no evidence of wrongdoing", which is misleasing (they said they would not launch a formal investigation). Chichickov (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, @Chichickov. The articles about controversial people and events are often edited back and forth, as new information emerges and editors try to sort out what to say that's reasonably accurate and reasonably fair. It looks like only you and one other editor have touched it since New Year's, though, so it's possible that this one is calming down.
The goal isn't to be either in his favor or against him, but to plainly explain what happened. In particular, in this case, it appears that the "involvement" was talking to victims after the fact, and it really must be clear that Maza did not commit any of the alleged crimes themselves (e.g., groping women, filming them naked without their consent, etc.). In that sense, it is plainly true that "the allegations had nothing to do with Maza"; it was Clarke whom the women accuse of committing crimes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was talking to victims after the fact on behalf of Clarke, as is clear in the source. The original text only said this, and did not state or even imply that Maza committed a crime. It is other editors who are changing this to more sujective language about whether he 'had anything to do with' what happened in a vague sense, rather than stating what he actually did.
The rest of the edits (claiming the police found 'no evidence of wrongdoing', not true, and threatening libel action against Wikipedia) do seem to suggest some involvement from someone close to the subject. Chichickov (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quote from the article "On a call on 10 April to a woman with allegations about Clarke, Maza said he did not want to put pressure on her, but, if the Guardian’s article did come out, “that’s Unstoppable done, you know, that’s me for the short term done”." ... "In another call, on 11 April, Maza offered a woman an in-person meeting with Clarke, who he said would apologise."
THis is not just 'talking to after the fact', it is working with Clarke and directly intervening to try and supress the allegations being made public. Again, I do understand the need to not suggest any crimes were committed, but this doesn't feel immaterial. Chichickov (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be a bit of a leap to go from "that’s [my business] done, you know, that’s me for the short term done” to "Maza was talking to victims after the fact on behalf of Clarke". Can you see why that sentence might be interpreted as Maza talking to Clarke's victims after the fact on behalf of Maza?
I assume that Maza, like most people, had a very normal desire not to become suddenly unemployed because someone else was sexually harassing people, and I can imagine that desire might make Maza look for ways to prevent himself from being harmed by someone else's actions. I might have my own opinions on whether this was either a moral or an effective way to go about that – I understand that the usual playbook is to contact the journalist directly to say how shocked and appalled you are to hear about these allegations, and that you had no idea – but I'm not sure that trying to protect his own job is evidence of him acting as a representative of Clarke.
(I'm also not sure that "representing" Clarke would be an inherently bad thing: if someone owes you an apology, and is willing to make it [actually willing: no evidence is presented to indicate that the offer was authorized by Clarke/his lawyers, and desperate people sometimes assert that others will apologize/their lawyers will let them apologize when no such apology will be forthcoming in practice], what's wrong with another person giving you information about that option, so you can make up your own mind about whether you want to hear an apology? Deciding that women shouldn't be given all the information and options feels rather paternalistic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion seems to be more about content and language than about conflict of interest. Could this be discussed on the article's talk page? -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is for sure a COI issue and needs to be dealt here. Placing this under a big header called "Controversy" obviously doesn't comply with the neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Chichickov is an SPA who appears to be here to only post negative content about Jason Maza. She has done 3 reversal already, when the editor WhatamIdoing already suggested how the verbiage should be read on December 22nd, 2022. I was about to report her for Edit Warring when I saw this. Since we are discussing this subject here already, no need to discuss it on the talk page. The edits prior to her reversal are very neutral and explain the situation. @WhatamIdoing would you agree that the edits before her reversal here are more neutral and better to have? We don't need to post many negative details here regarding these issues, especially when Maza himself had nothing to do with the allegations and Clarke was also not charged with any crimes. This section needs to comply with WP:NPOV and specifically WP:DUE.
In addition Chichickov should be blocked from making edits to this page due to her apparent COI. (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also request that after an admin makes proper revisions, the page be semi-protected to 500+ editors. (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that any of the versions are ideal (e.g., the one you prefer says that police declined to investigate, but the source cited for that claim doesn't say anything about the police declining to investigate), and if we lock down the article so that only very few people can improve it, then it will be less likely that the article will be improved.
I tend to agree with @Pemilligan: We have no reason to believe that Chichickov is anyone other than a person who read a news article and tried to help out, just like we have no reason to believe that you are anyone connected with this event. This doesn't seem to be a COI problem. It seems to be a good-faith effort to make the article reflect the facts, as each of us individually understand those facts to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several sources available that state police will not investigate and found no evidence of wrongdoing by Clarke. See Deadline, Variety, and BBC. The other issue is that posting a large header and calling it CONTROVERSY, when the issue had nothing to do with Jason Maza does not give the article a Due Weight WP:DUE, and would not comply with Wiki policies. I have opened discussion in the talk page, but we would need some more people commenting to resolve the issue. (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Variety source doesn't mention evidence at all. The BBC source says "not enough evidence", which is different from "no evidence of wrongdoing". And, of course, there's a wide gap between "not enough evidence to put Clarke in prison" and "Clarke's behavior towards his accusers was at all times irreproachable". The police care about the former, but an employer might care about behaviors that don't rise to the level of actual crimes.
Similarly, it's not true that "the issue had nothing to do with Jason Maza". His supporters might say that Maza is an innocent victim, but he lost his job over this, and most of us consider losing your job to be "something" rather than "nothing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ to clarify, I am not a 'her', and I'm not sure why you have assumed that I am.
@Pemilligan I have outlined on the article's talk page but I originally posted this here after a series of anonymous edits, the most egregious of which stated "there will be a number of legal cases involved moving forward, and do not what wikipedia, [sic] caught in the crossfire". Hopefully this wasn't unfair on @Omranduk who has not contributed since, but I thought a wider range of input would be valuable. Chichickov (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Garik Israelian

There has been a sequence of COI/UPE editors who have been editing a small collection of articles related to their work and engaging in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

Editor Timewind has mentioned a connection with the BLP article subject Garik Israelian: "I'm official representative of Dr. Garik Israelian. All edits done here by me are aligned with him in advance. For any change propose, please contact me in advance!"

Three months ago I tagged with COI the Garik Israelian article, and yesterday I finally sat down and spent many hours trying to clean up the article. It was a lot of work. Today Timewind made at least four edits casting aspersions on me: on the article talk page calling my edits disruptive editing and intendedly spoiling this page with spamming and fake data, and in these three edit summaries: Undid revision 1143654606 by Grorp (talk) {{subst:uw-spam1}}, fixing spams, and fixed spam edit by User:Grorp.

Though I had notified Timewind with {{subst:uw-coi|Article}} on his user talk page here, and I tagged the article with {{Connected contributor}} here, and another editor also directed him not to edit directly with a COI here, and he acknowledge reading it here, Timewind posted these aspersions today and re-edited the article multiple times. A few other editors have attempted to fix some of Timewind's new edits since then, and one admin responded to Timewind's request to investigate my edits which resulted in the response: I've looked at the most recent few difs, and it looks to me like Grorp is trying to fix spam.

The Garik Israelian article, as well as the two related articles of Starmus Festival and Stephen Hawking Medal for Science Communication (related because Garik founded those things), have been significantly edited by a series of COI editors including Garikisraelian (last edit 2015), Chriseicher (last edit 2015), Yakmalla (last edit 2017), Diana Balasanyan (active account), and Timewind. One uses a username matching a close family member of a Starmus board member, and another matches the public relations person for Starmus. But there is no disclosure of COI or paid editing by these users within Wikipedia (beyond that single edit summary).

Timewind also created the article The Island of Christianity: Armenia & Artsakh which is about a [probably non-notable] commercial product produced by Garik Israelian. Diana Balasanyan also edited this one.

Short of obtaining a properly posted COI disclosure and some sort of post by Timewind indicating they have read, understood, and will comply with the COI policies — which would be acceptable to me — I would recommend that Timewind be sanctioned with a topic ban from the four articles mentioned. It's one thing leaving us with COI articles that take hours to clean up, but it's quite another to attack the good faith 'cleaner' as well as involve several other editors with their subsequent OWNERSHIP behavior, while again leaving articles that need cleaning up. I also recommend that the other article talk pages be tagged with {{Connected contributor}} for whichever of the other COI editors had edited them.

Grorp (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've warned Timewind on their talkpage. I agree that there are major COI issues here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attack of the Elvis Impersonators

Editor claims to be author of this musical (see edit summaries.) They have been changing information with article, a COI notice was placed on their talk page, but they persist in editing article.☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 14:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lazoo Music is the name of the show's author's music publishing company. I've had to apply a spamublock, even though we graduated from the same public university. --16:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel the need to call attention to this single-purpose account that is infatuated with our article on Sanctioned Suicide and seems intent on whitewashing it as much as they can get away with. Examples:

They are also unjustifiably concerned with the naming of WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, attempting to change it to pseudonyms or remove them altogether:

––FormalDude (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I did register to edit Wikipedia primarily because I had an interest in this article, I was unaware of many of Wikipedia's policies. I was made aware of the topic when I watched a Youtube video on the subject and when I saw changes being made to the article that didn't match the source or greatly distorted it, I felt the need to jump in and edit as well. As I said the other day, I don't have any CoIs.
I don't consider my edits whitewash, but previous edits made by others on the article seem to be made by a number of sockpuppet accounts and IPs that have been blocked, and I was trying to get the article back into a place where it was more neutral.
I am still learning the ropes, so you will probably have to be patient with me there. Kevinsanc (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article was created on February 10, Kevinsanc was created later that same day. Every of their edits are concerned with Sanctioned Suicide. Their username is Kevinsanc, yet they deny any involvement with Sanctioned Suicide. I myself came across Kevinsanc when they removed properly sourced information on Megan Twohey, which they considered "Poorly source and written by a blocked user, doesn't directly relate to this article." soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be concerned about the focus on Sanctioned Sucide by Kevinsanc, but they've been editing for only a little over 4 weeks - it is not unusual for a new editor to be focused on a single area of interest when they start editing, and I wouldn't tend to sanction for that. I don't see any evidence to show that they have a COI, although certainly they are involved in some way with Sanctioned Sucide. They may have a COI, but they also may just be a member, which isn't necessesarily a problem in itself. I do think Kevinsanc shows a clear bias, though, and because of that is at a high risk of tendentious editing, and at the very least should consider stepping back and working on other articles for a bit, as this probably isn't the best article or situation to learn your way around Wikipedia on. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Kevinsanc's edits can be read as WP:SEALIONING, although it is a bit early. It should be noted that Kevinsanc has disruptively removed reliably sourced material from the article, has engaged in watering down material in the article (insistence on adding 'alleged' in front of encouragement of suicide, adding false balance through unreliable sources, etc), and has frivolously requested citations for obvious or well-known information (such as stating that the .com and .net urls are accessible in Australia). I think it may be helpful for the editor to take a break from the article for now. :3 F4U (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking a break would be good. That said, he account is 4 weeks old - learning the ropes is always difficult, but it is certainly easier if it isn't in a topic you are passionate about. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a good compromise would be for his edits to be approved by a NPOV user before being added
Perhaps get him to make a sandbox he can work on? Trade (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's unfair for an user to be accused of CoI for bringing up perfectly legitimate BLP concerns. For the other parts i do not really have a opinion on.--Trade (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They have no legitimate BLP concerns... ––FormalDude (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the inclusion of the names defintely raises legitimate BLP concerns as was discussed at BLPN. Whether or not we end up including the names, anyone who doesn't recognise this needs to be quickly learn that and be topic banned widely construed from BLPs if they don't. That is definitely a far more serious issue than whether Kevinsanc has a CoI, as shown by the fact that BLP is a WP:CTOP area. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With their names included in a multitude of reliable published sources, there are no legitimate BLP concerns in naming them. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being named in some sources doesn't mean that they are not still private individuals. Their names being public is a necessary condition for naming them in an article, but it isn't a sufficient condition in and of itself, as our BLP requirements for naming or not naming an individual are not necessarily the same requirements used by sources. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me be more clear: Kevinsanc gave no reasoning for removing the names and there are no immediately apparent BLP concerns in naming them in the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, but there was an extensive discussion of the issues here. - Bilby (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made my case for the removal in the BLP discussion. Kevinsanc (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd give the benefit of the doubt for the edits about the names, as the first time they removed the names without any justification was their third ever edit. (How can you expect someone to understand how to bring up BLP concerns when they've only made two other edits?) The only other time they removed the names was after a series of edits by a sockpuppet. Regardless it's not the individual edits themselves to be concerned about, but the pattern that emerges when looking at the big picture. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of Kevinsanc's first contributions was to edit-war to include a citation to a pro-"Sanctioned Suicide" thesis paper in the article's lead,[1][2][3] When I look up a link to that thesis in Google Search, I get two results: the university's website, and a Sanctioned Suicide forum thread, where someone posted that link 3 weeks before Kevinsanc's edits. That forum thread is about a YouTube video, presumably the same one Kevinsanc references in the first reply here. There are more issues with Kevinsanc's editing, including slow-motion edit warring,[4][5][6][7] and false edit summaries (removing sourced material while incorrectly claiming in the edit summaries that the material wasn't in the source). Shells-shells already noticed a few instances of that, but there are more: diff1 (reverted), diff2 (reverted), diff3 (reverted), diff4 (reverted), diff5 (reverted). Along with a few which haven't been reverted yet: diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9. The issues go beyond potential COI. DFlhb (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with everything you've brought up having interacted with them repeatedly since the creation of the artcle. It does not seem likely that Kevinsanc is or has a close relationship with any of the owners/founders/administrators of the site itself (and no evidence has been brought up suggesting that they do), however the pattern of edits mentioned above and elsewhere do suggest that Kevinsanc is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I think its highly important to note that Kevinsanc created their account less than 17 hours after I published the SS article and immediately began removing sourced material from the article. I also find it highly unlikely that the YouTube video Kevinsanc references is actually how they found the article, as the video in question does not name the site. To me, it is more likely that Kevinsanc is an ordinary member of the site who found the article through search results or the SS thread made on the article.[1] Being a member by itself shouldn't mean anything, but when combined with their edit history, it gets more and more difficult to believe that they aren't here to WP:SOAPBOX. Kevinsanc's edits have in large part consisted of whitewashing of the article [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], removing reliably sourced material critical of the site [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], adding false balance [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], and silently reverting edits without reason/while giving false reasons [25] [26] [27]. While my perception before combing through their edits was that Kevinsanc's edits were improving and getting less disruptive, a closer examination reveals that the only change has been that their persistent disruption of the SS article has become more subtle. These disruptive edits make up the majority of Kevinsanc's edits in article space, and make up the vast majority of their significant edits.[2]
Kevinsanc's sole edit in mainspace outside of the SS article [28], consisted of blanking a section of Megan Twohey's article[3] having to do with the site.
  • When I look up a link to that thesis in Google Search, I get two results: the university's website, and a Sanctioned Suicide forum thread, where someone posted that link 3 weeks before Kevinsanc's edits. I remember looking it up when Kevinsanc first added it and I remember seeing that too, completely forgot about it myself.
Side note: On my part, I'm sorry about participating in the edit-warring on the Master's thesis. Creating the article was around my ~200th edit[4] so the only understanding I had at the time of "edit warring" was the occassional "You are engaging in an edit war" warning message I'd see on other people's talk pages (which led me to mistakenly believe that up to three reverts were generally allowed and that Kevinsanc and I could't have been edit warring because we were being polite in the edit summaries). Funnily enough my misunderstanding of WP:EW/3RR would lead me to make the post Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#Preventing_an_edit_war... arguably after we had engaged in an edit war, but at least the edit summaries and the final message on the talk page led to some sort of a consensus. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ On the same day the article was created, a thread was made on SS linking to the artcle.
  2. ^ I'm defining signfiant edits as those that don't consist of minor spelling or formatting changes
  3. ^ The journalist who published the founders' names
  4. ^ My 200 edits consisting of mostly minor typographical corrections over the span of eight years

Another self-report to get consensus on boundaries of COI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First up, I own that I have made some serious mistakes with COI editing in the past. These actually reflected my overall general ignorance about editing at the time: poor or no sourcing, promotional tone etc. I think my editing has improved a lot and hope I have made a worthwhile contribution here overall (see, if you like, Bonnet Bay and William Walton), but I still do make occasional mistakes and am always happy to discuss/correct. I'm not sure I will stick around necessarily: though some experienced editors have encouraged me to continue, others seem to be 'on my case' in what might well be a tendentious, cherry-picking and 'wikihounding' way, not correcting factually false accusations even when pointed out by diffs etc.

Anyway, back to the point: I have a declared close personal connection with subject of BLP Mark Isaacs.

One thing I note is that COI editing is "strongly discouraged" but not forbidden. This seems to leave room for a more experienced editor to self-police and exercise a judgement call here. They may be called out if erring, but it seems to me that if there is no issue with the edit itself, the fact that it is COI is not enough in and of itself, since COI editing is not blanket forbidden.

So here's my call: I will not write COI prose. It is too risky in terms of maintaining neutral POV etc.

I am conjecturing that adding "tabular" information, e.g. adding an item(s) to a long list like a discography or a list of awards might be OK if done according to WP best practice.

For example: I very recently found a few musical artists whose own BLP discographies, though extensive, I knew to be incomplete. I had a COI connection with a missing discography item, but not with the BLP subject overall, as the missing album was a tiny and insignificant fraction of their output. Insignificant, relatively speaking in the big picture, but regarding a discography that appears to be aiming at comprehensiveness, significant enough to warrant being included. I added the relevant item to the lists. It didn't need in-line citation sourcing: the fact of the publication of books and music albums is self-sourcing as I understand it. So the edit is inherently neutral as an edit.

I would ask the following question of those who would still object to those kind of moves on COI grounds alone: is it really better that the said BLP discography remain as incomplete as it was, rather than it instead being made more comprehensive, albeit by what happens to be a COI edit? We are here to make an encyclopaedia better. Does that not trump everything else?

I am trying to learn from those more experienced than me, and everything I have ventilated here for discussion re COI I owe to a close reading of what Deepfriedokra, whom I understand to be a respected administrator (as well as a delicious culinary item), wrote on their user page:

the decision as to accepting or rejecting [COI] content does not hinge on the integrity or agenda of these editors. It hinges on our own integrity. If reliable sources can be found to support such content, and if it can be included in a neutral manner, it would be best to have it. [bold mine]

Walton22 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oy. And I mean that. Walton22 has had significant COI issues since starting here--it's his primary reason for editing. He knows the guidelines and knows exactly what he's doing. I don't engage directly because he wikilawyers and builds walls of text in these discussions--just look at the talk page histories, especially his own [29]. More than likely he read the most recent discussion at my talk page with Drmies, and is aware that I'm going to introduce a thread at ANI [30]. For the uninitiated, this was the previous COI discussion [31]. If the above isn't completely transparent, the most recent COI edits involved adding Mr. Isaac's name to multiple articles. This isn't about improving the encyclopedia--it's about sprinkling his renown in every possible corner. At the end of the previous COI discussion, an editor advised If that's the way you want to go you should avoid the topic of yourself altogether and find something else to edit. A month later, Walton22 is still looking for a way around that. If this isn't resolved here, I will bring this to ANI, with lots of diffs. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, do I have to obey to the letter everything another editor tells me? Am I not allowed to look at guidelines and think for myself? Have a look at my user contributions and see if COI editing is my "primary reason for being here". Have a look at the user contributions of 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) and you won't find a single one in the last month or so that wasn't directed negatively toward me (a kind of colloquial WP:SPA of late anyway). Have a look at my attempt to get them to correct a blatant misrepresentation of fact (I imagine initially inadvertent) simply ignored [32]. Can you refuse to engage with another editor and still introduce an ANI thread about them? Deleting a serious reply on their own talkpage and refusing to engage on my own when pinged. Their reply here does not address a single substantive question I raised about COI and is simply ad hominem casting me as persona non grata. Oy indeed. Walton22 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tired of dealing with this editor. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have had exchanges with Walton22 recently and found him a constructive and helpful colleague. I don't know anything of the alleged conflicts of interest, but his suggestions helped me improve a featured article promoted ages ago and latterly in need of a little wash-and-brush-up. Tim riley talk 09:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume you're talking about a scenario where the missing discography item is one on which you performed as well. In that case, probably best to request the edit on the article talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't understand you, I'm afraid. The article to which I refer is a life and works job about the English composer Sir William Walton (1902-1983), which I took through FAC in 2010, now improved after some suggestions from Walton22 about inclusions from the standard biography of the composer. Very helpful, and I look forward to other suggestions from this source. Tim riley talk 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Was trying to reply to Walton22's original post, not to your comment. Sorry if unclear. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I appreciate the warm comments from Tim riley and courteous suggestion from BubbaJoe123456. I have just now written briefly about my wider interests on Wikipedia and more significant contributions to the project (e.g. on urban localities) at my user page in case anyone might be interested. Time now for me to take a voluntary break from editing any encyclopaedia pages ('wikication'). Walton22 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello. No-one has addressed my substantive question here, which boils down to: how do we navigate the not insubstantial gap, obviously intentionally left, between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" re COI editing. Some seem to just vapourise the gap and treat "strongly discouraged" as if it were "forbidden". But if that were the intention, then why not just use the word 'forbidden'? I have been guided around this gap re my recent minor COI editing (not my older egregious stuff) by my quote above from Deepfriedokra. Other views may differ but I haven't heard them. There is also a gap between BubbaJoe123456's "probably best to" and "must". I'll also just add this: if the consensus is to shoot down my even raising these things as "wikilawyering" then I will be very happy to not be part of a community in which thoughtful questions about how to navigate its defined regulatory space are themselves counter to regulations. Walton22 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that there is a clear cut answer. By necessity Wikipedia policies and guidelines often need to be a bit fuzzy like that. Which means that other variables are taken into consideration. Some rightly so (such as the nature of the edits) and some unfortunate (variations between people interpreting it.) My own opinion is that we are too rough on declared COI's and for good quality competent objective sourced editing I'd lean towards doing it using the leeway granted by being "strongly discouraged" but not forbidden. And, when in doubt, get someone else to do it. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for engaging North8000 (talk). I had a similar opinion to yours, with the caveat that perhaps the COI should be again spot-declared in the relevant edit summary, even though it is globally declared elsewhere. That's with the benefit of hindsight as I unfortunately didn't go that far and can't now change the edit summaries.
Interesting re "when in doubt, get someone else to do it". I tried that: some listed tabular info in a section of the COI BLP was incomplete. I knew there was a talk page process to basically mass-field an editor to maybe do it, subject to their satisfaction that the edit was cool. But I could also easily see the editor who started the section, so I contacted them and basically said "Hey, this section you started is incomplete. Here's the info that would complete it, sourced. If you think it checks out, would you consider doing the edits as I'm COI to it". They did the edit, the ANI-threatening editor above started an excoriating thread on my doing that, pinged the administrator who is now "tired of dealing with" me and I was reprimanded, albeit not too severely, with that editor casting my actions as "circumventing". I couldn't help feeling: where is the regulation that says I am not free to contact any editor I wish to about anything? The editor I contacted made the decision to proceed. (I might post some diffs here for this instance later, as if I am taken to ANI, as threatened above, I won't be engaging there other than to simply point back here and my user page).
There is a larger question here about our autonomy as editors when faced with other editors who enforce their own interpretation of regulations with added threats of ANI, corralling supportive administrators etc. They can do all that if they want. But then our own attempt to interpret what regulations say is smothered by the "wikilawyering" accusation. Well I don't mean to speak for others at all. This is just how I feel right now.
I guess this is a "wall of text" but again I don't see anywhere that such things are blanket disallowed. Walton22 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May as well do it now. Link for above scenario (including link provided there from it) [33]. BTW I really dislike that the editor does not refer to me by my user name. I regretfully self-outed some time back as I was temporarily blocked for what was an incorrect WP:IMPERSONATE and it seemed to be the needed response, and now wish I hadn't, since "close connection" is enough for COI purposes. But I don't expect it to perpetuate itself so discourteously. Walton22 (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COI edits are 'strongly discouraged' because this is an area where the Wikipedia community has little patience for people who routinely push the boundaries - as it appears you have been finding out. Efforts to probe to find the precise boundary are indeed regarded as disruptive wikilawyering, and are only going to exhaust the community's patience faster. This is because it is taken as an indication that you are trying to find a technicality to allow you to do what you'd like, rather than embracing the spirit of the rules - which is that you should not be making these edits, and you should not be bludgeoning discussions to get your way. In the scenario you linked, it would have been much better if you had followed the normal procedure and proposed the change on the article talk page rather than selecting an friendly editor to approach on their user talk. Consider that even though something is technically permitted under the rules, actually doing that thing may still be a terrible idea. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok noted and appreciated and thank you for your courteous response MrOllie (talk) Potentially allowable COI editing has become about 0%-2% of what I do/want to do here (if anything!) recently and ongoing so it's not a biggie Walton22 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, a question to those more experienced than me. I'm trying to learn. Re MrOllie (talk)'s "Efforts to probe to find the precise boundary [of CIO] are indeed regarded as disruptive wikilawyering". So then I should not have even opened this discussion, as that's precisely its purpose. I don't mean to wikilawyer or bludgeon now in asking that, it's a genuine question, and if the consensus answer is "yes", I fully accept it and I would like to propose closing the discussion. I framed the topic this way as there is a thread with the same title 6 topics up which I took as a precedent. I am ready to be enlightened here. Walton22 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meherrin Indian Nation

The user claims to "represent the Meherrin Indian Tribe" and has been making unsourced changes and adding unsourced information to the article. I have tried to warn the user, but I am not quite sure how to further proceed as they seem to intend to continue. –⁠ ⁠Popo ⁠Dameron ⁠talk 03:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Behgjet Pacolli

I'm reposting this as the issue didn't resolve itself, and the editor is still causing problems on this page.

Freedomday2022, a declared COI editor, is directly editing Behgjet Pacolli's page without using the edit request system, going as far as deleting a scandal involving Pacolli. I understand the rule regarding COI editors to be as such:

  • 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.

That being said, I'd like to request that the user be prohibited from editing the main page & instead be directed through the Talk page.

While it may not be surprising that politicians want their Wikipedia pages to look as good as possible, I believe there to be some concerns regarding COI editing and UPE (albeit more difficult to pinpoint) surrounding Kosovan officials. 30Four (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The headline works quite well here, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Whether you need help researching sources or just want someone to write the content for you, any one of these organizations will be able to assist in getting your page up and running quickly and efficiently. So, if you’re looking for an easy way to get on Wikipedia without having to worry about all the details involved in writing a page yourself, look no further than these top-notch Wiki creation agencies!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh brother... It's not like as if we don't play whack-a-mole with them. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's pretty obvious to me that this is one company pretending to be ten different companies so that it can create an illusion of the reader having a number of options from which to select. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if a person paying any of these entities for services found their money disappearing with nothing to show for it. BD2412 T 11:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similar articles have been reported here before, sadly. Given that several companies listed are presumably controlled by the Abtach creation farm, I wonder what incentive blogs like this gain from producing this brand of churnalism. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some money? Traffic? For me, it's currently #6 at [34] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. Though in some cases, I think it can be a monthly payment thing, since you have to pay them to guard your page when it's up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then again, it could be a least partly separate whatevers. Wiki Counsellor seems less grammatical than the others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Desborough (game designer)

I do not know if this user is Mr. Desborough, or possibly someone working on his behalf, or just an overly interested fan of his, but nearly all of his contributions since creating an account a month ago have been entirely focused on Desborough, including trying to remove alleged "bias" from his article. This includes using his own website as a source (where Desborough referenced activity on his own Wikipedia article). I think there is enough here for someone to at least take a look. It's possible that WP:GAMERGATE applies here. For reference, the article looked like this before his first edit. (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trimmed some unsupported material, did a WP:BEFORE, and the submitted to AfD, due to lack of SIGCOV. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An invested fan, the bias on other articles surrounding related issues is also concerning, but there's no route to correcting the record there. The existing article as written was rife with bias. It's now more neutral. It may be time to correct the Gamergate related articles as well, now that almost ten years have passed. SivaGoth (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Crew Motorfest

Do I have to notify myself? Shouldn't creating this for myself be sufficient notification? Hello! I've come here myself as I"m not sure if this situation creates a COI. For The Crew Motorfest I signed up for the insider program to beta test the game. I was recently accepted and was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement. I'm allowed to speak about the existence of such an agreement but I'm not allowed to speak of any specifics regarding the game that have not been publicly revealed. Would this result in me having a COI with the game or no? I asked on the Discord server but never really got much of an answer, so I'm asking here because, well, I think this is really the only place I can go to get an answer regarding this. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it would constitute a COI (assuming you're not being paid to test the game), since anything you added/changed in the article should be based on RS, anyway, rather than anything you learned during the beta. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope I'm not being paid to test the game Although it would make it better since I would probably be given a PC that is actually able to handle the game. You are correct that it would have to be based on RS anyway (if an RS leaks it then i can add it to the article cause they're violating the NDA and not me) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a problem, especially since you made the effort to be transparent about your involvement. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always try to be as transparent as possible about things (technically the NDA specifically states that saying I am under an NDA is a violation of the NDA but I'm choosing to specifically violate that part so I can remain as transparent as possible with these things). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ford Power-Up version history

This user seems to have a major COI with the article. I would give them the typical warning for having a COI, however I'm not sure if that would still be the appropriate action in this case, as on the AFD for the article, they seem to have admitted to WP:CANVASSing the AFD, stating "Do whatever you guys feel is right. I made the online community that supports this page aware of this and they have already pulled the data, transferred it to Excel and the forum admins will be sticking the thread with the info in the "unreliable forum" I was trying to cite as a source." I"m not exactly sure what is the next step here regarding this user. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St Christopher School, Letchworth

This user suggested an edit to the article in question. The requested edit was to replace a person's surname in the article with their first name, which does not meet the relevant style guidelines. After asking about it on their talk page, an IP user responded. Apparently, this user 1. is aware of the relevant COI policies, as I mentioned them multiple times in the discussion, and 2. has no intention of following them. I understand that their requested edit is not particularly substantial, but I am worried that they show no intention of following relevant guidelines. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shomada apparently using account to promote a particular author

(And many others...)

This concerns a wide range of articles over multiple periods. This account (Shomada) appears to exist purely to promote a particular author, Hamada Hagras, in what looks like an apparent COI and some kind of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Every single edit I've seen from them has been adding citations exclusively to this author, who as far as I can tell is not particularly notable or well-cited. In some cases they introduced undue prominence to Hagras in the body of the article ([35]) or added disproportionately long quotes from his work ([36]). In at least one of these cases, they also removed templates and other material without reason ([37]). In their latest edits, they've been inserting unnecessary citations to Hagras (either in English or Arabic) into existing material, and literally nothing else ([38], [39], [40]). Prior to this recent bout of activity, they were active in 2019 and 2020, and I did some spot checks and found that they were doing the same thing (tons of examples like [41], [42], [43], etc). They also tried to create an article about Hamada Hagras, which was promptly deleted by other editors (see deletion discussion here).

They previously (in 2020) received a warning on their talk page about this behaviour here and another about conflicts of interest here. Recently, I tried to warn them again about it here and then again here. Apart from deleting my first message, they haven't responded, and have since continued their promotional edits (like the ones I linked above). R Prazeres (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This is my first time coming to WP:COIN, please let me know if for some reason this report should go to WP:ANI or elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Richard Flack

User has been asked more than once to disclose COI, but has not done so. Greenman (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • New editor (4 December 2022) has been creating/editing the above four related articles with promotional material
  • Hellenic Environmental Center was CSD'd for promotion yesterday and recreated today. Now at AFD for salt.
  • Aegean Oil (not created by this editor) was cleaned up of promotional material added by the editor, which they reverted without explanation or sources.
  • Aegean Shipping Enterprises was moved to draftspace for cleanup and sources for notability.
  • Dimitris Melissanidis seems to be the common thread between these articles.
I think there edit history shows this editor is related to the subject in some way and is promotionally editing these articles. Request review.  // Timothy :: talk  21:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User is creating non-notable unsourced articles about themselves, a band they are a part of, and an album they have created.

They have upload a selfie of themselves, attributing it as their own work, and added it to the biography [44] and their username matches the biography subject name.  // Timothy :: talk  21:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for one week by Alexf. Let's see if that makes a difference. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


M4t3uz has been disruptively editing and moving Pollen (programming language) to mainspace, despite the article having no proof of notability or reliable sources. They claim here that they are a developer for the subject, and express that they are aware of such COI policies existing. Their unwillingness to comply has gotten into the WP:ICHY range at this point. Additionally, despite being told multiple times, they have not properly disclosed their COI to their userpage. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amritpal singh (activist)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Government is trying to build fake narrative about Amritpal Singh (activist) and using 'fake news' to build claims which are totally bogus. As of now, most of state sponsor media reported information which does not appears until end of last week. This fake information shouldn't be backed to support any claim in the article. Dilpreet Singh ping  00:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks to be an imported conflict from Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist). I think WP:DRN is the more appropriate venue to settle this dispute. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The DRN report was closed as the core issue is about whether a source is RS and is also recommended by the closer to approach WP:RSN. There's active discussion on that at WP:RSN § Baaz NewsDaxServer (t · m · c) 14:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's more than that I have created a few topic on the talk page regarding that. Dilpreet Singh ping  19:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Issue with biased and one sided or pro state narrative and sikhs have a few resources who are reporting and state is propagting a false narrative. if it doesn't cover in conflict of interest in can create a WP:DRN CC. Mixmon ThethPunjabi Dilpreet Singh ping  19:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
choose the accurate noticeboard - if you have problem with content then start a discussion at DRN. If you have problem with the sources which are being cited start a discussion on RSN Mixmon (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello. This is a SPA account for articles about this company and its chairperson. The editor has not responded to the COI requests. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latter Day Church of Christ

I'd like some more eyes here. Both have denied a COI... At around the same time using pretty much the same language "My years of research on the topics discussed do not amount to a conflict of interest"[45] and "I do not have a conflict of interest regarding these pages, nor am I being paid to edit them. I have heavily researched these topics for years."[46] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, more eyes please! @Horse Eye's Back appears to have some compelling interest to remove one side of the information presented in citations, but not the other, even though both sides appear in reliable citations.
Beware the sound of one hand clapping.... Scovington42 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I edit hundreds of topic area, I didn't even know that the Latter Day Church of Christ was a thing. The only COI I have is that I've bought a few things from Desert Tech over the years, excellent products so uh if there's any COI its not in the way you seem to think... Notice how I haven't edit warred with you? I've allowed every revert you and JTalong have made to stay. Not your enemy here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JTalong is a friend of mine. The area of "fundamentalist mormon" research is a very small community, (probably 100 or so regular authors of scholarly articles). Attend any Mormon History Association conference, or Sunstone conference in Utah and you would know what I mean.
I received a call from JTalong informing me that many of their edits had been deleted by @Horse Eye's Back from multiple articles. They asked if I had seen the changes; and I discovered one of them once I logged in.
I reviewed one article and reverted @Horse Eye's Back changes because they do not match the citation, a news article from news outlet "The Guardian." If @Horse Eye's Back wants to say that my edit matching the Wikipedia article true to the citation constitutes a conflict of interest, I am very interested to see him back this with logic. Scovington42 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a conflict of interest. Would you describe this [47] as presenting both sides of an issue? How about this [48]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive me, I'm taking the time to familiarize with these....
The first article you linked appears to have 3 sources. Although the first article mentions one of the same men as the original posted assertion, the articles assertion does not match the citation. The OP assertion could be considered defamation.
The other two citations seem unrelated, do not match the assertion in any way. A drug related double murder that was highly publicized, from a mainstream Mormon family. Scovington42 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second article you posted is debatable.... Is this a page about a corporation or a living person?
Some dubious sources. Scovington42 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user appears to be a single-purpose account, with most of their edits being in relation to the article. Last November, they vandalised the article and its talk page after the website reacted negatively to the article, prior to being warned on their talk page, which they subsequently removed. This month, they accused me of attacking their credibility when I mentioned on the article's deletion discussion that had shared a Substack post that the user posted on the discussion. Isi96 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies in advance for the length. However, given the complexity of the issues discussed I believe it is justified.
@Isi96 I value the importance of fostering a collaborative environment on Wikipedia and addressing concerns raised by fellow editors. While I understand your perception of my account as single-purpose, my edit history clearly demonstrates my contributions to various articles throughout the years, covering diverse topics from film, towns, and television [1]. I am committed to learning and upholding Wikipedia's principles and policies, most specifically The Five Pillars.
At every turn, I have done my best to communicate openly and address any issues that have arisen. However, I have encountered resistance and unfounded accusations from you, which raises my own concerns and can be disheartening and counterproductive.
The past incident you mentioned, involving a misunderstanding of the deletion processes resulting in a vandalism warning, is already resolved after consulting with administrators in November of 2022, and the warning was archived as it is a settled matter. You may review the edit history and the archived messages here. It is unclear why this is being brought up again, as our focus should be on addressing the article's content and maintaining a constructive dialogue.
Regarding the connection between and Thacker's Substack article, it's essential to evaluate the source on its merits rather than de-legitimizing it based on who has shared it. When cites a Bloomberg headline, am I to question the reliability of Bloomberg then? Or what about a Reuters article? Or Aljazeera? Or the International Criminal Court? The issue here is not the reliability of the source but rather the unfounded assumption that sharing a source diminishes its credibility. Our goal should be to discuss the source's value and merit, not to discredit it through Ad hominem attacks or disproportionately disregarding its merit. It is crucial to engage in a reasoned debate over sources without resorting to guilt by association or recklessly dismissing their credibility.
More importantly, the critique on my character is how you refer to me as a single-purpose account (SPA), "@DiamondPuma seems to be a WP:SPA, with several of their edits being in relation to the article, including vandalism, for which they previously received a warning from @Liz. Isi96 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)". With due diligence, it is evident that I am not an SPA, and bringing up the previously settled warnings from another editor as a direct response to my contributions is attacking my character and credibility, rather than addressing the points raised in the discussion. Furthermore, to reiterate, "...several of their edits being in relation to the article..." suggests what exactly? That, according to SPA policy, editors are prohibited from contributing to a single article on multiple occasions? It's important to acknowledge that you have been the primary contributor to the article, frequently preventing other editors from resolving the evident neutrality concerns, despite numerous references on the talk page and even an AfD now opened against the article because of this.
Moreover, it's self-evident I am not an SPA, so why are you trying to malign me as one? These are Ad hominem attacks. I find myself repeating that it is crucial to evaluate the content on its merits, rather than questioning motives or unfoundedly attacking credibility. It's starting to border on WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and WP:ETIQ which is concerning, but I remain hopeful that our exchange will amicably resolve itself, and we will establish consensus on the matter. I am confident that the Wikipedia community will make the proper judgement.
Furthermore, I'd like to boldly and clearly clarify my position with reference to the COI policy, which states that a conflict of interest involves "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships" (WP:COI).
In the case of the article, my actions have been driven by the desire to ensure that the content aligns with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, notability, and verifiability. I have no personal, professional, or financial relationship with the subject matter, nor am I connected to any party that may benefit from my edits. My focus is solely on improving the article's quality and maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia.
Even if I were an SPA, it is essential to differentiate between SPAs and COIs and not assume one implies the other without concrete evidence.
Moreover, I am willing to work together, address the core issues at hand, and ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality and notability standards. But, I am often met with resistance and attacks on my character instead of engagement with facts and ideas. Despite this, I still believe that by engaging in a collaborative and respectful manner, we can uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia and present reliable, unbiased information. DiamondPuma (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You keep spamming the deletion discussion with long walls of text with the same arguments over and over (like you've done here as well), and you've made barely any edits unrelated to Isi96 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DiamondPuma: Funny, I didn't even know about this COI discussion when I asked you if you could have a COI. I can understand why you think people are ganging up on you when this concern and the SPA are brought up repeatedly. We are not. We just have came to the same conclusions based on your actions on Wikipedia. OrestesLebt (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philosophy Documentation Center

User has been editing for over 13 years (xtools), using Wikipedia for adding information about his business, adding mostly uncited content (using what he knows?) rather than adding citations to third-party sources. User had earlier exposed, but not 'declared', his connection though years later denied "being paid". Despite having edited within Wikipedia for so long, including 174 mainspace articles, and having been notified about COI policies, user has never seemed to read, understand and comply with COI disclosure requirements which, along with his 2019 denial, in my opinion places him firmly in the UPE class of editor over an extended period of time.

User was notified of UPE policy July 2019 @ User talk:Gleaman#Philosophy Documentation Center affiliation when he used "our site" in an edit summary (to which he replied he was not paid), and in January 2022 @ Talk:Philosophy Documentation Center#COI tag (January 2022) for COI policy based on similarities of his username to a company official (which he didn't respond to). User has continued to edit and I see no instances of them ever having declared a COI on any article, talk page, or their own user page or user talk page.

Additional COI evidence
Affect on Wikipedia

Grorp (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]