Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 194

Draft:Arabid Slavery

 * Draft:Arabid slavery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
 * Elias_Ziade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: User:Elias Ziade

is guilty of multiple disruptions of the page Draft:Arabid slavery

Multiple disruptive edits: RECENT OLDER- disruptive edit (this older edit was removed, and then the editor returns to disrupt the page and falsely tries to submit the article for review after re-adding again (now for the 2nd time), clearly with the intentions of trying to flag the article, or interrupt or impede with its publication)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Arabid_slavery&oldid=1125137155
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Arabid_slavery&oldid=1125137122
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Arabid_slavery&oldid=1124882050

The page was not ready for submission, and yet FOR THE SECOND TIME this user added a false hoax to and tried to submit it when the article wasn't even finished or ready yet

The sources are valid and true consistent across all wikipedia pages, yet the user Elias Ziade has, without any evidence or substance behind the claims is trying to falsely claim that the sources are unsound when they are GOOD rather what is witnessed is a clear Conflict of Interest from Elias ZIade who does not want to see the article published

This was first done in disruptive edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Arabid_slavery&oldid=1124882050

The user Elias Ziade then admits they are Arabid which is also clear on their page in : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IAskWhatIsTrue

when Elias says As an Arabid myself, I happily extend my welcoming hand to you and offer you this tasty dish of sweets. Thank you for contributing to the forgotten history of the Arabids, who are descendants of reptilians. Don't get your fingers sticky, it's very syrupy.

a White Slavery wikipedia page already exists, so it is entirely consistent with wikipedia that an Arabid page exists as well for the topic of Arabid slavery, and yet Elias with Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest is hoping that the article is not published and trying to get it flagged or something by editors at wikipedia as if (FALSELY) there is something wrong with the draft when there isn't IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no comment about the content of the draft. I would, however, draw the attention of folk here to the reporting editor's talk page, where they have become exercised about this matter. Whatever is going on needs to be resolved collegially, not in a spirit of the battleground. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also wish to draw people's attention to Draft talk:Arabid slavery where there is a one sided brouhaha. Whatever is awry here it appears to be something other than COI 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those Talk page edits on the page you seek to draw attention were added due to el.ziade had decided to make that first disruptive edit that was not based in truth, rather false accusations that the sources were off, ect.
 * those talk page edits were added by me to ensure that future editors who stumbled upon the page like yourself would be aware of the Conflict of Interest IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm really afraid that it will become a BOOMERANG soonly. Have nothing to say except for bro, calm down. Lemonaka (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a fundamentally bad-faith complaint. @IAskWhatIsTrue, you do not own the article or draft, and editors are entitled to comment upon sourcing and content in drafts. That's one reason we have draft space. You have submitted no evidence of a true conflict of interest - self identification with a particular cultural group is not a COI. If you continue like this it will not go well for you.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "bad faith" was to submit the article for review before it was even ready IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * and then claim falsey that the article submission was done because they appreciated the article and wanted to lend a hand IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked IAskWhatIsTrue for personal attacks. A return to this conduct after that block expires will likely result in an indefinite block.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Everyone who participated on this noticeboard thus far was emailed details as to why Elias Ziade was brought up here - participants are encouraged to review the email. If requested I will post the email here or on my talk page for details as to why this User Elias Ziade was brought up here. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The email was very detailed and I will email it to any administrator or steward who wants to read it. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: I emailed all participants of this discussion besides Elias IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please request to read detailed email if you haven't already - or reread the email I have sent you - before taking action - as I wrote an extremely lengthy email as to why the ban I received was wrong. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will continue drafting Draft:Arabid slavery hopefully without further interruption. IAskWhatIsTrue (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * IAskWhatIsTrue is indef'ed on enwiki a few hr ago, and as of now also on commons. DMacks (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Netskope
DebSchell admitted on the Help Desk to having been employed by Netskope for what she describes on the article's talk page as a "project" to update and modify the article, which is a festering mess of buzzwords and promotion, some of which predates her involvement. She has not posted any of the mandatory disclosure templates. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You posted here just ten minutes after advising DebSchell on their talk page of our CoI policy and of the requirement to use disclosure templates. Furthermore, DebSchell was not active during those ten minutes. Your edits to their talk page came shorty after they posted on Help desk saying "I'm new to editing Wiki pages and would like to speak with someone who's done this. I've been hired to update a page of a business and I need to know how to make sure that the updates don't break the rules.". DebSchell last and only edit to Netskope (indeed, their only edit in main-space) was made on 28 September 2022, and consisted solely of changing  to.
 * A note at the top of this page states quite clearly: "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." Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a festering mess and the coi editor has been sent in to clean it up. I think it is a good candidate for WP:TNT at Afd.   scope_creep Talk  14:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked at this several times now. While the company is a leader field, according to the latest Gartner Magic Quadrant, the article is a complete WP:TNTable. It is now at WP:AFD.   scope_creep Talk  23:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, Andy has a point. I guess I'm just impatient with paid editors. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I never looked at the editor just the article. I think Wikipedia has lost it way and we are fighting to preserve something that is already gone. Arguing over  minutiae is a waste of time. It is the same type of gig every week. We should bale out this death-spiral we are in and setup somewhere else.    scope_creep Talk  03:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple creations of Shahzad Dana


Factwritertoor has recreated Shahzad Dana three times in as many days. It was removed by G11 originally, created by sock User:Ahmadasna. Then created by Factwritertoor. I sent it Afd at Articles for deletion/Shahzad Dana. The next one was csd and now its up for csd again. During the Afd the editor repeatedly removed the Afd templates. He was warned about paid editing twice, it was ignored, and he was warned by admin Liz on 5 December 2022 but they're has been no reply to any of this communication. Each time the article is identical, which I suspect kept off WP. It might need an SPI.  scope_creep Talk  10:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've opened an SPI to see if it linked to this old sock.   scope_creep Talk  10:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * has also WP:SALTed it, so that should stop any further re-creations. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Discouragement of Contributions
` It is discouraging and sad to see my edits and contributions being deleted despite having authenticity and rich references. I want the Wikipedia admin to restore my edits for TFAO and to penalise the editor who reverted my edits  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussayn.Shahzad (talk • contribs)
 * This refers to this section above. The edits have been reverted because they have all been inserting links to the same website, the website which has been advertising on upwork for editors to insert just such links. I for one do not believe this is a coincidence. Melcous (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No disclosures despite multiple warnings so I have blocked. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Dowbiggin


User editing an article with an almost identical name. Possibly COI also. Flibirigit (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The account does not exist (check Special:CentralAuth). Is it some other account that is causing you concern? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The user seems to have been renamed to Dowbboy? So far no further edits made. Flibirigit (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You posted here without having ever posted on BruceDowbiggin's talk page to notify them of our CoI policy, and only afterwards did you post there to do so. A note at the top of this page states quite clearly: "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." BruceDowbiggin/Dowbboy has only ever made one edit. WP:BITE applies, even in cases such as this. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I made an honest mistake. I find parts of Wikipedia hard to navigate. Please consider this complaint closed. Have a great day. Flibirigit (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Pantego Christian Academy


is obviously affiliated with the article, has not disclosed anything. They have added large amounts of puffery and unsourced content. Schminnte (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You posted here without having ever posted on Pantegochristian's talk page to notify them of our CoI policy and of the requirement to use disclosure templates. A note at the top of this page states quite clearly: "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." Pantegochristian has only ever made one edit. WP:BITE applies, even in cases such as this.
 * Furthermore another note at the head of his page highlighted bright read, reads You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use [template] to do so. Please be sure to do this in future every time you make a report on this page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Andy, not to be rude, but why do you seem to come here only to criticize posters for breaking certain rules instead of actually helping with COI issues? Other people have noticed that already. 2001:4453:5C6:CB00:78E4:8671:90D4:95DB (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't answer rhetorical questions based on false premises. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

Draft:PayTabs


I previously salted this repeatedly recreated article, but made the mistake of setting it as requiring extended confirmed status. Along comes NordArt23, who made a handful of nonsense edits in their userspace and the A7-deleted article Store King in 2018, and then sat silent until resurfacing four years later to make a set of edits of questionable value to Basheer Ahmed, and then to regurgitate PayTabs (which I have speedily moved to draft). I think the UPE here is obvious. BD2412 T 16:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it seems to be. A brochure advertising article along with some very poor edits to the Basheer Ahmed article.    scope_creep Talk  17:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Konrad Juengling


This user has revealed on their userpage (see twitter link on old archive of their userpage ) that they are the subject of the article, and declared a COI on the article talkpage. However, despite being the subject of the article, they have extensively edited the article having written 68% of its current prose. Perhaps unsuprisingly the tone of the article is overtly promotional, and is arguably a puff piece. Needs to be cleaned up or perhaps taken to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The COI has been declared on the talk page, and the article was created via the AfC process and accepted (after revisions) by a different unconnected editor. It was not created in mainspace. My focus on WP is mostly BLPs, and I try to avoid promotional claims no matter the subject.  I don’t believe this  article is overly promotional. With the GAs I’ve created on BLPs (albeit only 5 or 6), I try to use just the facts, as I’ve tried to do here. If it looks overly promotional to you, be bold and edit it. No one owns articles here.
 * Also, a COI is not a valid AfD reason, nor is promotional language. I’m confident the article is not a puff piece given the breadth of varied sourcing.
 * Happy to respond or answer accordingly, but am traveling today-Sunday evening, and will only have intermittent access to WP through my mobile. Cheers! —Kbabej (talk) Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, you don't seem to grasp how bad this appears. We have COI policies in place for a reason and you've violated them if not in letter then certainly in spirit. It doesn't matter if you avoid promotion on other BLPs and it's irrelevant how many GAs you have, that is a red herring. As the article subject you are, by definition, not objective or neutral. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is fair about the other articles. I was just mentioning that I usually focus on BLPs (and/or politics). I declared the COI, submitted the article through the AfC process, and have made suggestions on the talk page. At the end of the day, I fine stepping away and only making talk page suggestions going forward. There was no surreptitious intent, especially with the article creation through AfC by an uninvolved editor.
 * For what it’s worth, the article does look much better at this point! —Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * See also Dietrich Juengling: Kbabej's uncle. Created by an admitted sock of Kbabej and still very largely Kbabej's work.  AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Kbabej: Disclosing a COI is not enough on its own, especially since you were rightfully blocked for using sock puppets to circumvent and abuse Wikipedia's processes before (frankly, I don't know what discussions you had with Yamla that convinced him to unblock, but I think it was a mistake.) You should not be touching your own article. You should not be creating articles about relatives or work colleagues. Someone's biography on Wikipedia should not be predominantly (before trims, I clocked it at 60%) written by the article subject. The fact that uninvolved editors could remove so much content is clearly evidence you don't have a sense of proportion when dealing with your own biography. Leave it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The socking was years ago, which I stopped and haven’t done since. I’ve used this one account since that point and don’t have need or impetus for another one. I’ve committed to using the one account and have done so; I don’t believe it’s an incredibly pertinent issue to this conversation at this point given the timeline. But, of course, that’s just my opinion. —Kbabej (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This exercise in self-promotion was from last year. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The unblock was more than six years ago and I have no memory of it. Here's the state of the talk page when I granted an unblock, which apparently was with the consent of the blocking admin. Neither the block nor the unblock dealt with violations of WP:COI nor WP:PROMO, only with sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking into this further, beyond editing the articles himself, his edits show promotional efforts to put his name anywhere he can, from adding himself to lists of notable LGBT activists and alumni (I'm going to point out that I don't really think the sources being used are notable) to adding pictures to others' biographies so he can wikilink himself. It shows a blatant attempt at self-promotion on Wikipedia over the span of years. A pblock and/or restriction from editing anything related to himself might be warranted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. This discussion should probably be moved to WP:ANI, and some sort of topic ban proposed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern. While I initially was thinking declaring the COI and sending through AfC was fine, continued editing isn’t either way. I’d voluntarily agree (not that that’s necessarily even needed; just saving everyone time) to a tban for the article of concern, Juengling-related articles (eg Dietrich), or articles mentioning those articles in any connected way.
 * Overall, I do still believe I have been a net positive on WP and would like to continue to contribute overall (less the suggestion above, or tban others propose). —Kbabej (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an egregious violation of COI. The resulting article is a mix between self promotion and otherwise unremarkable information.  Given that this isn't the first time this editor has been involved in obvious COI editing (creating a page dedicated to his father), I would suggest ANI and tbans are in order.  At minimum they should be blocked from any article related to themselves or their father.  Beyond that I think the articles in question should be sent to AFD. Springee (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is no one going to act on this either via ANI or AFD? 73.142.216.166 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

can you identify any other articles where you may have neglected to declare a conflict of interest? I see that Konrad Juengling says you are "a former contributing writer for PQ Monthly and Geeks OUT". You wrote a significant portion of PQ Monthly and most of Geeks OUT, which you also created. In retrospect, would you consider that a conflict of interest? I noticed that PQ Monthly was created by, an editor who seems to have very similar interests to yours (LGBT issues, Oregon politics, German Wikipedia). Was that account a sockpuppet of yours? Poundland Oximeter (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Poundland Oximeter. Thanks for the questions.
 * 1. For your first question about PQ Monthly and Geeks OUT, I haven't written for either in years, and both were non-paid contributing writer articles. I guess one could techinically argue there is a COI, but I don't think either are promotional and I don't have a connection to either at this point (and haven't in years). Additionally, PQ has been out of business/publication for a number of years, and neither article mentions me. I could add the COI banner if requested, but don't have a particular investment in either article. I don't even follow those articles at this point, though I'm sure I did at one point.
 * 2. No, Athelwulf is not a sock of mine. I haven't socked since I was unbanned for doing that a number of years ago. Athelwulf has made one edit since 2017 and we haven't interacted on any articles I've created, but in looking there are some overlapping interests. I'm sure an admin can run a user check, but I can assure you I have no sock accounts.
 * Thanks, and ping me for any other questions! --Kbabej (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that we have any resolution to the COIs nor even a reasonable acknowledgement of the problem. I think this needs to go to ANI.  Springee (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Springee, I have agreed to step away from the articles, have agreed to a tban, and explained my intentions. While I cannot make everyone happy, I have both acknowledged the issue and agreed to an action plan. --Kbabej (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've opened an ANI discussion. Springee (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Tanya DePass


Cypheroftyr is the known username of Tanya DePass; I'm unsure if SpringLeaf17 & LaurenEMitchell are paid editors or not. Originally, SpringLeaf17 made changes which removed all sources and removed the reference template. When these changes are reverted, Cypheroftyr, SpringLeaf17 & LaurenEMitchell have reverted back to SpringLeaf17's unsourced version. The users have been unreceptive to users notices (see User talk:Cypheroftyr & User talk:SpringLeaf17). In addition to notice templates, other editors have been explaining the process in further detail to Cypheroftyr. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I said I used the "sandbox" talk thing.
 * If someone had just explained rather than just reverting it with no note, no nothing I would have been "receptive" Cypheroftyr (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * SpringLeaf has said they will move to sandbox to develop their proposed changes further with references; if someone is willing to help steer them through that process that would help de-escalate frustrations. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not a paid editor. I apologise for any confusion caused; I was trying to reinstate the updated bio image and didn't realise I was rolling back other changes as well. LaurenEMitchell (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Felton Institute


This user has edited under a COI in 2016 on the Katharine Felton page, which is when they got a COI notice from. Then, today, they decided to put obviously copyrighted content on Felton Institute. I would've warned them of their recent COI if it weren't for the warning from six years ago, hence me coming here tonight. Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 01:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * LilianaUwU, the user only edited three times in 2016 before returning in 2022 so it would have been worth trying a talk page discussion before coming here. Their first edit said that they worked for the Communications Department of the Felton Institute, so I have added a paid editor disclosure on their user page. I have also warned them about adding copyrighted text on their talk page. It is possible that Kitty Felton is a shared account as Katharine Felton was known as Kitty. TSventon (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For completeness I have added Family Service Agency of San Francisco and its creator Fsasf (the initials of the organisation) as FSASF was a former name of FI.
 * The original FI article was redirected to the original FSASF article. Family Service Agency of San Francisco was then moved Felton Institute and vice versa by a round robin move. TSventon (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Kessler Park


User has been attempting to add promotional material about Kessler Park, a neighborhood in Dallas, and have not edited in any other topic areas. After their AFC was declined, they have copied and pasted the text from their AFC submission into Kessler Park, which had been a redirect. After these edits undone by John B123, they reverted back to their preferred version. Their reply to John B123 on the redirect's talk page seems indicate an unwillingness to cooperate and abide by our conflict of interest guidelines. They've frequently cited D Magazine in their additions, which was implicated in a scheme last year in which they essentially published press releases for local businesspeople without disclosing that they were being paid to publish these puff pieces. --SamX 04:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I intended to create a separate page for Kessler Park, just like other neighborhoods listed on the Kessler wiki page. I was told that I should merge my creation to the kessler park historic district page. However, I think it's inappropriate to merge certain content like Education and Healthcare in the neighborhood to the kessler park historic district page plus kessler park historic district only covers part of the kessler park neighborhood. Therefore, I used the existing Kessler Park wiki page. Instead of having it simply redirect to the Kessler, Dallas page, I merged my content to this page.
 * I referenced multiple local media in my article, including local real estate blog candy's dirt, local magazine D magazine, local news station WFAA because as a conservation district, Kessler Park is known for its unique architectural style. As a result, it often gets local media's attention. I'm happy to clarify that I'm not paid or associated with any of the media quoted in the article nor being paid or promoting anyone. Simply wanted the Kessler Park neighborhood to have a wikipedia page, like many other neighborhood across the nation. MagellanAquarium (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, based on my editing history, it's clear on how much time I spent on gathering the info and editing the page. Someone who is getting paid would only copy paste what they have and write 2 sentences instead of spending the time to edit different sections of the page a bit by a bit like I did. People like SamX can delete the entire page only because their unfair suspicion is extremely disruptive and destructive. MagellanAquarium (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The only disruptive editing I can see here is your edit-warring with other editors who think your article that was rejected at AfC shouldn't be simply copy and pasted into mainspace. On a side note, overwriting the redirect at Kessler Park isn't a merge. --John B123 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AfD is the proper forum for discussing the merits of the page, which I think would survive given it's no worse than similar.
 * As to the sources, if they are not reliable sources remove them and the material they claim to support.
 * The COI claim is not clear, so I have no comment on the merits or whether the editor may have one versus being interested in the community and a WP:SPA, which is not inherently bad. Slywriter (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wanted to add some further clarifications here. The D magazine articles I quoted are either to further prove and support the architectural values of the homes in Kessler Park (which should not be controversial since part of the area is already a historic district in national register), or to prove that some notable people have lived in the neighborhood. D magazine is big local media so I'm not sure why I can't use them as a source. I didn't know that they received criticism but I see it now. However, the articles I quoted from D magazine are not about rankings of business people or lawyers at all. Is it fair to reject quoting from a media outlet completely just because some of their irrelevant articles/content in the past have got into scandals? MagellanAquarium (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They've done the same thing to the redirect at Kessler Park, Dallas, I reverted. MagellanAquarium, it should be obvious at this point that others object to your edits. Finding some other less watched page to do the same thing is not the way to resolve this. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to know why the content was reverted. Slywriter has mentioned previously that "AfD is the proper forum for discussing the merits of the page, which I think would survive given it's no worse than similar." Could you specify what's is wrong with my edits specifically? MagellanAquarium (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:FactChecker0301


The user has taken an almost exclusive interest in the Indian author by the name of Anindita Ghose, creating the article on her. While interest in a topic alone does not constitute a conflict of interest, and having uploaded numerous photographs related to her and her work on Commons as the user's own work, including a high-quality professional photograph at c:File:AninditaGhose.jpg. When that file was as not having valid permission, the user then  a black-and-white version of the same file locally, without providing a source or license and changed the image in the article on the author. What's more, their very first edit was to indicate that a book of hers that had been published in India in 2021 would be published in the U.K. in 2023; the edit was made in October 2022, though our source in the article for that fact seems to only have been published in November 2022, after the information was added to the article.

Additionally, the user has removed an undisclosed paid notice on the Anindita Ghose article without providing a rationale as to why. They have been given several COI-related talk page notices, including one on 11 December by and another on 12 December by an IP.

Despite all of this, they have not made any disclosures as to any conflict-of-interest, nor have they denied having one. Meanwhile, they have continued to make edits to articles where multiple editors have noted their well-founded suspicions of a COI. As talk page notices related to COI issues seem to not have gotten any response, I am bringing this here for community discussion. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why exactly do you think the editor has a coi? What concerns me is the editor has created the article from scratch, they would be concerned, but is there evidence of a conflict of interest?   scope_creep Talk  15:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Primarily it's the images. They uploaded a high-quality headshot of her (c:File:AninditaGhose.jpg) was "own work", meaning that they claim to have taken that photo of her. They have also uploaded a high-quality image on Wikipedia with full metadata that is the black-and-white version of that image, and that metadata looks legitimate, so it actually does look like that photo was taken by the user (or on the user's phone by another person); I'm frankly not able to find any version of that photo with full metadata and such high quality anywhere online; TinEye doesn't show anything high quality and even the version of the photo that is on Ghose's website is of substantially lower quality than the uploaded file.
 * In light of the file metadata indicating that the photo was taken in 2018, as well as the promotional edits that had not been published outside of social media until after the information was added to the article, I think it's more likely than not that the editor has a COI with this user. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, without giving too much away, I totally agree. Well-done.  scope_creep Talk  23:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd like to respond to the concerns here.
 * 1. I had high res images as I'm a journalist who has interviewed the subject in the past and was sent high-res images as part of media release. Uploading it as "own work" was a mistake as I'm new to this.
 * 2. I confirm that am not being directly or indirectly paid for these edits. I did not create The Illuminated page, someone else did, I only updated it. I did create the author page. And I intended to create and update several more Indian author pages. I've added important updates to Avni Doshi, Nilanjana Roy and Anuradha Roy's pages.
 * 3. I created one more author page called Dharini Bhaskar, which got deleted. I had copy-pasted her bio from a book festival website and cited the website so I'm not sure why it was flagged for plagiarism.
 * 4. There was a query about how I got the information about the book's UK release. I got it from the author's Instagram page where it has been up since May 2022. I added the date based on this: https://www.instagram.com/p/CdvcNQko3op/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
 * Later, I learnt to use and added the link to the article since I thought that's better than adding a social media link.
 * Let me know if there are any other queries. FactChecker0301 (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "I had copy-pasted her bio from a book festival website and cited the website so I'm not sure why it was flagged for plagiarism." That's copyright violation; and a book festival website is not generally regarded as a reliable source, since they want their guests to look as good as possible. Social media, of course, are even worse. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know! So bios have to be from media pieces? FactChecker0301 (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't just copy/paste bios from ANYWHERE unless there is a specific release under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't just copy/paste bios from ANYWHERE unless there is a specific release under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Deanna Lynn Wulff

 * Articles for deletion/Deanna Lynn Wulff
 * Articles for deletion/Deanna Lynn Wulff

Obvious WP:Autobiography by user with the same name. After I prodded, User:Hey man im josh added a COI tag, which was removed by the IP. Notability of topic and appropriateness of an article written by the subject is being discussed at Articles for deletion/Deanna Lynn Wulff. I believe the IP addresses User:2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 and User:2601:645:4300:4E20:F0F7:319D:CB55:FAB0 are also the same individual, who has again removed Template:COI and Template:Autobiography tags I added.

I'm uncertain if User:JoeWerne is a sockpuppet or just a meatpuppet, but there's likely a COI issue here, with this edit adding unsourced personal information. Reywas92Talk 15:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It definitely feels like there's something suspicious going on in this case. There was a dynamic IP user on the AfD who was badgering those who had replied, then a newly registered user's first edit is to vote keep on the AfD. Their second edit is to then expand the article. Feels like, at the very least, someone may be trying to vote more than once. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The article was created via AfC by User:Kvng on 25 February 2019‎. User:Deanna wulff's only edit since then, on 28 May 2019, was to add an image. There is no discussion of CoI on their talk page prior to the notice of this discussion.
 * There is no discussion, whatsoever, on on the IP's talk page, prior to the notice of this discussion.
 * There is no discussion, whatsoever, on User:JoeWerne's talk page, prior to the notice of this discussion.
 * A note at the top of this page states quite clearly: "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." Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, honest question, what do you suggest as the best way to communicate with an unregistered user that is contributing to the conversation with a dynamic IP? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Use the IP's talk page. We have many thousands of such talk pages where such contact has been successful. Also use the article's talk page. And since the accusation is that the IP is the same person as one or more of the named accounts ("a sockpuppet or just a meatpuppet"), use their talk pages also - which should be done in any case, before they are reported here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * i am a longtime (at least a decade) wikipedia user/supporter, but i seldom edit. couldn't remember my login info, so i created a new account so i wouldn't be anonymous. now realizing apparent issues for using a "new" account. i hope that addresses the "new" account concern. i learned about wulff's "unite the parks" work, was impressed by it, so i have volunteered for and contributed to "unite the parks". since i know of her work and accomplishments regarding "unite the parks", i contributed to her biography page when i saw it being listed for deletion, which surprised me, and i offered my $0.02 as to her notability. JoeWerne (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This page is being targeted by special interests, in an effort to remove this person from the wikipedia universe. Reywas92 who remains unidentified knows the rules is behaving in a focused and suspicious manner, but is now prompting others (also anonymous) to comment as shown below. It's disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:4e20:bce9:a049:b82:9059 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually you're welcome to be in the wikipedia universe, but mentioned in an article about the monument proposal rather than a biography. I support the monument's creation so I still don't know what you think my special interest is, but perhaps this should be moved to WP:ANI? Reywas92Talk 17:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User reywas92 continues to violate wikipedia policy, by attacking a page and removing himself from review, when all actions herein stem from his original actions to delete a well sourced page, all anonymously. These are real people with references to content on major news sources. In addition, even more sources were added to the article to address an original complaint about notoriety. Once those were added this user begin to complain about "who" was correcting and adding the new content and sources and prompted others to make comments, and those comments didn't refer to actual originally sourced articles. Further, another comment regarding slant has been added - but the articles themselves are from fairly sourced news. There isn't a bias, just a topical discussion. This seems like wikihounding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk • contribs)
 * Moved this additional disruptive comment from the top since this user doesn't get the concept that new comments go at the bottom. I have no conflict of interest and this user obviously doesn't understand any part of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, including WP:Autobiography. Reywas92Talk 17:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Reywas92 continues to decide his lack of "conflict of interest" without references to any sources that explain that change. The appropriate action would be to edit the article with some other news source - rather than attempt deletion. Also, comments are made about "sockpuppets" rather than registered and verified users, which is what they are. These "counterpoints" are opinions from anonymous sources - i.e. again no reference. Also, the authors could easily use google search and verify changes and find additional articles themselves, and isn't that what wikipedia is supposed to do? Content improvement and accuracy? That is so clearly not the case in plays being made here. This editor isn't making an effort to add content to improve the page, only to dismantle it without doing cursory research, which is why COI is likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC) The article has been edited by many sources and new citations are being added, so this effort to delete does seem murky, particularly when the leading commenters don't have any sources and don't seem to be seeking them. There is a weird push to create page for the organization, when no news articles are written on the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted per Articles for deletion/Deanna Lynn Wulff. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Travis May
User:Sfnc has made just 47 edits over four years, and several of those edits have related to Travis May:
 * January 2018 - AfC declined for Travis May.
 * February 2018 - AfC declined for Travis May.
 * August 2018 - AfC declined for Travis May.
 * November 2018 - COI tag placed on their talk page regarding Travis May.
 * November 2018 - Sfnc denied a COI.
 * November 2018 - AfC declined for Travis May.
 * August 2019 - Speedy delete of Travis May.


 * Several edits were to LiveRamp, where Travis May is listed as a founder.
 * Today, this editor again created Travis May. Something curious about the first version of the article, is that Sfnc somehow knew May's birthday and wife's name. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that social media systems are fond of making people's birthdays and family members easy to find. In this case, I see multiple news sources that mention his wife's name, so there's nothing curious about that.  This one suggests that they were high school sweethearts.  The editor has also edited the article about the school.  Perhaps the editor also attended that school.
 * I think this illustrates our problem with being over-focused on paid editing. An editor left a huge (~275 words) boilerplate warning message about paid editing, but didn't mention anything about non-paid conflicts of interest.  Sfnc denied being paid, which @Magnolia677 has (mis)interpreted as denying any COI at all.   But that's not what was said, because that's not what was asked.
 * Instead of coming out with guns blazing, we probably should start these conversations with something closer to "Cool subject for an article. By the way, do you know him?"  Maybe the answer would have been "Of course!  I'm married to him!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Celebrities are joining Wikipedia as publicity stunts
Hi editors, I came across a video series by GQ called "Actually Me". Aubrey Plaza is the latest interviewee. There appear to be 119 episodes so far.

In recent ones I've checked, the celebrity has created an account on Wikipedia, gone to their own bio, critiqued a few oddball facts about their personal life, and then made edits to the article.

Sometimes they don't create an account and sometimes they stage the edits without publishing them. But I just wanted to bring this to general attention, as they could go to WP:UAA or WP:COI (or even WP:SPI, if they used the same laptop at GQ's studios.)

Amusingly enough, the celebrity often confirms facts already found in their bio, so we could conceivably add the videos as reliably-published self-referential interviews... Elizium23 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * They can make a decent EL: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I had seen a couple of those interviews myself and thought, hmm... I wonder how they would feel about being blocked for WP:IMPERSONATE if they didn't verify their identities... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Burch
Not sure how to handle this, so here you are. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Ericka de Alexander
Creator-Star ERICKA DE ALEXANDER Explores Life, Love and Extinction with New Web Series ‘IF THE WORLD WAS ENDING’



Hey All! I created a few film/new media projects, the last one released on December 9th, 2022 (a web series called "if the world was ending") and I wanted to create a Wikipedia page for my profile. I understand my page should be peer-reviewed since I was the writer of it (and it is about myself). I read the Wiki blog on COIs. I just want to be transparent about this, thanks! Erickaalexander (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A topic is considered notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . As far as I can see, none of the references now in your draft meet that rigorous three part standard, so it seems unlikely that your draft will be accepted at this time.  Roxy the dog  09:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sbelknap carnivore diet advocate editing articles on red meat
editing red meat and Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Sbelknap who has been in trouble at various admins boards over the years for COI related issues confirmed his identity to the WMF in March 2017 and also openly confirmed their identity in main-space. I will not mention their name or cite any off-site weblinks but off-site it is easy to find information about this user.

Sbelknap is a pharmacologist but outside of his profession is an anti-vegan activist who attacks plant-based diets, vegans and vegetarians for hours and hours on several social media platforms all day whilst promoting grass-fed beef and carnivore diet influencers. This user is a carnivore diet and low-carb advocate, hunter and buyer and seller of grass-fed beef and elk. Today I have read over about 100 of their posts which obsessively promote the carnivore diet and attack vegans. Whilst this user can do what they want off-site in their spare time, this extreme promotion of red meat and anti-vegan bashing is heavily influencing their edits on Wikipedia.

This user's basic belief is that all plant foods are toxic (especially legumes and potatoes) and that all humans on the planet should eat an animal-based diet consisting largely of red meat. The user has posted many times off-site that vegans and vegetarians "get sick and die" and end up with diabetes and other nonsense about plant-based diet eaters being weak and feminine. The user ignores scientific consensus and holds pseudoscientific views about nutrition. On site on the red meat talk-page, the user has accused several governmental bodies as having a bias against meat, which is clearly not true. The user has also accused me and other editors of having plant-based POVs or vegan agendas.

Off-site, Sbelknap is part of the carnivore diet and low-carb communities and has extensive communication with Nina Teicholz and James DiNicolantonio which papers he has been adding to Wikipedia. These people are notable advocates of pseudoscience, their views are not taken seriously by the medical community. On the Dietary Guidelines for Americans article (check the history) Sbelknap added Teicholz and her low-carb institute many times to the article. Sbelknap in one post on that talk page admitted to have seen these people "in action". He then pack-peddled and claims he does not know them, however on Twitter he has sent extensive tweets to Nina Teicholz and James DiNicolantonio.

Up until 2018, Sbelknap did not have many edits on nutritional related articles. The user then created a stub Dietary Guidelines for Americans and has since been editing it. If you check the mass content they were adding it was mostly criticisms of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans by carnivore and low-carb advocates including Nina Teicholz, James DiNicolantonio, Zoe Harcome and Mark Hyman, elsewhere they have added Tim Noakes. All these sources are unreliable. There is serious conflict of interest here because if you check his version of the article Dietary Guidelines for Americans which cited many low-carb authors even in the lead its been cited off-site on low-carb forums as having debunked the guidelines. So this Wikipedia article was a piece of low-carb propaganda editing from Sbelknap. This user has repeatedly added the nutritioncoalition website owned by Nina Teicholz with Mark Hyman as a director as a reference to the article.

Here is a list of their conflict of interest:


 * Sbelknap white-washed the red meat article to remove any studies of processed or unprocessed meat consumption reporting negative health effects, this was restored
 * Sbelknap has claimed on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans talk-page that low-carb advocates Nina Teicholz, Mark Hyman, James DiNicolantonio and Gary Taubes are all reliable scientific sources to be adding to Wikipedia, as stated above this user has cited these people many times on the above article.
 * On Red meat talk-page, Sbelknap has repeatedly said there is no evidence red meat consumption increases risk of bowel cancer but this is the scientific consensus of The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as Cancer Research UK and many other governmental and medical organizations around the world that have looked at the totality of the evidence. The evidence is considered strong. After this evidence was cited to Sbelknap he said it was "wrong" but provided no evidence for that statement.
 * Sbelknap on the red meat article is only adding studies that say there is no conclusive health effects for red meat consumption, one study they have repeatedly cited on the talk-page was industry funded. (see talk-page).
 * On the red meat article and especially on the talk-page, Sbelknap is trying to dismiss all epidemiological evidence (reviews of observational studies) as "weak", on the talk-page he has said all observational studies are low-quality and should be removed, however, elsewhere on Wikipedia when an observational study supports what he wants, he cited it. Example umbrella review on eggs
 * The user is exclusively using the GRADE criteria but exclusively using this criteria does not always work well in the field of nutritional science on long-term chronic diseases, as evidence is limited. Chronic diseases take years to emerge. Relying on only short-term RCT's is not looking at all the evidnce, of course there will not be any significant health effects reported in 2 week trials. The IARC and WHO have used Grade criteria but have also taken into account experimental and mechanistic studies. We need to look at the totality of the evidence, not just short-term trials.
 * Sbelknap has accused myself and other editors and medical organizations of having vegan or plant-based POVs for claiming processed red meat increases bowel cancer risk.
 * Sbelknap has extensive off-site contact with Nina Teicholz who he added many times to discredit the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Wikipedia article. Is Sbelknap involved with Teicholz's nutritioncoalition organization?

I believe this user should be topic-banned from editing red meat, they have a blatant COI on this topic but accuse others of bias without evidence. They are arguing against scientific consensus and have a serious axe to grind against reliable sources reporting negative health effects of red meat consumption. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from COI, this appears to be a WP:NOTHERE user solely interested in pushing fringe theories who needs to be kicked to the curb. WP:ANI may be a better venue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt here, as Sbelknap has confirmed his identity and has cited his own research in articles, Sbelknap is Steven Belknap. He's protected his twitter, though I have browsed through a cached archive, and I concur with Psychologist Guy that he appears to espouse fringe views regarding plant-based nutrition and the benefits of red meat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the link. If you search his username on the Twitter search-bar and put "carnivore" or "vegan" after his name, you will also come across hundreds and hundreds of conversations where attacks vegans and promotes the carnivore diet, he calls vegans and vegetarians "Veganistas". Like I said he can do what he wants in his spare-time but this is a full-time unhealthy obsession where he tweets about debunking plant-based nutrition all day it is clearly influencing his Wikipedia edits. Even in the link above you cited he was saying people should avoid all carbs, claiming all plant foods are dangerous, and claiming humans should not be eating nuts. The guy is a dietary extremist telling people to only eat wild caught animal products, no fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds or legumes. He's got over 4000 tweets about this. There clearly is a COI here but if you go onto the red meat talk-page he repeatedly claims to have no COI and says he is neutral on the topic of red meat and accuses other users and medical organizations of having the COI. It is bizarre. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Psychologist Guy, I'm struggling to figure out why you think this is (specifically) a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest means that you have two duties ("interests") and that they might be incompatible with each other.  For example, we discourage people from editing the articles about a business they own or manage, because editors have a duty to Wikipedia to create good content instead of bad content, but a manager has a duty to promote the business, and what if the good content would tend to have the opposite effect?
 * We do not, however, have the same concerns about mere areas of interest. Parents are welcome to write about child care.  Healthcare professionals are welcome to write about medicine.  Teachers are begged to do something about the horror that is found under most of Category:Education.  Vegans are welcome to edit Veganism, religious people are welcome to edit the articles about their own religions, music fans are welcome to edit articles about their favorite albums – we even let Texans edit Texas A&M Aggies football!  There's no conflict caused merely by being interested in or having an opinion about a subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note that of the above religious people do have a COI, just not one which generally causes a problem. The fan only has a COI if they're a member of a fan club and the Texan only has a COI if they actually went to A&M. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A member of the clergy might have a COI, but we have historically not considered being a typical lay person to actually result in a COI for the religion. Being a regular member of a fan club wouldn't trigger a COI for the subject of the fan club, although being the person tasked with promoting the club might.  Merely having attended a university doesn't create a COI for that university any more than being an Amazon customer or an Apple customer could cause a COI for those articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course attending a college or university creates a COI. You appear to be confusing just having a COI with having a COI serious enough to impact the ability of an editor to edit effectively, the vast majority of COI are no serious. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that being a consumer of educational services would create a COI, but being a consumer of Amazon's or Apple's services would not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I do not trade on having consumed those services in order to make a living. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know people who trade on being customers of some tech companies to make their living. Far more commonly, many people attend university without trading on that to make their living.  Do you ask your accountant, mechanic, insurance agent, dentist, computer repair person, doctor, or lawyer where they went to school, and use their answer to decide whether to do business with them?  Neither do I.  Having graduated often matters, especially for the first job or two, but for most university graduates, there is little brand value unless you attended a truly prestigious school.  A degree from the University of Texas System is treated the same by hiring managers as a degree from the Aggies.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We have a perennial problem with people who went to less prestigious institutions aggrandizing or whitewashing their school's wikipedia article. Are you saying that's not a COI issue? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that it's generally no more of a COI than someone who does the same for their favorite hometown. If someone had a good experience, they might well think that the article isn't neutral.  I feel like someone(s) has been whitewashing Kary Mullis to play down his AIDS denialism.  I assume that it's because the person is grossly misinformed, not because the person has any kind of actual relationship with Mullis.  What I think is neutral simply doesn't match what they think is neutral.  I would not at all be surprised if something similar went on with people editing any organization that they know something about first-hand.  If there was a big kerfuffle over something when you were a student, then that will loom large in your view of the school.  Someone from just a few years before or after that incident will have a very different view.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You say that as if external relationships with places can't be COI... They absolutely can be. Generally no, but you're saying *never* which is pure bullshit. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an idea of how someone would have a conflict of interest for editing the article on Mulberry, Kansas? By being born there?  Owning a house there? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of those could constitute a conflict of interest. Per policy any external relationship can be a COI. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is being born somewhere actually an external relationship? I don't think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How is that not an external relationship with a place? Our COI policy covers all external relationship, be they with a person, place, or thing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way is it actually a relationship? Try explaining why wearing clothes or eating food isn't an external relationship, but being born is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If your coat became famous enough to have its own wikipedia page you would absolutely have COI issues when it came to editing it. Same thing with your cheesecake recipe, if we end up with a page for it you end up with a COI issue. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a current COI for the article Coat? Or for Food?  I baked Potica last week.  Do I have a COI for that article now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a real question or is this just more showboating? You've changed the subject so many times I don't think you even know what you're arguing... To circle back around to whether religion is covered by COI: "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." (from WP:COI, which you should read before pretending like you are competent enough to comment on this noticeboard) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read it. I have also noticed that it doesn't defined what counts as a "relationship".  You and I seem to have very different ideas of what constitutes a relationship.  You seem to be saying that if you were ever one of the hundreds of thousands of (mostly former) customers at one place (e.g., Texas A&M), or if there is a life circumstance that you have no control over and/or no significant interest in (e.g.,  whatever place where your parents happened to be on the day of your birth, which religion you nominally hold), then that definitely and permanently counts as "an external relationship", but being one of the millions of (mostly current) customers at another place, even if they're famous for their cult followings (e.g., Apple, In-n-Out, Trader Joe's, Tesla before the Twitter mess) doesn't count as "an external relationship" unless you join a fan club.
 * Or, to put it another way, you think I've got a COI with the hospital where I was born, but not a COI with Apple, even though I've never even known the name of the hospital, much less whether it still exists, and you can have my Mac when you can pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I don't think that sounds like a sensible approach to COI, and I suspect that you don't, either.
 * It seems to me that "a relationship" is bi-directional. One could be a dedicated fan of anything, but being a fan is not the same thing as having a relationship with a piece of dirt, a mathematical concept, a product you buy, etc., and that in COI terms, the relationship has to be more significant than someone being willing to buy the product.  Saying that you can have a COI around something that you like, and that is incapable of noticing your existence, confuses advocacy with COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The above screed is inaccurate. I have made thousands of good-faith edits to wikipedia, many related to pharmacology, health, pathology, and biology. I originated the Dietary Guidelines for Americans article and have made extensive additions to this article and to others. My edits have been in good faith and have cited relevant literature. In my off-site activity, I have been engaged in practicing and teaching evidence-based medicine to medical students for more than 3 decades. I've published extensively in the medical literature. I've also written evidence-based reviews for peer-reviewed medical journals. I am an Internist and Clinical Pharmacologist.

It is false that I have COI issues related to edits on wikipedia. I have endeavored to improve wikipedia with attention to NPOV and to representing diverse points of view when there is a lack of consensus. I have no COI related to veganism or carnivory. I have never met Teicholz or Taubes or any of the others. Other than posts on twitter, I've never had contact with any of the people named above. I have never espoused fringe views of any sort. I am not a hunter. I am not a buyer or seller of grass-fed beef and elk. My diet includes plant-based foods. I do not believe that all plant-based foods are toxic. I certainly do not believe that potatoes, as commonly prepared, are toxic. I am not part of any carnivore community. I am not exclusively using GRADE criteria in my edits. Rather, I have cited all levels of evidence, where appropriate, in my edits. My grading of evidence is as per OCEBM criteria. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence.

This user has a barnstar for wikipedia contributions related to vegan and vegetarian issues. He appears to be a vegan ideologue who deletes wikipedia content contrary to his extreme views, even when this material cites high-quality sources. He has posted numerous inaccurate accusations about me on wikipedia talk pages. His edits to nutrition articles contain many inaccuracies.

I consider this referral to the COI Noticeboard to be inappropriate and abusive of the process. sbelknap (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh please, have some honesty! I have just read 100s of your posts attacking vegans and attacking plant foods on Twitter, you have been doing it for years. You have a massive COI on red meat. You realise we can see your archived tweets which are all public ? "Dark leafy greens are not nutrient-dense. No plant-based foods are nutrient dense, cause that’s not a thing. Eggs, butter, fatty beef, lamb, and wild-caught salmon are nutrient-dense." Your entire existence on Twitter has been to argue with vegans and promote the carnivore diet, unfortunately it is spilling onto your Wikipedia edits. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no COI regarding veganism or carnivory.
 * I am interested in nutrition and health and have discussed this on twitter. The purpose of twitter is to engage and discuss with others. That is how we learn and grow.
 * OTOH, the purpose of wikipedia is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. I remain devoted to that purpose.
 * I note that you have engaged in ad hominem attacks on me. Whatever your reasons for doing this, they do not seem consistent with the purpose of wikipedia. As I've told you, you are careless in your edits and comments on talk pages and much of what you post is in error. The time has come for you to pause and reflect. sbelknap (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am currently halfway through a bag of beef jerky and I think Psychologist Guy has raised some valid issues. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are multiple definitions for nutrient density. One of them is basically equivalent to "high calorie":  butter is a high-calorie food, and therefore is (macro)nutrient dense.  Another of them – a more popular definition – is basically the amount of micronutrients per calorie:  dark leafy greens are a low-calorie food with lots of vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber, and therefore are (micro)nutrient dense.
 * But I'm still not seeing the COI. Opinionated, sure.  But what benefit would he personally get/lose if the article says more/less about how bacon causes cancer?  Even The Daily Mail knows that bacon causes cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL. Are you a regular reader? The Daily Mail "knows" many things that are not true.
 * As stated in ACP Internist, "Unprocessed red meat and processed meat are unlikely to be causal factors for adverse health outcomes." https://acpinternist.org/weekly/archives/2019/10/01/1.htm
 * I am a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, which is the most prestigious academic society for Internal Medicine Physicians in the USA. Our journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine published dietary guideline recommendations from a panel of experts that stated, "The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence)." https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621?_ga=2.3827504.1801699735.1671673749-88752841.1671673748
 * There has been pushback from ideologue vegans on this, and their actions have been quite effective here on wikipedia, which in many articles veers far away from where the science is. sbelknap (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The above is the blatant COI we are talking about from Sbelknap. Sbelknap is citing a flawed study that was widely criticized for not disclosing ties to meat industry . He ignores the findings of governmental and medical agencies which state there is strong evidence for processed meat causing bowel cancer . He doesn't accept the scientific consensus but goes on and on about one single review because it suits his carnivore POV. He is not looking at the totality of the evidence. Sbelknap a few weeks ago was debating a vegan (he does this all day on Twitter) and he told this lady that carbohydrates and dietary fiber are both harmful for health and the lady should eat a carnivore "caveman" diet, you can see some of his comments quoted still .  This user is trying to fool users here that he is a good scientist and neutral editor but he has been topic banned before on other topics, he has extremist beliefs. This guy is just a disguised carnivore diet advocate, you can read his tweets and they are carnivore diet talking points (saturated fat doesn't increase heart disease risk, all seed oils are bad for health, dietary fiber is bad, plants are toxic, people should eat only animal foods). On his Twitter he even reccomended a pregnant women to give up all carbs and eat only animal foods. This is dietary extremism. He has his tweets hidden because he obviously doesn't want his employers to know what he is up to. Sbelknap is a pharmacologist not a registered dietitian or nutritional scientist. Maybe he is an expert in his subject area, but it's clear he has crazy views about nutrition. It is clear as day this user has a COI on the subject of red meat and he is still editing that article. A topic ban I believe is appropriate here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop making false claims about me. You are abusing the process and abusing another editor. I suggest you take a break from wikipedia. sbelknap (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Psychologist Guy, the behavior you're describing is not a conflict of interest.
 * Believing a flawed study that was widely criticized might be stupid, but it's not a conflict of interest.
 * Ignoring the findings of governmental and medical agencies might be stupid, but it's not a conflict of interest.
 * Rejecting the scientific consensus might be stupid, but it's not a conflict of interest.
 * Refusing to look at the totality of evidence might be stupid, but it's not a conflict of interest.
 * Arguing with someone on the internet might be stupid, but it's not a conflict of interest.
 * Having extremist beliefs might be stupid, but it's not a conflict of interest.
 * Being a dietary extremist might be stupid, but it's not a conflict of interest.
 * Having crazy views about nutrition might be stupid, but it's not a conflict of interest.
 * This guideline addresses this: bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sbelknap, none of the claims are false. Your life seems to be carnivore diet and anti-veganism its expressed all over your Twitter. Your tweets have been archived and can easily be seen quoted, we are not talking a few here we are talking hundreds. You have been arguing with vegans on Twitter for years telling people that dietary fiber, all seed oils, all carbs are bad for health. No this is no misrepresentation, this is what you have written. Your views are extreme with no clinical support and it is effecting your Wikipedia edits on red meat. If we type your username on Twitter and the word "vegan" or "carnivore" we can see all the extreme stuff you have been saying, you know that right?


 * Why are you trying to persuade people all day on Twitter to give up all carbs, all dietary fiber and eat just meat? Are you making money out of that? It dishonest to continue this denialism that you are not involved with the carnivore diet. If you just admitted it this would not have been filed. Just be honest. Your entire Twitter feed is based around this low-carb diet, promoting meat, even tweets you have made in the last few hours. Sorry, but you are the most dishonest person I think I have ever seen on here. WhatamIdoing is saying it is not COI, just stupid editing. If it isn't COI then just close this then. I will let other editors deal with your misinformation and bad editing. There is definately no honesty in the carnivore diet community. If no action is being taken, just archive this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your hallucinations are noted.
 * I have not stated anywhere on twitter that I follow a carnivore diet. I include plant-based foods in my diet. I am not anti-vegan.
 * I note that you have not disclosed whether or not you are a vegan. Why is that?
 * The purpose of twitter is to provide a platform for persons interested in a topic to engage and exchange views. I am interested in the reasons why people have a belief that a plant-based diet is healthful. When I am interested in another's POV, I engage and ask questions. That is the purpose of twitter.
 * That is not the purpose of wikipedia. You are way out of line. sbelknap (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You said on Twitter you only eat animal foods and you have criticized people for eating plants. In many of your tweets you have said carbohydrates are dangerous and are not essential. Do you still believe that linoleic acid and alpha-Linolenic acid (ALA) are saturated fatty acids? After you made that mistake, you never retracted it Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It also looks like you joined Twitter to argue and troll vegans, "Steve likes to troll vegans (me, at least 5 others) - he has zero interest in accepting the data or learning more. He just wants to argue." - Nanci Guest PhD, RD, CSCS . This behaviour is also reflected in your editing here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * None of that matters here.
 * If you have concerns about a specific source being misused in a specific part of a specific article, you may copy the entire passage plus source and ask for help at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * If you have concerns about the overall balance of an article (e.g., you feel that it promotes a view that is contradicted by basically every nutrition or medical textbook), then you may take that article to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
 * If you want to argue about whether someone is wrong on the internet, then please do that off wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to focus on the content of wikipedia.
 * I shall do the same.
 * Stay well. sbelknap (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep overcapitalizing? You're an "internal medicine physician", not an "Internal Medicine Physician"; it's not a trademark/service mark or otherwise susceptible to being considered a proper noun, like (I'm just making this up) the hypothetical Michael DeBakey Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Baylor College of Medicine, a title that would refer to one person and would thus be a proper noun. MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:CAPS deal with these issues. Minor issue but I'm just wondering. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the issue here would appear to be WP:ADVOCACY rather than WP:COI. Bon courage (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Finasteride funding
Sblelknap previously disclosed getting some funding from the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Red meats are high in saturated fats, which can lead to an increase in DHT levels. A link between surging DHT levels among ex-users of Finasteride has been proposed as being linked to rare, persistent side effects (sexual dysfunction, suicidal ideation) observed in some ex-users. This is not a medical journal, and it's not necessary to prove a causal link (which may not exist) in order to establish a possible COI at the red meat article. There are plenty of other things to write about. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That feels like a stretch. If your goal is a WP:TBAN, then I point out that COIs are not the only, or even most common, reason for issuing a TBAN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not interested in a TBAN (but that's just me). Judges regularly recuse when there's absolutely no wrongdoing whatever, but when there could be a perception of it. My reading of COI is similar, and given that there are 6.5 million other articles to work on, why focus on ones that might raise an eyebrow? But maybe my reading of COI is all wrong. Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
What PsychologistGuy said about Sblelknap is true, he supports the carnivore diet and says all plants are candy and bad for health. "Plant-based foods are unnecessary for human health. Eat fatty meat, offal, eggs, cheese. That is what a healthy diet looks like. Plants are candy." , "Plant-based foods are unnecessary candy. All of them. There is no strong research result supporting the assertion that plant-based foods are necessary for human health during pregnancy, infancy, childhood, adulthood, or old age", "Pastured cattle is preferable. Humans evolved as lipovores, eating fatty meat, marrow, brains of ruminants. We are carnivores." . "Eating plant-based foods increases the risk of scurvy. Carnivory is healthier than veganism. Plants are unnecessary for health." , "Humans evolved over 2 million years to eat mostly animal fat and protein. Human physiology is optimized for a hyper carnivore diet. Steak & eggs: Breakfast of champions", "Type 2 diabetics who eat a plant-based diet experience improvement or complete reversal of their diabetes when they convert to high-fat carnivore diet." , "there is no risk of malnutrition from eating a high-fat carnivore diet. You present no research result supporting your claims that a plant-based diet prolongs life nor that a high-fat carnivore diet shortens life nor that carbohydrates are essential." .

His strange dietary views are clearly influencing his current disruptive edits on red meat and saturated fat where he is accusing Wikipedia of having a veganism agenda and editors of being vegan activists and seventh-day Adventists. Perhaps this should have been filed at WP:ANI. 90.241.67.238 (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be completely inappropriate for numerous reasons, one of which is that AN/I is about intractable behavioral problems and there is nothing even close to that here. Another is that what editors say off-wiki is their business; if they edit here according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then they are welcome here. I'm not sure what it is that you think you'd raise at AN/I, but your own behavior would also be examined if you do. Mathglot (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is vegan bias and vegan organizations paying editors at Wikipedia (CarlFromVienna, Psychologist Guy, Bon Courage, Zefr) are all long-term vegans paid to control the red meat and saturated fat articles. Even the IP above is probably being paid to get sbelknap banned. There is blatant bias against the carnivore diet here. We at World Carnivore Tribe will be watching this. There will be a full expose about the vegan editing here. World Carnivore Tribe (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia strives to be exactly as biased as mainstream medicine on these subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Usual trolling in this topic area trying to amp up the drama, likely from a WP:LTA. Follow the WP:BESTSOURCES folks and all will be well. Bon courage (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Chloë Grace Moretz


IP user claims to be the spouse of Chloë Grace Moretz in a talk page message and an edit summary on Nimona (film) and has made an (unreferenced) edit to the latter page while leaving an edit request on the former. silvia  (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  01:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael Rosenbaum


Self-admitted COI editor, has been warned multiple times to stop editing the article about himself, but seems to think it's "his page". He also doesn't understand how files work here, and keeps replacing one with an external link.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 23:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bit hasty to say of a pseudonymous editor "self-admitted COI". You and I have no way to verify the identity of this editor. Elizium23 (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm just taking their word for it. Their edit summaries refer to "a movie I did", "my image" and "other things I do", and they even signed one with "thanks, michael".  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 06:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are required to WP:AGF, that's not optional. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think in this case, believing that he's a COI editor is assuming good faith. Given what he's said, the alternative would be that he's impersonating the subject of the article. Jahaza (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is about motives, intentions and attitude. I don't have any reservations about assuming and believing that "Emil Camacho" is trying to improve the encyclopedia with those edits. However, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and WP:BLPREMOVE overrides other considerations. What this editor is doing, and likewise every editor who claims to be a notable person like this, they are making contentious assertions about a living person that is not verifiable in a reliable secondary source. It's the same as if they'd added User:Emil Camacho to the social media ELs in the article. It doesn't matter where they make the claims, they must either be substantiated or immediately removed from talk pages and anywhere else they appear. Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Workers Credit Union


Minor points:
 * In the absence of mandatory disclosure, I've added connected template to Talk:Workers Credit Union and tagged Del-One Federal Credit Union
 * TomAlexander85 appears to have an undisclosed PAID with Del-One Federal Credit Union (Del-One is a client of the editor's employer ) in violation of the TOI. It appears to be a promo only account, arguably WP:NOTHERE. Recently promo links have been reverted etc, and other editors have noticed the COI.  Widefox ; talk 12:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Workerscu account a USERN VIO, not yet blocked.
 * TomAlexander85 has disclosed two paid articles with a paid on their talkpage, why on earth do we have a paid template with default hidden?! Widefox ; talk 12:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Gerd Sommerhoff (1915-2002)
This is a slightly odd one. Sommerhoff was a fairly well known theoretical neuroscientist and even had a stint as a BBC presenter, but after his death in 2002 gained coverage for historical child sex abuse allegations (at Sevenoaks School) in the wake of the Savile incident. has declared that "In October 1996, Wikipedia User: NigelHarris (then 21 years old) & he [Sommerhoff] became lifelong friends". and had edited the article to include apparently personal remininsence, all unsourced, including an off-colour comparison of Sommerhoff's activities with Alan Turing's homosexuality. A COI is denied, and they are edit warring. Wise eyes needed. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If you look at the talk page for the article, you will see that Alan Macfarlane never heard any obloquy about his teacher until decades later. I think there is sufficient danger that Stuart Neilson is the sole origin of this moral panic, and that further checks should be conducted before publishing obloquy about either Gerd or the schools. I accept Stuart's right to be a critic, but not his right to amplify his critcism by inventing other critics. If I, as a wholly hetereosexual man, am barred from an interest in the Wikipedia Page because I knew him unfailingly to behave like a gentleman between 1996 and 2002, then anyone who is ignorant of the Law of England & Wales on defamation should likewise be barred from editing the Page, lest they cost Wikipedia and themselves the price of tortious conduct. NigelHarris (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The referral to Alan Turing is necessary to describe the context of those years. In the modern age, Gerd Sommerhoff would have married another homosexual man and never needed to converse with any schoolboy for alleviation of solitude, but back then adult with adult homosexuality was unjustly criminalised. If he did talk with self-confessed autistic Stuart Neilson, then he exposed himself to risk of misrepresentation. Much better, then, that he had enjoyed conversations with only other gay men, in a modern day gay-bar. NigelHarris (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A newspaper that has withdrawn its articles is not a pertinent source, and nobody other than Stuart Neilson has put his own name to an accusation. NigelHarris (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you ever perused WP:RGW? You shouldn't be editing the page at all with your massive COI. Also note that you will be swiftly blocked if you continue to make legal threats. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for WP:RGW, yet one more anonymous editor, Horse Eye's Back. You demonstrate my point perfectly and undermine your own position. Gerd Sommerhoff was never accused in his lifetime. It is the accuser and his mouthpieces who are trying to "right the great wrong", not I. I am merely trying to return Wikipedia to the status quo ante, a page about the man's work and beliefs connected to that work; not scurrilous tittletattle. To develop the page further in that direction, his attitudes to his own life and its encroaching end bear strong connection to his work on theoretical neuroscience and consciousness. NigelHarris (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless the accuser and his mouthpieces edit wikipedia that's not really relevant. If that's your mission you are doomed to failure. What legal repercussions? Physically this is all taking place on servers in the American state of Florida, British law is as irrelevant as Saudi law. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC) - Placed upon my talk page, and shared here in its location of relevance.
 * NigelHarris (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The (elided) paragraph below was placed by editor Bon_courage upon my own talk page (and screenshotted, witnessed and notarised).
 * The dead cannot be defamed ... The purpose of an encyclopedia is merely to summarize what pertinent sources have said about subjects, and the allegations against Sommerhoff are a matter of record. Bon courage (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * These are not allegations, in the legal sense; this is one statement of complaint and one civil law claim. Some unnamed person (who may or may not truly exist) says that Gerd Sommerhoff made a (lewd) verbal request which was refused, and then proceeded to provide a hearty breakfast, not compulsion. This writer's tone is jokey, which is exactly the healthy-minded heterosexual response to a poof in the 1970s casually trying it on. The only extant online record is https://stuartneilson.com - prove to me that the print editions for the (no longer online and now) defunct Severnoaks Chronicle newspaper have not all been pulped. The private agenda (on his own personal website) of one self-naming critic does not make anything a matter of record. Did Kent Police ever say whether they find his statement persuasive? Is Stuart Neilson even his birth name? Has anyone even done that due diligence? No, because everyone fantasises that there are no legal penalties for breaching the presumption of innocence of a dead man. To which I remind you Ignorantia juris non excusat. NigelHarris (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Our BLP policy does not apply to a dead man, it would however apply to a living accuser. Consider this your final warning. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead NigelHarris (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sommerhoff has been dead since 2002, two decades ago. BLPs "recently dead" criterion only applies to people who have died in the last year or so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So pray refer us all to the Wikipedia guide on how the long dead should be treated. Your reversion of the page is as unlawful, with its sarcastic justification, as those of the other two, with their specious ones. NigelHarris (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors ... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you call contributors, what we might neutrally agree to call editors, some of those are repeatedly through their own voluntarily-chosen actions reverting the Wikipedia Page to an unlawful state. So will the legal repercussions of that be suffered by Wikipedia? It will obviously seek to offload blame onto the hubristic editors as a few rotten apples in its otherwise saleable barrel.
 * Unless the accuser and his mouthpieces edit wikipedia that's not really relevant. If that's your mission you are doomed to failure. What legal repercussions? Physically this is all taking place on servers in the American state of Florida, British law is as irrelevant as Saudi law. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So to summarise, Bon_courage is indifferent whether Wikipedia tells the truth about dead people - "the dead cannot be defamed", and Horse Eye's Back sees himself not as a mouthpiece in parroting the reckless, sensationalist (and now deleted) words of the reporter, and considers English law not to influence a webserver based in the United States despite recent British success in prosecuting for the Death of Harry Dunn. NigelHarris (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Escalated to ANI due to legal threats. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Trish Kaufmann


The article about Trish Kaufmann appears to be the subject of persistent disruptive COI editing that didn't even stop when was blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I dropped a line to when I came across the most recent activity. The sudden appearance of WP:SPAs soon after a block for similar edits is rarely coincidental. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

14ers.com
Per User:BillMiddlebrook, Bill owns 14ers.com and per Special:Contributions/BillMiddlebrook, he has been linking them in articles. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 01:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely true. While I didn't understand that I shouldn't simply add External Links, I also took the time to update the "Easiest Route" information on each Colorado 14er page to link to the actual route descriptions that happen to be on 14erDOTcom. If there's another way I should be doing this, I'm open to learning. Providing the users an external reference to the easiest routes is helpful and provides value on the Peak map box on the right of each page. BillMiddlebrook (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Brendan Miller


Someone who claims to be the subject of the article keeps editing the article, despite warnings not to. Note edit summary "I’m Brendan Miller..." The mobile phone edits keep adding unverified information, and removing content from the lede that they find disagreeable, specifically their affiliation with the Canada convoy protest Mobile phone account appears to have edited from : I think temporary page protection would be a good measure here. I put in a request. Graywalls (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:56A:72BB:2800:7870:7470:6E3F:6F6C and
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2001:56A:72BB:2800:E47C:790F:DEB4:17EF CT55555 (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to recommend a degree of lenience in this case (at least for now) given that the edits appear non-disruptive (though the change to the lead should have been discussed per WP:BRD; but even there, I would have agreed the change was appropriate).
 * There is also the issue that the user has not made an account: the first round of COI warnings came at 19:47 UTC on 31/12/2022, and his last edits under that IP came minutes later. By the next edits, hours later, his IP had changed, and he has not edited under that second IP since the second round of warnings. It is therefore possible he hasn't seen any of the COI warnings (if his IP had changed again after the second round of warnings, which is likely).
 * To Mr. Miller, if he sees this: please review the discussions above. While disruptiveness and self-promotion are definitely forbidden, even good-faith edits should follow the WP:COI procedures. DFlhb (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor has repeatedly added unreferenced information about the subject's date of birth. This has happened 1 2 3 4 times, which seems like edit warring. WP:3RR states an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page
 * They have removed most of the lede, which summarises why the subject is notable. Edit comments indicate that the editor objects to the subject being associated with the Canada convoy protest but also important context, that was the "news story of the year" in Canada, so that is what the subject is most notable for.
 * There is a general theme making the article more positive, despite requests not to do so both on two talk pages. The editor might be unaware of the talk pages, but seems to be engaging in conversation via edit summaries, which also call the article defamatory WP:NLT says If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely although I am unsure if this is a legal threat.
 * In summary, the editor is somewhat following citing guidelines, but ignoring edit warring and COI guidelines CT55555 (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Right; agree the change in birth year was unreferenced. He may be most notable for the trucker defense, but I generally oppose defining lawyers by the clients they defend (I'd agree with him that it creates a BLP issue); either we should give a brief overview of his career in the lead, or keep it bare; though that's a discussion we can continue on the talk page. Point is, while the birth year change was edit warring, I don't think the Convoy removal from the lead was self-promoting. DFlhb (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have declined the request, and left some comments over there. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Shawntheshipper sockfarm/thamesinfotech.com

 * articles
 * (article re-creation)
 * sockmaster
 * probable
 * (article re-creation)
 * sockmaster
 * probable
 * sockmaster
 * probable
 * sockmaster
 * probable
 * sockmaster
 * probable
 * probable
 * probable

Someone notified an admin about Facebook adverts by "Md. Saidul Islam Rana"/Facebook user "Ameer Ali" that listed some of the articles linked above as their paid editing work. An SPI was opened and tied this to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawntheshipper. Remaining articles could be looked at for content problems. Also this outfit probably should be added to WP:PAIDLIST under thamesinfotech.com. By the way the sockfarm is pretty extensive with 19 CU-confirmed socks so far.

Weirdly this sockmaster is indexed on my roster of beauty pageant LTA editors. Maybe they were paid for that too. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you do a quick check if Dog Home is a recreation of Dog Home Foundation (DHF)? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , confirmed, but walking out to lunch now so I'll only be able to follow up on it later. signed,Rosguill talk 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: There's information in the SPI (7 November 2022) that links the sockfarm to thamesinfotech.com, backed up by bio information on their "about us" page that confirms "autobiographical" concerns in the SPI (19 August 2021). ☆ Bri (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: User:Thamesinfotech requested a username change to clearly match the bio information on the corp about-us page. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Article and example

 * (Used here as a general example of the quality of work being offered up; currently deleted)
 * (Used here as a general example of the quality of work being offered up; currently deleted)

Related usernames


It's come to the attention of helpers at wikipedia-en-help on IRC that there appears to be a rather unorthodox test to get a job working for Attilio Meucci and/or his organisation Advanced Risk and Portfolio Management ("ARPM") as PR: Write a Wikipedia article about the company that gets accepted. We had a helpee come in and complain their draft was deleted as advertizing, and didn't like that we wouldn't restore the article; this actually got us looking into the situation a bit more (h/t to User:Writ Keeper for their efforts). What we've found is that this "test" (as the helpee put it) has pretty much produced naught but promotional garbage drafts that aren't going to go anywhere, with a cite to The Wall Street Journal being the only source close to being reliable across just the eight drafts I've looked at and the Meucci article.

The accounts above are those who either have a ARPM/Meucci-related draft in their userspace or who have written a draftspace piece for ARPM. I have not included any SPAs on the Meucci article as even the newest one is incredibly stale. I will be notifying the listed users ASAP as soon as this thread opens. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 19:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * My thoughts on this, is since it has been going on for so long we Salt both articles to avoid continued disruptive editing. -- VViking Talk Edits 19:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ann E. Rondeau


The user has added a paragraph to Rondeau's article about the "Steele Affair", alleging actions by Rondeau toward a subordinate. (Most recent diff of add: ) The edits use no secondary sources, working instead off of trial transcripts and legal case summaries from services such as Justia. The user has held himself out as Steele and is persistently re-adding the material, even after being advised of his severe conflict of interest. I am doubly concerned that there are WP:BLP issues with adding this material in an article about his adversary in court proceeding. Quoting WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Note also that the user concedes that are no reliable secondary sources about the incident. Further, the legal proceedings he brought against Rondeau were unsuccessful, which means this starts to sound like unfounded allegations against the subject of the article—which should be omitted per WP:BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * C.Fred mischaracterizes the situation. There were no legal proceedings against Vice-Admiral Rondeau. The paragraph in question concerns a straightforward description of the major legal opinions and verdicts concerning my decade-long civil-rights action against the US Department of Defense that got initiated by two command decisions by Vice-Admiral Rondeau, a major public figure in the federal government.  I’m sorry both the liberal and conservative media refused to report on a major age-discrimination case in the federal government over the past ten years that has set a significant legal precedent for employment law. So, in the interest of this historian to make sure the historical record is accurate for the American people at least in Wikipedia, I repeatedly invited C.Fred to correct anything I wrote that might be inaccurate or biased, but that never happened. I certainly rewrote the paragraph after she initially complained about primary-source documents I referenced.  And I did cite two legal websites describing the significance of one of the legal rulings I describe.  So, I am willing to subject my paragraph to whatever Wikipedia deems necessary to ensure an objective historical narrative, but I cannot imagine how complete censorship is the answer. Brettdsteele (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The two legal websites you cite appear to be essentially law firm blogs, which don't meet the standards of reliable sourcing. I understand it would be frustrating to see Wikipedia not include content you believe to be very important, but the simple fact is that, if the case hasn't been deemed notable enough to be covered in reliable sources, then it's not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure law firm blogs wouldn't be usable in many or even most circumstances, especially if they aren't tooting their own horn. Attorneys are experts on the law by definition; an expert source is a way to get around WP:SPS. I often use law360.com for sourcing but am careful that it's not promotional for the party putting the information out. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Prime (beverage brand)


I'm not going to try to figure out who exactly has a COI here, but it seems blatantly obvious that there is some sort of coordination going on to promote this 'sports drink'. Efforts to minimise the use of primary sources seem to be getting nowhere, and the article is getting more like an advertisement by the minute. Fresh eyes on the article would be welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed - It seems to have been only edited significantly by Tbf69 (me), AndyTheGrump and Sahaib.
 * This is not really creating a balanced and neutral article. Tbf69 17:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Given your apparent inability to understand Wikipedia policy on sourcing, I'm not sure you are in the best position to talk about 'balance'. What is clearly only ever going to be passing coverage of concocted hype about a product is being used to justify an article about a 'brand' or a 'company', which independent sources can't justify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, this isn't really going anywhere, and I would like the article to get to good article status eventually.
 * As you may have seen, I've opened an RfC on the article as a whole, to get, in your words "fresh eyes on the article". Tbf69 18:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Good articles' cannot be built around primary source material and regurgitated press releases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Mooonswimmer's paid work
User:Mooonswimmer is an established (paid) editor. So far they disclosed following work as paid (this need a thorough review as when they created/edited this - it was not disclosed): They are also active on Upwork and other marketplaces, so take their current disclosure with a grain of salt and tag any suspected work. 108.197.34.118 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fadia Ahmad
 * Beatrice Baldacci ‎
 * Amina Muaddi
 * Carlota Guerrero
 * Alan Berg (nutritionist)
 * Futera
 * Stan Rogow

User:RajneeshPi, and User:EditorPi
Both of these editors have a few non-notable (now mostly deleted, or draftified) articles. The concerning ones are:

EditorPi created BLP for Rajneesh under different titles, all three are same persons as apparent from the live draft. Also from live draft, it is clear that User:RajneeshPi is somehow employed by TV9 network. I posted a COI notice/warning on the talkpages of both the users on 14 December. RajnesshPi hasn't edited after the warning, but EditorPi has made a few edits. From their usernames, it is also possible that they are working for some content creation and/or PR firm. A UPE block is in order for both of them. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Elias_Ziade (paid editor with autopatrolled and new page patroller)
, as they have themselves declared that they are active on a marketplace and do paid work from time to time, so it doesn't make sense to entrust them with rights like, WP:NPP or WP:Autopatrolled, as it would be better if a third person reviewes their new creations, now onwards (so they can detect any dishonesty timely). A similar case: Whatever is decided here should be the standard for all paid editors, like Nehme. 74.15.64.107 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nehme1499


 * The message is well received, will wait for administrator deliberation and decision. el.ziade (talkallam) 23:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I laid out my case in response to the ticket and was unblocked by and . I made it clear that IF I do any future paid work (which is unlikely after the experience of almost losing my account), I will disclose as per policy. As for the privileges, I am not attached to any; I will be content with just being able to continue my work writing about things I am passionate about, which seems to piss off some here. Let's see where the anonymous witch hunt goes from here.el.ziade (talkallam) 02:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Just to note that as far as I can see, the full disclosure of paid editing that was agreed upon prior to the user's unblock has not been met. See my comment on the user's talk page. Meters (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Meters waiting for further instructions, from @Salvio giuliano @Blablubbs. el.ziade (talkallam) 03:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This situation is highly concerning and raises serious questions about the handling of user conduct within the project. It is unfortunate that seems to be targeting and harassing productive members of the community, making it difficult for them to continue contributing. This behavior is particularly troubling given the history of constructive contributions from the affected user. It is imperative that appropriate action is taken to ensure that such misconduct is not tolerated and that the rights of productive members are protected. I disagree with the initial block; given that the user appears to be very cooperative, a warning could have achieved the same outcome. I wish we had a time machine; Jimbo would probably laugh his ass off knowing that eventually some users would have nothing better to do with their time than go on witch hunts such as the one we are witnessing here. Épine (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is rubbish. The only thing Meters has done is to point out that the disclosure by the user did not meet the requirements of our policy. This issue is not on Meters - it is entirely on Elias Ziade, who I see has now corrected their disclosures to meet the policy. - Bilby (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bilby It's important to consider the history of contributions made by Elias Ziade. Just because they made a mistake regarding policy compliance, it does not justify repeated attempts to hinder their ability to contribute. A warning could have been an appropriate action instead of a block, as the user appears to be cooperative. Clearly we don't have the same thought process, and that is probably a good thing–for me. Épine (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They were warned. They were notified that they needed to disclose, but they lied and said they weren't being paid . They were then given another chance , but they again lied and denied being paid , and followed that up with a claim that the accusations were sabotage . They admitted being paid only after being blocked. When blocked, it was carefully explained that, due to their excellent contributions, they would be unblocked as soon as they disclosed , which they were. Since then, the only two issues to arise were these ones - the reasonable question as to whether or not a paid editor should have advanced permissions, and a request that the disclosures be updated to match policy requirements. Elias Ziade is an extremely valuable editor, and I'm really pleased to see them unblocked, and fully agree with you that they should be allowed to continue to edit now that they have met the terms of use, but they haven't been mistreated. - Bilby (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and pulled new page reviewer and autopatrol permissions. The unblock reasoning appears sound, but given the breach of trust around UPE was a mere 2 weeks ago advanced permissions do not seem appropriate, and given that they were not discussed in the unblock discussion it seems like they were retained only due to oversight. Elias Ziade is still free to continue to write excellent articles about subjects they are passionate about. signed,Rosguill talk 00:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Lindakeb


This user is editing heavily in the area of Tufts University. The two drafts and single article above are examples, all of which show the most obvious clue to COI/UPE editing (any editors/admins who are unfamiliar with what that is, please email me and I'll be happy to share it with you offline, so as not to give clues to COI/UPE on how to evade detection). User and another editor have also commented on this on the user's talkpage, and received a rather lackluster response.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there! I have only received one COI concern previously, which I have since addressed thanks to the user's kind guidance. I hope to continue editing on the subject of Tufts University without having these pages moved to the draft space for COI/UPE concerns. I have no association with the university nor its faculty, but I am more than happy to correspond with anyone to develop the most appropriate path forward. Best regards, Lindakeb (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there are obvious indications that you know these subjects. Onel 5969  TT me 10:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I am also concerned that Lindakeb has an undisclosed COI. The caption of the second image at Sergei Mirkin ("artistic representation...") was written by Lindakeb and includes the image's author, who seems to be an employee of Tufts University. The image is listed as Lindakeb's "own work", thus indicating that they are said employee. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that two of the images the usage has uploaded appear to be candid snapshots of and, it seems unlikely that the user has no connection to those people. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Los Pleneros de la 21 : Puerto Rican Bomba and Plena Music in New York City     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raylaur15/sandbox


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 2603:7000:8106:B298:B1BD:E509:62B7:23A9 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Dear Wiki Editors: I have just completed an article (Los Pleneros de la 21: Puerto Rican Bomba and Plena Music in New York City) in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raylaur15/sandbox). I am acquainted with several of the musicians in the group, although they are not personal friends and I have no professional relationship with them. Nor have I received any remuneration from anyone for writing the article. However, to be safe, I will declare a COI. Could someone please tell me exactly where and how I should do that? I can't seem to figure out how to access that right COI template. Appreciate the help, Raylaur15


 * Thanks for your diligence in attempting to declare a COI. I'd suggest you ask your question about how to make sure the reviewer knows about your position at the AFC Helpdesk. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board


ZentraleDienste began editing exclusively on this article immediately after registration; 2 and a half weeks after the latter account was softblocked in violation of the username policy. The editing style from both accounts makes the article appear very promotional in tone, which makes me think there is an obvious conflict of interest going on. Until the editing pattern, the tone of the article was neutral, and all attempts to revert the suspected COI have been contested. Jalen Folf  (talk)  00:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Bayes Centre


Hi all! Happy new year. Just wanted to flag this article as it was submitted for review on 30th November 2022 and needs a onceover to check its COI credentials. It was written by a new (paid) editor, Communications Officer Joanna Clarke at the University of Edinburgh. In good faith I might add as she's wanting to make sure she abides by Wikipedia's policies on NPOV, COI, reliable sources etc. I have provided some general advice on sticking to facts and NPOV and at one point added the Peacock template to steer her in the right direction... but the article has been edited by her since so not sure Peacock template is quite so pertinent anymore. And since I too am employed by the university I would feel much more comfortable if someone else removes the banner if it has been addressed. Likewise, if an independent COI review/onceover of the article could be done, Joanna is very happy to listen to feedback on language/sources used and any issues on notability etc. Many thanks,  Stinglehammer (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Chetan Bhagat


SPA created this article, keeps removing adding promotional images, has not responded to COI notice on their TP. MB 13:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @MB, what's wrong with removing promotional images? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sure that it would have been obvious to a truly experienced editor that it was a freudian slip at the keyboard by an even more experienced editor. A five-second investigation - which is what this noticeboard is for - would have revealed exactly what what he meant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The most recent edit to that page by this account was removing an image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The three before that were adding images. MB 05:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've them for two weeks from that article. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Heads up, they just edited it again. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)