Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 204

User:NoorStores


NoorStores declared a mild COI to British writer Kate Clanchy in November, saying that they were Clanchy's student on a writing course some years ago. NoorStores said that Clanchy struck them as "exceptionally kind and sensitive" but that "I doubt she would remember me".

Clanchy was the focus of a publishing controversy in 2021, where she drew criticism on social media and from some fellow writers. NoorStores initially blanked this from the Kate Clanchy article, rewriting it when it was restored. The user has also added lengthy and inadequately-sourced paragraphs about the story to the articles of several of Clanchy's critics, which I reduced to single sentences back in November. This week, NoorStores added a full section about Clanchy to the article of another of her critics, Joanne Harris.

I think NoorStores may be unhelpfully close to the subject here, and from the level of synthesis and primary sources in their edits appears to starting with their own perspective of events and finding sources to support each step, rather than writing neutrally based on what reliable sources have said. There's also a general sense that NoorStores sees Clanchy's critics as "controversial" figures (Talk:Joanne_Harris,, ) and that Wikipedia's readers need to be informed of this, which I'm not sure is the case. Belbury (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not think that Mr Belbury is being fair to me. As you may see from my Wikipedia record, my area of study at university was diversity and identity in UK publishing. Here on Wikipedia, I have been open in saying so and also that I have met Kate Clanchy and she was a kind teacher. I also did a course with Diran Adebayo, and he was also kind, and also one day with Momtaza Mehri who is brilliant! (I don't think any of these people would remember me) All  of these people had very outdated Wikipedia pages and I have updated all of them. I was a good person to do this because I knew the material.  I believe I have been neutral for all of them though I have been learning as I go along. For Diran Adebayo I had to  remove not-neutral 'peacock phrases' - quite a lot- even though it made me sad as personally I am a fan of his writing.  For Momtaza Mehri there was lots and lots of tidying up, and I had to be careful again not to be a fan!. For Kate Clanchy I removed some things which I knew just as not-neutral in the other direction. For example someone had written she was 'known to be a racist' and people had rubbed out all her books then put them back with bits missing. This is not what Wikipedia wants. The controversy over her work is very big. In publishing it is huge.
 * I NoorStores (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And I believe it should be in Wikipedia in a clear way. I am listening to Mr Belbury and I am a sincere editor. NoorStores (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Momtaza Mehri Diran Adebayo are here and I have met Roger Robinson one time as well! NoorStores (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at NoorStores's recent contributions, almost all she has done in the last few days is edit around Kate Clanchy and Joanne Harris and related articles.
 * I would strongly suggest that @NoorStores avoid editing any of the articles related to these people or the controversy around Clanchy's book, if only to avoid the appearance of COI. If you want to propose changes to any of those articles, it would be better to make them as suggestions on the Talk: pages rather than editing the articles directly. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Almost all of NoorStores edits from the start of her editing in Nov 2023 have been around the writers involved in one way or another with Kate Clanchy and the issue mentioned. She doesn't seem to intend leaving the topic and has now said on another users talk page that Joanne Harris is 'accusing' her.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 11:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * this is not true at all. NoorStores (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just realised I didn't rebut this here, as well as on the BLP Noticeboard.
 * As I posted there a few days ago, since you created your account, the overwhelming majority of your edits — and the overwhelming majority of the text you have added or removed from articles — are on the articles of Pullman, Harris, Clanchy, Singh, Rajesh and Suleyman. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, that is untrue as Belbury and Pam showed.
 * Second, even it was true, that would not mean anything at all. I work in the area of my academic study of course I do. I edit what I know. I started to learn to edit on the biography of someone whose page was in a bad way and did a lot of updating. I was open that I'd been taught by her. That does not mean I am her SPA or advocating for her and that shows in the work I am doing. You don't get to tell me there is a range of pages I can't comment on because you say so. That's not the rules.
 * Look at the Joanne Harris page. I started editing there because it was wild to me that there were no citations and the style was all peacock phrases, and what do you know it was written by her SPA!
 * And you are accusing me of COI? NoorStores (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is demonstrably true; I have not seen any suggestion to the contrary.
 * I am not saying that you are an SPA; I have never said that. I am saying, though, that you seem to have a specific perspective on the controversy around Clanchy's book and that your edits to those articles have not always been as even-handed as one might like. I also recognise that your edits are well-intentioned and that you have also made real improvements to Harris's biography.
 * I also stand by my suggestion that you might like to avoid those pages. I'm not telling you that you cannot — as you correctly state, "that's not the rules" — but you might like to consider either if there are ways to be more even-handed about the criticism of someone you appear to have sympathies for or if it might be easier (and lead to fewer disagreements on talk pages and noticeboards) for you to agree consensus on those specific biographies before making the edits.
 * Many of us will have areas we avoid editing — in my case I know personally several people in the digital rights space, so I avoid making substantial edits to the biographies of Duncan Campbell (journalist), Cory Doctorow, Wendy M. Grossman, Kevin Marks or Danny O'Brien (journalist), for example. This isn't some kind of problem or a failing on anyone's behalf, just a recognition that it is easier for other people to trust our edits if we don't write about someone I know personally. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You wrote 'the overwhelming majority of your edits — and the overwhelming majority of the text you have added or removed from article are on the articles of Pullman, Harris, Clanchy, Singh, Rajesh and Suleyman. ' That is demonstrably false. If you want to take it to Arbitration, I'd be really happy to go for that.
 * You wrote it on this thread to try to prove I have COI when I don't. You did it to make me look bad. You did in an aggressive way. That's not fair. You didn't take me in good faith and I don't believe your advice is in good faith either. As you see this thread is closed. I hope you won't interact with me again, but if you do I will cite those FALSE allegations as examples of harassment. NoorStores (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Other comments aside, I do have a problem with the way WP:ASSERT plays out in that excerpt. "Some people say [negative label]" in Wikivoice seems inappropriate. BrigadierG (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The comments here are untrue. I have a higher degree in publishing. My dissertation was on issues around identity and on ways of increasing diversity in publishing. Here on Wikipedia, I have been very proud that my first article was on The Complete Works (poetry) . This article about increasing diversity in poetry has links to 15 other articles and I have been thanked for it. In addition, I have helped to get an article about Tomiwa Olowade published and was sent a diversity barnstar for that. Also, I have done big edits, as I say above, on Diran Adebayo,  Saga Prize, Roger Robinson and Momtaza Mehri. These are all topics connected to my thesis, but, as I said above, I have also had classes with Diran Adebayo and I am Momataza Mehri's number one fan. This is not a conflict of interest, it's just my interest.
 * I have not made any edits to the pages cited by Owen Blacker in the last six weeks except Joanne Harris and Philip Pullman. Joanne Harris's page was not neutral and had big complaints about. I have improved it. If you want to say I have a conflict of interest, please give me instances of bad, not neutral prose on the Joanne Harris article, or say where I have not cited something properly.
 * Otherwise, you are just saying I am a bad person with no examples given. This is not neutral or fair. With the greatest respect I must remind you of the stereotype that Pakistani people are dishonest and 'on the make' and ask you to carefully examine your unconscious bias.
 * This is very upsetting for me. I feel bullied. NoorStores (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @NoorStores Please do not be so swift to find racism in other editors' thinking. In our first encounter you accused me of bias and suggested that I thought of Asians as being dirty, because I said "Other editors should not still need to clean up after your edits." Pam  D  13:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * it is untrue this was a section about Clanchy. There was one sentence about her in two paragraphs about the Society of Authors. NoorStores (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise Pam. You are a wonderful person and you have taught me so much here!
 * But this is a pile-on, like on twitter. It is not Wikipedia values. No one is reading the sources and checking. Everyone thinks I am in bad faith, and treats me as dishonest. Why? I did not think the way User:YellowFratello was treated was right either. Unconscious bias exists.
 * I think I will have to leave again. If I come back, I will have to pretend to be a white man. NoorStores (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do leave. You are a new, conflicted, and un-accomplished editor so how would you know what "Wikipedia values" are? The statements against you speak directly and dispassionately to your editing and at no point has anyone attacked your personhood. Playing the victim here will not work. In the past twenty years Wikipedia has dealt with many editors like you who only seek to deface articles for your own ends, so while for you this is a horrific confrontation, for us it's just Friday.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is bullying. You should be ashamed of yourself. NoorStores (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chris troutman Please retract your "Please do leave": it's no way to talk to any other editor (apart from perhaps a pure vandal). Aside from the Clanchy controversy, NoorStores has contributed constructively to the encyclopedia on articles like Tomiwa Owolade and The Complete Works (poetry). Pam  D  17:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

NoorStores has been making general "spring cleaning" edits across at Philip Pullman, but has just reported on the talk page there that I have been told I have a conflict of interest and must not do any more edits on this page. There are links with Clancy in the Pullman section on Presidency of Society of Authors, but would a COI cover the whole article or just the sort of links that are in that section?  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * So far, no one has given me one single actual example of an edit that I have done that shows a conflict of interest. In the meantime, Joanne Harris has admitted that User:Keyserzozie works 'on her behalf' and has done for many years, very very closely, even taking selfies for her and starting her myspace page. User:Keyserzozie started and wrote most of the Joanne Harris article before I edited it, and User:Keyserzozie started and/or wrote most of six linked book articles too, but has never acknowledged the conflict of interest. I'm here because I included on Joanne Harris's page 200 words about her work with the Society of Authors, 200 words backed up with citation from 12 verified sources such as the Guardian and BBC.I chose those articles from more than 100 similar ones because Joanne Harris' work with the Society of Authors is very very notable. I think those 200 words belong in that article, and I do not think I belong here, and I do not think I deserve bullying like the above and I think I understand Wikipedia values very well. NoorStores (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for information, for @NoorStores and any other editors who haven't come across it, the Xtools facility offers all sorts of analyses of "Who has edited this page?", "Which pages had this editor edited?" and so on - so this page shows us that Keserzozie and NoorStores have made 50% and 21% respectively of the edits and contributed 36% and 43% of the text of the Joanne Harris article, and this shows that NS's four most-edited pages are Clanchy, Harris, Singh and Rajesh (a tie for 4th place) - though in that list The Complete Works (poetry) only comes in at number 13 with 8 edits, although NS created the article and wrote 81% of its text (creating the article of course is just one edit). This page shows KZ's edits, all to the JH page and related topics, mostly in 2012. Clicking on links within the Xtools display leads to further analyses - scope for a lot of time-wasting, but some interesting figures which need to be treated carefully.  Pam  D  11:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Pam, as ever. I think as I have learned more about wikipedia and learned to use the Sandbox I have made fewer edits for more substantial contributions, like The Complete Works example. I am confident that anyone who studied my record would see that I had several areas of interest here on Wikipedia and was learning to be a good editor. I was very encouraged by @Pincrete's kind remarks here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
 * Studying the @Keyserzozie page shows us that they are, as they have have said, solely here to act on behalf of Joanne Harris and have contributed very substantially to all the pages about her. To my mind that should be declared on all Keyserzozie's pages, and before I leave I will put a note up on these pages to say so.
 * I don't believe anything raised on this page demonstrates any kind of conflict of interest on my part. However, the pressure to clear my name is making me feel pressured to disclose my full identity and this is making me feel harassed. I am a young Pakistani woman trying to find a job in British publishing and so I feel very vulnerable. So I have decided to leave Wikipedia after I have left my note about @Keyserzozie. So whatever you decide to do with this page, that won't matter any more. NoorStores (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NoorStores, nobody is asking you to disclose your identity or "clear your name", I don't know where you're getting this idea from. This is a discussion of whether your declared COI towards Kate Clanchy is affecting your editing when you write about her.
 * You say above that "no one has given me one single actual example of an edit that I have done that shows a conflict of interest". My post at the top of this thread includes several links to specific edits of yours which I would say fell under the "omitting negative information", "overuse primary sources or non-independent sources" and "too much weight to certain ideas" issues that often arise when an editor (even a very well-meaning one) has a conflict of interest in relation to the person that they are writing about. I said much the same the first time I spoke to you, on your talk page back in November. Belbury (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. None of your accusations are at all clear. You say things like 'I think NoorStores may be unhelpfully close to the subject here, and from the level of synthesis and primary sources in their edits appears to starting with their own perspective of events and finding sources to support each step, rather than writing neutrally based on what reliable sources have said. There's also a general sense that NoorStores sees Clanchy's critics as "controversial" figure'. You don't give examples, so I can't explain or deny them. You've also spread these attacks over several pages, so I am harassed and bewildered,  and said nothing when editors have abused and threatened  me in terms such as 'please do leave. You are a new, conflicted, and un-accomplished editor..In the past twenty years Wikipedia has dealt with many editors like you who only seek to deface articles for your own ends, so while for you this is a horrific confrontation, for us it's just Friday.' You have also joined in and encouraged Joanne Harris/Keyserzozie in many unfounded personal insinuations. Of course, when all the accusations are those sorts of insinuations, I want to clear my name. Of course I am tempted just to put up my email address and university - but I can't, for family and job reasons. You do not, excuse me, understand what it is to be a Pakistani woman in the UK. The pressure is making me too unhappy and I am going to leave Wikipedia.
 * I don't think you have behaved well in your role as Admin. NoorStores (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are greatly misreading and misunderstanding what is being discussed here, if you think that anybody wants you to "clear your name" by revealing your identity. Your identity is not in question.
 * The blue links in the first post here, and at User talk:NoorStores, are examples of the edits I'm talking about. If you click the link it will show a before-and-after view of the edit in question.
 * I don't understand what "unfounded personal insinuations" you're referring to. I'm also not an admin. Belbury (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @NoorStores Please, keep on editing, but to avoid stress just leave the whole Clanchy /Harris /Pullman etc area to other editors. The sky won't fall down if one or two articles don't at present represent 100% the truth as you know/perceive it to be. Raise concerns on talk pages, with sources, if you really can't bear not to, but ideally just walk away, at least for now.
 * Concentrate on unjustly ignored but demonstrably notable poets etc, where you have knowledge of the subjects but no appearance of either WP:COI or an agenda of WP:RGW, and enjoy the satisfaction of contributing to this amazing encyclopedia.
 * No-one wants to know who you are, beyond "a careful, literate, but inexperienced, British-English speaking, Wikipedia editor who knows a lot about the UK publishing scene". You've enjoyed the sense of achievement of creating The Complete Works (poetry), so please carry on building the encyclopedia. Pam  D  14:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Pam. I have taken your kind words to heart and this morning published an Article on Jason Allen-Paisant. I have also read many of the Wikipedia regulations and I got some help to write the note below. (
 * This COI notice was placed by @Belburyat the behest of @Keyserzoziewho at that time had not acknowledged that she was acting on behalf of Joanne Harris. They alleged that @NoorStores was trying to insert 'contentious or libelous material' because she was using an article from The Times. Joanne Harris had sued the Times over this article, but @NoorStores was using the amended version of the article, so no libel could be contained in it. This was quickly obvious and so was the fact that @Keyserzoziewas a SPA acting on behalf of Joanne Harris. As soon as that became clear, @Belbury should have removed this COI discussion. They did not and instead allowed @NoorStores to be harrassed and abused, on this thread and also at her Talk page and also at the BLP persons thread placed by Joanne Harris. There is no evidence that @NoorStores is a SPA, or has made non-neutral edits or of any other COI. She was not treated in good faith.
 * @NoorStores is now asking for this COI allegation to be removed. She requests @Belbury to stop interacting with her. If he continues to do so, she will seek arbitration and an interaction ban. NoorStores (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll just respond to the false opening statement there: I did not open this COI discussion at anybody's behest, and it pre-dates any contact I had with Keyserzozie. Belbury (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You took it down when you realised there was no evidence of COI, then replaced it when Joanne Harris/Keyserzozie made their complaint. Then you persisted in leaving it here after it was obvious that Keyerzozie was the SPA, not me. Keyerzozie has written 20000 words of essentially promotional material over 22 years on Wikipedia 'on behalf of' the Chair of the Society of Authors who ought to know better if anyone does. But it was me you picked on Belbury and kept on picking on even when I was very clear how upsetting it was. I've read all the Wikipedia values now and that 100% does not fit with them.
 * I hope this will be our last interaction and this COI notice will be removed. NoorStores (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have never taken this discussion down, it's been here since I opened it on the 7th. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But you acknowledged there wasn't a COI on the 8th. Then you renewed it the very minute Joanne Harris/Keyserzozie appeared, and then you let it run and run after it was clear who was the SPA. NoorStores (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean without a link to the comment, but doubt I would have acknowledged that there wasn't a COI, because you have declared that you were once a student of the subject.
 * If by "renewed" you mean that I left this COIN discussion open and posted a separate BLPN request for assistance a day later on the 8th, then that's true. But that was three days before Keyserzozie "appeared", and neither was posted at Keyserzozie's private behest. Belbury (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't understand.
 * Are you still maintaining that I have COI? In that case I want arbitration. It's a baseless accusation. NoorStores (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And no, it was Joanne Harris's behest from an IP address wasn't it? NoorStores (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. There are no such IP edits to the article or its talk page from before the 11th. And I know from my own memory that I made the COIN and BLPN threads of my own accord.
 * Yes, I still believe that you have a mild COI with respect to Kate Clanchy, you being an ex-student of hers, and think that you should bear in mind the advice given by PamD and OwenBlacker upthread. I think we may be talking at somewhat cross purposes about what it means to have a COI, given your comments here about which of you and Keyserzozie is "the SPA". Belbury (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think its very clear that I don't have a conflict of interest and I will carry on making neutral edits in the proper way. The contrast between the way you treated me and the way you treated keyserzozie is ridiculously unfair. I'd be happy to go to arbitration any time and ask for an interaction ban and I am super confident that I would get it. So I suggest you leave me alone from now on. NoorStores (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this should be closed. Its been going on far too long. NoorStores seems to have the mildest coi and having looked the editors contributions I don't see much that is of concern.  scope_creep Talk  14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was already nearing retirement when I first tried my hand at Wiki, and I'm logging off now for the last time. The reason I don't do social media is precisely to avoid the kind of drama I've seen here and on associated pages over the past few days. Goodbye and good luck, everyone. Keyserzozie (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's not of concern. I think the editor should leave the specifically named articles alone and move on to another area. They keep saying they are going to leave it and then coming back and making edits which are not, IMO, neutral in application. If, in fact, there is no COI, it should not be of a major concern to them to leave all these particular articles alone.   &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 11:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NoorStores said on the Joanne Harris talk page a short while after Scope Creep's comment above that My COi discussion has been closed so I'm free to continue here, and went back to adding contentious content about Kate Clanchy to that article. They may have misread Scope Creep's recommendation as a formal closure. Belbury (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Interaction at Talk:Joanne Harris is also problematic.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   07:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I did misread the comment. I believe this has been going on too long. What is the evidence of conflict of interest? Please give an example? Please will you explain what you mean by 'problematic' Esowteric? Please give an example o 'not neutral edit' Antiquelight. Please say what the 'contentiious' content is. You seem to mean an article from The Times. Yes of course I keep coming to attacks on my integrity and false allegations about me. Anyone would. This is very upsetting for me. I came on here to learn to edit and I started with something I knew about which was the very outdated article about Kate Clanchy. And I was open I had a Creative Writing course with her. That's my conflict of interest. It's not one.
 * I didn't intend to out Joanne Harris as having used someone to write her pages for 22 years. I was just trying to make her pages more neutral. It is very scary for me having this happen.
 * What I don't understand is the unfairness. It is a very big thing to have a writer like Joanne Harris do that. She used Wikipedia as her promotion pages for 22 years. She came on the pages twice and made threats. So why is everyone dunking on me? I'm not the one in the wrong. NoorStores (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you telling me to stay away from Harris's pages? Amtioquelight? Please think about the whole Wikipedia. If I hadn't made changes, Joanne Harris would have carried on with her promotion pages, 9 of them. Why is it 'problematic' of me to have noticed they weren't neutral? Don't you understand how this feels to me? Do you think about diversity at all? Have you got any sympathy or understanding? NoorStores (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any evidence here that I have a conflict or interest. So I'm asking for this page to be closed or for it to be moved to arbitration. NoorStores (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Keyserzozie
I am placing a note of concern about @Keyserzozie and the user with the IP address 2A02:C7C:AEEE:8000:B9DD:D916:F26D:3411 who has identified herself as the writer Joanne Harris. Revelant pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keyserzozie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joanne_Harris @Keyserzozie and the above IP address have agreed that Keyserzozie acts 'on behalf' on Joanne Harris. Keyserzozie has been fulfilling this role since 2002 and most recently edited on Harris’s behalf in October 2023. @Keyserzozie has created and extensively edited the Joanne Harris main article and also created and/or substantially edited the 8 lengthy book pages linked to the article. @Keyserzozie has only edited pages on the topic of Joanne Harris. They have also contributed 'selfies' to Wikicommons of Joanne Harris stating that they were taken by @Keyserzozie. Full details are here.https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Keyserzozie Keyerzozie has never acknowledged that the pages were created by a person acting on behalf of the author, and the pages are not neutral in content and tone. In 2012 on Talk:Joanne Harris @ReaderofthePack commented 'this article reads like a glowing group hug written by an overzealous fan', and 11 years later @Josefkrasner wrote 'Agree with comment above. The early life section also seems written by the subject herself. Where is the information sourced from otherwise? In 2023 I found nothing changed. I undertook edits seeking to make the page more neutral. I stated this on the talk page. I added many, though not sufficient cictations. Three days ago, Keyserzozie, by their own account, Keyerzozie let Joanne Harris know this was happening. Joanne Harris removed many edits and accused me of libel. @Belbury. Neither at that time acknowleged they were acting together. As a consequence of these false accusations, I am leaving Wikipedia.

I believe that the pages Keyserzozie created for Joanne Harris should bear a notice stating that they were created by a person acting for the author. I also believe that @Keyserzozie should have a notice on their talk page to that effect. I hope editors will ask them to do so. I don't think a writer should treat wikipedia as an extension of their website I hope for the eyes of @ReaderofthePackon this. NoorStores (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I had already added a "Connected editor" template to Talk:Joanne Harris earlier today before seeing this. I don't see anything to gain from having yet another discussion of the facts that:
 * Keyserzoozie (KZ) knows JH but is not an employee. (IT-minded friend or family, I assume)
 * KZ started the JH page, and also has done various social media things for JH
 * KZ has edited nothing in wikipedia not related to JH
 * KZ should have declared a COI, but was probably ignorant of this as an occasional editor
 * An IP plausibly stating themself to be JH has contributed to recent discussions
 * NoorStores has done a lot of editing ofKate Clanchy, Joanne Harris, Philip Pullmann, etc who were involved together in a controversy
 * NS was taught by KC a few years back and found her to be kind and supportive.
 * Some of NS's edits have given the impression of presenting KC'S "side of the story" and detracting from her opponents
 * NS has said that she will leave Wikipedia but has been encouraged (by me) to stay and edit away from this particular group of articles.
 * Most of this has already taken too much editor time and energy in about five talk pages ...Talk:Joanne Harris, User talk:NoorStores, User talk:Keyserzozie, WP:BLPN, and above. Pam  D  14:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Noorstores is mistaken. I haven't accused her of libel, or asked about her identity, nor has anyone else on here. As for myself, I've already declared my position, that I helped set up some pages for Joanne Harris over 20 years ago, as well as a long abandoned MySpace. I'm not being paid by Joanne, and my editing history will show you I haven't edited her pages for well over ten years, except for the odd update. However a few days ago I did remove one long section written by Noorstores, entitled "Society of Authors," as per Wiki's guidelines on poorly supported or potentially libellous material. This section wasn't really about Joanne, it was mostly about Philip Pullman resigning, and public criticism of Kate Clanchy's book. Actual mentions of Joanne in the sources were from things like Substack and anonymous blogs, and just sounded a bit unreliable. I looked in the page's history and found that Noorstores had tried to put up earlier versions of the page (then labelled "Controversies"), and had engaged in discussions about it on the Talk page. I don't know anything about Noorstores, but from her editing history she seems very keen to label as "controversial" people Kate Clanchy disagrees with. I understand that the Twitter storm over Clanchy's book is important to Noorstores but at the end of the day I'm not sure it's notable enough to appear on pages other than Clanchy's. And anything notable about the Society of Authors surely belongs on their page, although there's no mention of it on there.
 * Anyway, that's enough from me. I didn't even know about these Talk pages before last week, which is why the COI thing passed me by. That's been seen to now, and I don't anticipate doing much more on Joanne's page except for the little updates I've been doing as and when. Anything more than that, I'm happy to run by the moderators and let them decide whether it's worth including. Thanks to everyone who has helped. Keyserzozie (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Below is the text that @Keyserzozieremoved together with references. I ought to have left it here earlier. All the references are to verifiable sources, mostly broadsheet newspapers.
 * @Keyserzoziegave the following reason for removing it. 09:06, 11 January 2024‎ Keyserzozie  talk
 * contribs‎  19,213 bytes −6,354‎  →‎Society of Authors: removing of contentious and possibly libellous material undothank
 * Philip Pullman was president of the society when Harris became chair. In August 2021, the society distanced itself from Pullman's comments on Kate Clanchy's book Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me. In March 2022, Pullman resigned, later stating that the management committee "urging me to apologise for something I hadn’t done" over his earlier comments was a factor in his decision, and criticising Harris for her 'facetious and flippant public comments'. Clanchy also claimed that Harris had privately urged her to apologise for the racist abuse of Sunny Singh and others, a request that Clanchy had found 'disturbing'.
 * In August 2022, shortly after the knife attack on author Salman Rushdie, Harris placed a poll about death threats on Twitter/X for fellow authors which some found inappropriate and flippant. Harris changed the wording of the poll and, following criticism to the contrary, stated that it had 'nothing to do with JK Rowling'. Rowling then stated that Harris was more widely failing to defend authors in her position at the Society of Authors, citing the cases of 'cancelled' writers Gillian Phillip/Erin Hunter and Rachel Rooney. In response, Harris stated that this was a 'fabricated' row based on animus about her views. Following continued discussion including comments from Antony Beevor, a motion was created for the Annual General Meeting of November 2022 asking Harris to resign. This motion was heavily defeated.

NoorStores (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm now signing back out. NoorStores (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Theroadislong@Pincrete grateful for your eyes. NoorStores (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:OwenBlacker


Owen Blacker edits under his own name on Wikipedia, posting links to his twitter and other social media accounts on his user page. His twitter accounts and website refer back to Wikipedia. therefore I am not 'outing' him or using any information he has not put in the public domain. On Twitter, Owen Blacker has made several positive comments about Joanne Harris and negative ones about Kate Clanchy. He was also part of the Pink News committee which gave Joanne Harris the accolade 'Pink New Ally of the Year'. I therefore think he should be careful when commenting on both writers and declare COi when needed. I have unfortunately been the cause of Joanne Harris being outed as having used an agent, Keyserzozie, to write her pages here on Wikipedia for the last 22 years. This is quite scary for me. I have been accused of COI because I was open that I took a class with Kate Clanchy.

On the 7th of January, Owen Blacker wrote

Looking at NoorStores's recent contributions, almost all she has done in the last few days is edit around Kate Clanchy and Joanne Harris and related articles.
 * I would strongly suggest that @NoorStores avoid editing any of the articles related to these people or the controversy around Clanchy's book, if only to avoid the appearance of COI. If you want to propose changes to any of those articles, it would be better to make them as suggestions on the Talk: pages rather than editing the articles directly. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This was untrue and unfair. Owen Blacker copied it to the BLP Noticeboard. Her recorded both of these actions on the Joanne Harris Talk Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joanne_Harris#Notable_Topics Subsequent to this, Owen Blacker wrote on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1195428505 The following (I had asked for examples of the problem)
 * I don't need to "give examples"; I simply went to Special:Contributions/NoorStores and looked at your edit history.
 * If you want a more detailed answer, though: With a few exceptions, almost (almost!) everything you edited since 08:43, 7 January 2024, is about Philip Pullman or Joanne Harris. The previous couple of days you worked on other writers, but then a substantial proportion of your work in November and December was on biographies relating to the controversy around Clanchy's book.
 * I've not done any mathematical analysis, but I think it is safe to say that, since you created your account, the overwhelming majority of your edits — and the overwhelming majority of the text you have added or removed from articles — are on the articles of Pullman, Harris, Clanchy, Singh, Rajesh, Suleyman. — <

This was a very aggressive remark to make and also untrue. It's against my character not my editing. Owen Blacker repeated this remark on the COI noticeboard below. I think its fair to say this remark declares animus against me. Since I looked up who Owen Blacker is and realised his links in the real world I have been very upset because I could be recognised with my profile in publishing. . I have taken down the twitter account I kept for 12 years where I talked to my university friends so they won't be identified by him. Here on Wikipedia I also feel very intimidated. Owen Blacker is very senior and knows many editors. I would like Owen Blacker to undertake not to interact with me here any more and to remove himself from the articles where he has CO!. If he outed me on twitter as the person who outed Joanne Harris my career could be over. I'd like him to undertake not to pursue me any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoorStores (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to correct a couple of statements here. Other than knowing a handful of people who have written for them (the UK queer community is not that big!) and having met the founder once at an event over 15 years ago, I am not connected to PinkNews in any way and never have been — I was not . While I did tweet and retweet in support of Harris, Singh, Rajesh and Suleyman at the time, I have no personal connection with any of these women. I also have no animus against NoorStores (though I can understand why she might feel otherwise; disagreements here can be very stressful for everyone involved). I am disappointed to read she has felt necessary to take down her Twitter account — I do not know what account that is (and do not want to know) and would never harass someone off-wiki for their on-wiki behaviour, much less their friends.
 * Also, even without our outing policy, I have no intention of . Not least, the important information here is that Harris used an agent to edit Wikipedia on her behalf; the identity of the person who brought that to light is not important. (I confirm that NoorStores is not outing me here; my Twitter account is @owenblacker and is listed on my User: pages. I do not consider this complaint to be harassment of me by her.)
 * To be clear, while I have been an editor for many years, I would not consider myself, and I have not discussed NoorStores at all, other than in the on-wiki discussions at Talk:Joanne Harris, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and here on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § User:NoorStores. I have not discussed her off-wiki or in private conversations and I am happy to undertake that I will continue not to do so in the future.
 * I think NoorStores is misunderstanding what COI means here on Wikipedia. She wrote, as though this is some slur on her character. As I wrote earlier in the week, I myself have a COI with biographies of a handful of people I know personally in the digital rights space. This is a value-neutral statement of fact: because I know these people personally, I should not edit their biographies in any substantive manner.
 * The observation I made about edits made by NoorStores is not, not is it . It is quite literally a statement about the edits she has made to articles, based on scrolling through Special:Contributions/NoorStores and is again value-neutral; I certainly do not intend it to be aggressive. To be clear, I believe that NoorStores is editing in good faith.
 * I realise COIN is not the most-appropriate place to have this conversation but I am happy to accept a voluntary, no-fault two-way interaction ban between us and I hope this brings NoorStores some comfort. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please would you also state that this is your only account here on Wikipedia and that you are not interacting with through another? NoorStores (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that this is my only account here; I do not use a secondary account or sock. I am not interacting through any other Wikipedia account. (Copying this statement here for clarity, having also said the same at User talk:OwenBlacker § Notification Conflict of Interest, so that it is clear to anyone reading.  —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing COI here. This is a real world political dispute over Kate Clanchy and Joanne Harris. Secretlondon (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: a SPI was also filed, and was rejected: Sockpuppet investigations/OwenBlacker: 17:02, 19 January 2024 Spicy talk contribs deleted page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OwenBlacker (G6: meritless, retaliatory filing).

The Richards Group


Tinyorangepig, after sixteen years of not editing, began making changes to The Richards Group by adding promotional text and lists of clients and whitewashing scandal. After I put a COI warning on their talk page, Tinyorangepig made one more edit and then stopped entirely.

Two hours later, 23.116.80.46 arrived and started restoring many of Tinyorangepig's edits,. I gave them the same COI warning and they have gone dormant for the time being.

Neither account will admit to the obvious COI editing or even acknowledge the warnings on their talk pages. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Chavão888


I think Gustavo created an article about himself. The article's sources are not ideal, and I am not sure whether this article satisfies WP:GNG. But again, I assume good faith and take that Gustavo is quite new to Wikipedia, so hopefully Wikipedia could offer some help? Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

List of software-defined radios


Single purpose account, only adds devices produced by Vnateon while soliciting to contact the company for better capabilities of said devices, (Special:Diff/1192098472, Special:Diff/1159013131, Special:Diff/1158984538). Mys_721tx (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A relevent discussion on the talk page (Talk:List of software-defined radios) hasn't had any response for more than a month. Mys_721tx (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Govhar Beydullayeva


Govhar Beydullayeva has spent over two years adding unsourced promotional edits to Govhar Beydullayeva. No response to warnings on talk page. No response to COI warning either. They just ignore and continue adding unsourced information to their own article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Peter F. Barth


Per article: "Peter Felix Barth (also known as Lama Thapkhay)". Article was created by and extensively edited by User:Thapkhay. Skyerise (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * More than that, Thapkhay is adding works by Barth to other articles., , ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * He also created Mind teachings of Tibet with citations to his own self-published works, which I have removed. Skyerise (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I declared my COI on my home page, and went through a lengthy process before the Wikipedia page under my name (Barth (thapkhay)) was released, by senior editors at the time, including adding independent references. It was at the request of senior editors, who said that there was something of interest and notable to Wikipedia so that I finalized it, and continued to improve it so I thought!)
 * I have no interest in anything but verifiable, notable facts, so I welcome removal of anything which does not meet the criteria. I will go back and remove anything I might have added to the page in my name, to improve readability. Btw, things such as graduation from all certified institutions (such as SUNY, UVM, and Nyingma Institute), I assumed as verifiable through them. I will directly remove all this immediately. Or is it only suitable to not edit anything anymore?
 * Also, btw, I would like to thank Skyerise for the many excellent edits and comments. I continue to learn by this feed back. I Thapkhay (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am trying to correct some of my errors and address some of the concerns raised. I would like to start by doing 3 edits:
 * 1) add a citation to an official employment “Certificate” (“Zeugnis” in German,) issued on the last day of employment (providing birth year/city, start/end employment dates, and a summary of employment scope), in accordance with (West) German Law, by the employer (headquarters of Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt) – an independent, reliable source and is verifiable;
 * 2) this Certificate, also proves that “1972” is an error (as picked up by Skyerise – in fact, full employment started only on March 1, 1973), I would like to change the text to “1973” and then cite the same reference (using a named ref tag)…(Indeed, this is still a very early year, but it is so. I graduated high school and completed two years of evening school at “Control Data Institut” in Frankfurt, by age 16 – something I deem as not notable);
 * 3) remove text “and received Dzogchen teachings and transmissions from Dudjom Rinpoche, during his visit to California in 1980.{cn}” since, it seems unlikely to find a fully independent reference for this.
 * Q: To do these edits, must I do anything else to further declare that the proposed edits comes from me? (Or, should I, in your opinion, not try to work on this furtherfor now?)
 * Thank you for your help on this matter! Thapkhay (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (BTW, I am in contact with both Universities regarding publications they may have of alumni and graduation dates for those years. Apparently, this may take a while to obtain from them, but we will see. Also, I do have the exact membership number and date of issue for the Sigma Xi award (from the original certificate.). I can quote those. So far no word back from Sigma Xi.) Thapkhay (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The COI notice on your talk page explains how to edit with a conflict of interest. For the article where you are the subject, you should limit yourself to the article talk page and make suggestions, ideally with sources provided. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you ThaddeusSholto. I thought that, on this COI page (here), by suggesting the above, it might be a possible next step. I will read it more carefully, and reconsider the next step, if any.
 * In one way, it sounds like, regarding my COI page, I pretty much should do nothing, which is fine for me. And I also see, I created work for others, by taking some liberties, not realizing that was the wrong way to go. (On the other hand, for example, providing a reference, which is third party and indisputable, and verifiable, saves everybody time. I doubt there can be a more reliable proof of employment dates than a German certificate, and I can point them to it.) It is a difficult balance!
 * in any case, much appreciated. Thapkhay (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can definitely make suggestions on Talk:Peter F. Barth using the edit COI template for clarity. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. This is one specific thing I was really wondering about. Great reading for tomorrow morning!! Thapkhay (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Article recreated and heavily edited by UPE's now at AfD
Interested editors can find the discussion at Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (2nd nomination). BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Greyhound


User who operates a greyhound site and is replacing speed data with his own data. When I reverted it, he stated that 'In short, I might be the only one on the planet that can give a verified speed (I have one two 2 decimal places in m/s)' on my talk page. Additionally, he stated that he was paid by a client" to post this data. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not quite. I am contracted by my client to develop the software and database for the greyhound tracking data that comes from a third-party vendor (I have been a software developer for over 30 years so that's what I do for a living). I have access to the raw tracking data, which I import into a database, then process, and surface via an API for use by the various official greyhound racing bodies. In short, I specialise in data processing and analysis. On this basis, and looking at verifiable tracking data supplied by the hardware, I can state that I have recorded top speeds significantly in excess of the oft quoted greyhound top speed of 45 mph. Unlike this quoted top speed, I have the data to prove it. In fact, there is an official site that has a split time where the average speed over that 110m split is 21.3 m/s, or 47.6 mph, thereby rendering the current quoted maximum speed incorrect
 * The greyhound in question is the winner here (https://www.thedogs.com.au/racing/richmond-straight/2023-04-29/10/flying-ricciardo-at-stud?trial=false) and the second sectional split of 12.09 - 6.93 seconds is over the 110m to 220m marks. This calculates to 21.3 m/s above. An average speed over 110m shows that my 21.60 m/s is most likely valid Mishac67 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed the page to use only official sources, so got an update without resorting to using my data for now. You can tidy up the links and how they are used (I'm not good at references), but the official sectional times and the link to how long each sectional is will confirm my calculations. It's the 21.3 m/s value above Mishac67 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Bay Path University‎


Robyn1226 has exclusively edited about Bay Path University, including edits that specifically use the possessive "our" to refer to the university's program. They were warned about COI editing in 2019 but have never replied to that message or posted in any Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I work for Bay Path University. Edits made were to update the University's information so it is accurate. I apologize if this is a COI. I added this to my user page.  Will this resolver the issue. Thank you Robyn1226 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also added the disclosure to the Bay Path University talk page for you. Going forward, you should not edit the article yourself, but rather request article edits on the Bay Path University talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Chen Tianqiao
The first WP:SPA admittedly handles 'communication' for the subject of this article and is still active. The second SPA appears to also be part of the same operation. What is the procedure here?


 * Amigao, firstly you need to notify editors when you start a discussion about them here, I have done so for you this time. Secondly you should try a discussion on a talk page first: the template is useful, but will often need some follow up. The second editor hasn't edited since 2017, so they don't need to be discussed here. TSventon (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation


I tried to update items in the article last week, but the items were reverted due to COI. I do work for the company as the Senior Brand Manager, and was asked by our CEO to update the logo to our current logo and the name of the CEO, which is DeAngela Burns-Wallace, Ed.D. There are other incorrect items in the article that I would like to propose updates for, but I'm not sure how to do that.
 * , you can propose changes on the talk page of the article (you can use the Edit COI template, click on the link for instructions). Please supply references supporting the changes. TSventon (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You will need to choose a new username. We only allow usernames for individuals, not organisations. "JaneAtKauffmanFDN", for example, would be fine. "KauffmanFDN" is not. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

KauffmanFDN has been def blocked (for "promotional editing", not username issues). Is this how we are supposed to treat people who ask for advice, and alert us to factual errors in our content? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Tyrone Kirchengast
Looks to be a straight-up conflict of interest. Stupendously detailed that you can't get from sources.  scope_creep Talk  15:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

At the top of this page is :

"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."

Was that done, scope creep? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, not on this.   scope_creep Talk  18:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Avia Solutions Group

 * and its divisions
 * and friends
 * and friends

Major interwiki campaign of undisclosed paid editing, over the years using multiple accounts. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 17:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've stubified it as it complete WP:TNT case. I don't know how these are articles get like this.   scope_creep Talk  17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * COI and UPE editing for this company has been going on for years in multiple languages:
 * 185.11.27.0/24 is a range owned by AVIA SOLUTIONS GROUP PLC and has edited several languages.
 * 213.197.169.174 is the exit point of their corporate VPN and has edited since 2008.
 * is a paid editor with 4 blocked socks, although it seems it was 2 different paid editors coordinating among themselves, with half accounts for each of them, see their talk pages.
 * There are also a few corporate accounts that should have been at least soft-blocked for their user name:, , ,.
 * obviously edits from the company network, as it has a high behavioral similarity to edits by 185.11.27.2 (again, from their corporate network).
 * is could be a sock of Jklmnopr, although I was not quite ready to report to SPI yet. Jklmnopr attached to zhwiki on 2021-03-25 14:27:59, after a period of inactivity, which was followed by Spontiac zhwiki edit on 2021-03-25 14:42:55.
 * There are many other accounts that are probably related:, , , , , , , , , ,.
 * MarioGom (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Potentially related pages:
 * -> At Afd Articles for deletion/Small Planet Airlines (Cambodia)
 * -> Sent to Afd Articles for deletion/AviaAM Leasing.   scope_creep Talk  18:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -> Send to Afd Articles for deletion/BAA Training.  scope_creep Talk  18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And potential new friends:, , , , , , , , , ,
 * shown "Employed by Smartlynx Airlines, committed to Wiki's COI and neutral point of view policy" on userpage.
 * I'm not familiar with enwiki procedures for the next steps. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -> Sent to Afd Articles for deletion/AviaAM Leasing.   scope_creep Talk  18:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -> Send to Afd Articles for deletion/BAA Training.  scope_creep Talk  18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And potential new friends:, , , , , , , , , ,
 * shown "Employed by Smartlynx Airlines, committed to Wiki's COI and neutral point of view policy" on userpage.
 * I'm not familiar with enwiki procedures for the next steps. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -> Sent to Afd Articles for deletion/AviaAM Leasing.   scope_creep Talk  18:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * -> Send to Afd Articles for deletion/BAA Training.  scope_creep Talk  18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And potential new friends:, , , , , , , , , ,
 * shown "Employed by Smartlynx Airlines, committed to Wiki's COI and neutral point of view policy" on userpage.
 * I'm not familiar with enwiki procedures for the next steps. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And potential new friends:, , , , , , , , , ,
 * shown "Employed by Smartlynx Airlines, committed to Wiki's COI and neutral point of view policy" on userpage.
 * I'm not familiar with enwiki procedures for the next steps. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * shown "Employed by Smartlynx Airlines, committed to Wiki's COI and neutral point of view policy" on userpage.
 * I'm not familiar with enwiki procedures for the next steps. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Perfected Notary Services
User Sandy West Tx seems to have created their account purely for a draft about a business. I've notified them about the problems with promoting any business but it doesn't seem like they'll respond. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Given the blatant advertising, I've templated the draft for speedy deletion per G11. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

TRBL-FM


985thelou's first edits were to create a page for TRBL - FM, the home of 98.5 The Lou. The initial edit summary was "By Radio King Inc Team" (the company that owns TRBL - FM). I moved the article to draft for lack of sources and COI and provided a COI warning. 985thelou then created the now deleted |TRBL-FM page and began asking questions on my talk page aimed at bypassing COI guidelines (see 1), which did not subside after multiple attempts to inform them they should not be involved in creating the page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible Indian billionaire writing drafts about himself


Blatantly created several drafts about himself. Despite me warning him several times, he's still doing it. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like both articles were removed for G11. OnlyNano 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Potential COI with David Starr (wrestler)
made a series of edits to the article David Starr (wrestler) in August 2021 disputing the section "Sexual abuse allegations" and reverting edits:   (including Instagram from Starr as a reference)   (undoing edits/reverts made by an unregistered editor)  (making "allegations" in the section header singular)  (removing the "Fired" reference and the Over the Top Wrestling announcement regarding Starr which was later restored). 🐦DrWho42  👻  09:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

At the top of this page is :

"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."

and:

"You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion."

Was that done, DoctorWho42? In any case the user concerned has not edited since August 2021 so the matter is stale. Any content issues should be raised on the article talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

COI editing
Completely unsourced. User might be either paid to create it or the person who is th subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux55 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

At the top of this page is :

"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."

Was that done, User:Flux55? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Golam Rabby


I believe there is a COI of the user above, who is possibly writing an article of themselves, or is paid to create this article. The above article includes heavy amounts of promotional language, and I just don't trust that they aren't the subject involved, or are paid to edit. OnlyNano 18:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see he is a banker, author, tv presenter, an instructor, a columnist, a businessman and a radio jockey. Very busy man. Seemed to be Puffed.   scope_creep Talk  19:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Andy Wright (music producer)


Across many years, this user has done nothing but repeatedly try and turn this article into a resume. I reverted their most recent edit and put a COI notice on their talk page. They ignored it and reverted me. I was gonna ignore it but it seems like he's not in the mood to communicate so if WP:ICHY applies I'll drop it here.
 * I left message on the editors talk page. It is a clear coi. The editor seems to be edit warring and disruptive I've asked the edit request mechanism. If the editor adds another discogs reference, I plan to take them to WP:ANI. If they come back, they will need to be page blocked.     scope_creep Talk  19:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you scope creep for your hard work! BrigadierG (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Berenberg Bank
There seems to be an effort by the communications team at Berenberg Bank to remove references to the Bank’s wartime record and detail on who was leading it during the period. Several family members have been removed from the page’s list. See a comment on the page and the editing history. Strange not to reference the bank’s WW2 history at all. 2A02:6B65:90AB:0:982A:8C70:538A:7225 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence either that that information was removed from the article or that the family themselves were Nazi sympathisers and that this is being covered up. From a cursory Google, it seems like the most important member of the family at that time is actually well-documented as an opponent of the Nazi regime. BrigadierG (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be good to cover something of that era, rather than remove it entirely. 2A02:6B65:90AB:0:982A:8C70:538A:7225 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The list of owners jumps from 31 to 33. It looks like something has been removed. 2A02:6B65:90AB:0:982A:8C70:538A:7225 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Go find the answer and add it to the article then. BrigadierG (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

New England Institute of Technology
I'm not entirely sure if Ellabeth777 has a conflict of interest but they have only edited this one article and their edits are blatantly promotional in nature. They have not responded to messages on their User Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Claimed "own work" for 2017 photo File:NEIT New Facilities Showcase Pictures 1.jpg taken inside a campus building, also 2023 photo File:2 Girls in front of dorm.jpg taken outside, also another File:1949 NEIT HG 23-0712-ppt-1.jpg with another author's name on it and no evidence of permission, so ... probably some connection. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Guillaume Verdon


They have this article which can only be described as a promotional advert for the subject, puffing him. Hugely promo. Pmaccabe created the article with puff and Xirtam Esrevni came in an added unsourced puff, more of it. A complete mess.  scope_creep Talk  20:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I in fact created the article foremost with a link to a Forbes article that was negative coverage of the subject documenting his identity & role in founding the e/acc philosophy/movement. An editor removed that along with other content, which I restored along with independent coverage from an earlier timeframe from Business Insider as well as related coverage from Business Insider & CNBC there are probably others. I have no conflict of interest or personal, business, etc. connection with the subject. I'd welcome improvements to the article but I think it is objectively incorrect to say it "can only be described as a promotional advert" or "unsourced puff". Some content introduced by others I do think had a less NPOV I tried to correct some like references someone added to LinkedIn where news coverage provided the same educational and career details and stick to facts. I'm sure more cleanup could be done but not sure if I'm the best person to do it so I simply did not remove some of the tags. I of course cannot speak for others but don't believe there is conflict of interest on my part. Phil (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Article was definitely promotional. As a New Page Patroller, I tagged it with the Advert, Fansite and (lack of) Context templates; another editor had already tagged it for notability. It was moved to draftspace shortly thereafter, and Pmaccabe moved it back to article mainspace themselves. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At that time [[User:Bastun actually removed a reliable secondary source (Forbes) of which the subject was the primary topic and then the move to draft dismissed sourcing based on some less reliable sources added later by others like a link to his LinkedIn (which I later removed). When I moved it back I'd added more as there are certainly more out there, so far 2 separate BI articles & CNBC as well as cleanup of things like the LinkedIn link & trying to improve other sourcing. I left tags in place as I felt certainly more cleanup could still be done. This move again to draft was also proceeded not by removing those reliable sources but at least one citation to one of them I've since restored. I had also noted initially this was a stub and was sporadically continuing to improve it. Not feeling a lot of WP:AGF here as an editor on and off since 2008 in not just ignoring but removing sourcing then asserting this is somehow merely promotional or must include some CoI. Independently received new coverage on different occasions from publications first under a pseudonym more recently by name and documenting his background with him as a key subject. Has cited scholarly works, created TensorFlow Quantum at Google. In moving it back I noted he meets WP:BASIC clearly and WP:SCHOLAR somewhat, though perhaps minimally (7) in particular, so not just a single event or subject. I've infrequently created articles for others across a wide range of mostly admittedly minor but notable subjects Troy E. Black, Tompall Glaser, Rita Baranwal, Radia Perlman not anymore trying to promote this subject than others. He has news coverage and wasn't in Wikipedia yet, meets the criteria by which he could be. I make no claims to be any amazing editor but dispute suggestion there is a CoI or that this was definitely or even primarily promotional. Phil (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I take exception that I added pure puff. Majority of my additions have legitimate sources including peer reviewed published work and granted US parents. Places were statements were not substantiated I added needs citation. Xirtam Esrevni (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Roger Evernden


90.250.1.235 has been editing Roger Evernden, and only that article, since early December 2022. They have repeatedly added spotify links throughout the article, ,. When given a COI warning, they just ignored it and readded the spotify links. 

The history of the article shows a series of IPs that only edit this article to add spotify, google play, and itunes links. , Clearly someone is using the article for promotion and ignoring any warnings about it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that the article and that IP address have a very suspicious edit history. It looks as though some work has been done recently to remove the COI edits, but more could likely be done. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Chris LaMont
The name is self-evident and this user has only edited the page for Chris LaMont. They received a COI warning in 2020 and have ignored it. Looking at the revision history, an anonymous editor has also made revisions citing their personal relationship with the subject as the source. Vegantics (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is a clear case of COI edits, in addition to obvious WP:Puffery. Should the edits made by the COI accounts be removed from the article? Go4thProsper (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

KAMK1 and African Wildlife Defence Force, et al


KAMK1 created African Wildlife Defence Force which is an organization founded by Jean Kiala-Inkisi. KAMK1 has also attempted to promote Kiala-Inkisi and his other organizations all over Wikipedia. and creating the now deleted African Ornamental Breeders Association (AOBA) and this family tree. He even logs in and out to avoid scrutiny (examples: and ) He was warned about his COI back in July 2022 but it was ignored and unacknowledged. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Lake Mackay


Yesterday, editor ThaddeusSholto deleted a paragraph that I contributed long ago to Lake Mackay on the basis that it constitutes “self-promotion;” see diff. I believe that my contribution is in full compliance with WP:SELFCITE as it merely mentions the key findings from the only peer-reviewed paper dedicated to the mythology of Lake Mackay. But since I am the author of this journal article, ThaddeusSholto insists that I have violated the WP:COI policy, and accordingly he has unilaterally deleted the paragraph and its supporting citation. Do such good-faith edits by specialist contributors invariably require COI disclosures on the Talk page, as I am being told? For transparency, my Username is my real name, which makes clear my connection to any citation that carries the same name. The deleting editor has – on the same basis – removed contributions of mine from seven other WP entries, but WP:COIN says that I must tackle each dispute in isolation, so I will start with this one. For context and my reason for seeking independent mediation, see the tone of the conversation at. LloydGraham (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The part of WP:SELFCITE you are quoting continues to say "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." That last part is very very relevant. You have spent years adding yourself to articles not to mention your undeclared COI in authoring Danny Malboeuf with DannyMalboeuf. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As directed by WP:COIN I will confine my responses solely to the WP entry named in the section heading. To this entry I added ONE reference; if there had been other academic papers or books equally relevant to the mythology of Lake Mackay I would have cited them too, but (to the best of my knowledge) there were/are none. I have since published another paper (again in a peer-reviewed journal, https://doi.org/10.1093/litthe/frx015) which contains additional material of relevance to the the WP entry, but I did not ever add (or attempt to add) it, whereas a self-promoting spammer would no doubt have done so. LloydGraham (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how "I could have spammed harder" is an excuse. I pointed out your years of self-promotion because you attempted to act as though my reverting it just came out of the clear blue sky but you were warned in August 2022 and later you readded your own paper to Tripedalism after another editor removed it. You added it again a week later after it had been removed once more. These are not the actions of someone who desires to collaborate with others. You seem to think that the conflict of interest guidelines simply don't apply to you because your work is so important to Wikipedia. That is simply not true. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to comply with the WP:COIN instruction to address one single issue at a time, but ThaddeusSholto seems unable to do this. Unfortunately, I cannot let his version of the events at Tron: Legacy and Tripedalism go unchallenged. Contrary to his persistent allegations, I suggest that my actions (detailed below) are those of someone who very much desires to collaborate with other editors and who always refers disputes to impartial third-parties for adjudication, as indeed I am doing now.
 * An edit of mine to Tron: Legacy raised the only suggestion of COI ever made against me in 16 years, prior to the current campaign mounted by ThaddeusSholto. I resolved the COI problem in the standard manner by posting the proposed edit on the article’s Talk page with a tag for Edit requests . After a delay of 6 months, the matter was resolved in my favour by an independent editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tron:_Legacy&diff=prev&oldid=1106287337 ]. ThaddeusSholto has now unilaterally overturned that decision and has deleted the text and accompanying external link that the arbitrating editor added on my behalf . You can see the complete history of the Request for Edit on the Talk page at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tron:_Legacy#Proposed_addition_to_Themes_section ].
 * For Tripedalism, I had reorganised previously disjointed material and included a reference (with link) to a review paper of mine on Academia.edu that surveyed tripedal animals in mythology and folklore; this is only paper that I know of to address this topic directly. The resulting sub-section was contested in July 2022 by another editor as “trivia/unrelated content,” despite the fact that almost all three-legged creatures actually are mythical/fictitious. I responded by creating a discussion section on the Talk page seeking consensus on the matter . After some give and take, the sub-section was ultimately allowed to stay. The entire sub-section has now been deleted without any discussion by User:ThaddeusSholto, even though much of the material in it had been added by others as it predated my rearrrangement of the section into a logical order.
 * LloydGraham (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I see no "give and take" on Talk:Tripedalism. I see someone disagreeing with you and you (doing what you are doing here) just plowing ahead with multiple replies and steamrolling your way into including your work. Nobody agreed with you on that talk page. By that point you had already added your work three times to the article and the other editor didn't want to edit war with you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @ThaddeusSholto: Studying your words closely makes me think that you and I have incompatible understandings of the WP:SELFCITE statement "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming."
 * I have always taken this statement to mean that loading or unbalancing a single WP entry with multiple citations by one author was forbidden, as indeed it should be. Most of my edits where an underpinning reference was partly or wholly authored by myself involved just one citation per WP entry. In one exceptional case, where I was reorganising and expanding a WP entry on a topic for which I had extensive professional expertise, my edits added three peer-reviewed scientific papers - each on a separate topic - where I was either the author or a co-author, all in support of content in the entry. All of these you have now deleted in your campaign, leaving the statements in the article unsupported by any references.
 * Your understanding of the WP:SELFCITE statement is clearly different to mine. What you have done is to add up all of the edits where I relied on my own published work across many different topics and over a period of 16 years to arrive at a total of 8 or so self-citations, and on that basis you have labelled me as a spammer and deleted all of the material that I added. Is this a fair summary of your thinking?
 * As always, I look to others for guidance in the matter of which reading of the WP:SELFCITE statement is correct. LloydGraham (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is much more than your "8 or so self-citations" it is the fact that even when reverted you just edit war your work back into articles. That when confronted about your COI in creating Danny Malboeuf with DannyMalboeuf. You and DannyMalboeuf together wrote his biography at User:LloydGraham/Sandbox as well as duplicating it on User:DannyMalboeuf before moving it to article space. When I asked you about it at first you played games saying "I have never met Danny Malboeuf" but after some back and forth you finally admitted "I said that I have never met Danny Malboeuf, and that is correct. I do, however, correspond with him electronically and yes, I now regard him as a friend." You aren't forthright with your COI and you play games with words to get what you want. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusSholto, your posts in this section of the Noticeboard are supposed to relate only to the material that you deleted from Lake Mackay and, at most, to your other deletions of my contributions that were motivated by the same logic. I am working hard to try to pinpoint the underlying source of our differences and think that I have found it in the fact that the WP:SELFCITE sentence that you quoted can be read in two completely different ways (see my previous post). We do not yet have any independent opinions on the matter, but if my reading of the sentence is correct and yours isn't, then most or all of your deletions of my contributions are unjustified. Rather than concede that this might be the case and await outside guidance, you have simply launched into yet further accusations of wrongdoing that are even more off-topic for Lake Mackay.
 * For the record, I do not edit-war my work back into articles. In the few instances where a contribution of mine to a WP entry has been deleted without discussion for a reason that I think or know is invalid, I would probably have reverted the deletion and given my reason for doing so. If the deleter reverted that, giving another invalid reason or no reason at all, then I might give it one more go with my justification again spelled out clearly. If that failed, then I would normally try to contact the deleter and/or take the discussion to the Talk page and seek third party intervention; see the detailed examples of my actions on Tripedalism and Tron: Legacy above. I have never been subject to an edit war caution (assuming such things exist) or been blocked from editing any WP page.
 * The WP entry that I created in 2008 for the American surrealist painter Danny Malboeuf is another of ThaddeusSholto's grievances against me, but this issue is of a different nature to the deletions of my academic contributions from Lake Mackay and from some eight other WP entries (I keep finding more). I was not asked to create Malboeuf's WP entry and did not collaborate with Malboeuf in writing it, but – mindful of WP:BLP – I did create a mock-up of the initial WP entry on the page User:DannyMalboeuf so that the subject could view it and approve it before it went public. All statements in the content were factual and supported by third-party citations, e.g. links to reviews of the artist's work, exhibition records, etc. After Malboeuf gave consent for the WP entry to go live, I created the genuine WP page and completely forgot about the fact that the content was still duplicated at User:DannyMalboeuf (which has now, quite rightly, been deleted). I have never met Malboeuf, but over the years he has become an online friend, and I can see why a perception of COI might now exist. ThaddeusSholto has placed a banner on the page which reads "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and flagged this for discussion. I have never contested this; I support it, and have told ThaddeusSholto that I support it. I am happy for others to assess the page for compliance with WP policies and decide its fate. I have done almost no editing on the page since 2017.
 * Now that I have addressed the latest off-topic accusations from ThaddeusSholto, I would like to return to the key question of the WP:SELFCITE sentence "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." This can be read in two completely different ways (see my previous post). We do not yet have any independent opinions on the matter, and I would like to hear from experienced editors as to which reading they believe to be correct. LloydGraham (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will you stop pinging me just to reiterate the exact same argument again and again? You claimed you wanted input from others so be patient.
 * You have edit warred your content back into articles.
 * If you didn't collaborate with Malboeuf in writing Danny Malboeuf then who is DannyMalboeuf and why did you both work on User:LloydGraham/Sandbox as well as User:DannyMalboeuf?
 * Now please stop posting walls of text justifying your self-promotion and just let some other editors read what has already been written. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As no guidance seems to be forthcoming on the last statement of WP:SELFCITE, let’s try a different tack and look at its opening sentences, which arguably are more important. I have always believed that my academic contributions to Lake Mackay (and indeed to other WP articles) comply with the headline policy of WP:SELFCITE, which says: “Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work.” Yet ThaddeusSholto is vigorously deleting expert contributions across WP and denouncing good-faith academic contributors on the basis that, in his words: “Adding your own paper to Wikipedia articles would violate WP:COI. Simply put: you cannot.”  If ThaddeusSholto is correct in insisting that any self-citation must first be approved by others via a Talk page discussion, then why does the WP:SELFCITE policy not say this? The policy only requires pre-approval for contributions about which the contributor has doubts. LloydGraham (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You asked for a third opinion on Clan Graham and were explictly told on the talk page including your own book in articles goes far beyond what is allowed in the COI guidelines and that you should restrict yourself to talk pages. You got your answer. Stop trying to self-promote. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another off-topic deflection from ThaddeusSholto. The Clan Graham discussion related to my addition of a book to its External Links, and the editor who responded to my request for WP:3O (following the book’s deletion by ThaddeusSholto) said that it would have been better if I had cited it as a reference in support of specific additions to the article’s text. That’s exactly the pattern that I followed in the case of my contribution to Lake Mackay, which – according to the instructions for this very Noticeboard – is the only issue that should be being discussed in this thread. Specifically, I cited a highly relevant peer-reviewed paper of mine in a well-respected journal in support of three sentences that I added to the text of Lake Mackay. Over its lifespan of 16 years, the validity of this contribution has never once been challenged – until now.
 * Earlier this month, ThaddeusSholto deleted my entire contribution to Lake Mackay and, in his edit summary, labelled it as “more self-promotion by LloydGraham.” To personalise his edit summaries in this manner, and to continue to brand me as a self-promoter, self-advertiser and spammer in my attempts at constructive discussion, violates Wikipedia fundamentals such as WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL, WP:FOC and WP:NPA. The WP:FOC policy says that editors must “comment on content, not the contributor,” but  ThaddeusSholto repeatedly does the opposite.
 * The more important point for WP:COIN, though, is that ThaddeusSholto’s condemnation of my self-citation on Lake Mackay (and of other directly comparable contributions by academics across WP) is not actually supported by WP:SELFCITE, as I pointed out in my last post. Forcefully and repeatedly misrepresenting WP policy in order to judge, punish and insult good-faith academic contributors is not okay, surely? LloydGraham (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It isn't off-topic or a deflection. You are also misreading the 3rd opinion as it doesn't say your COI should have been used as a reference but said "If this book is a high quality reliable source, it should be cited in the article, not linked to in the external link section" and further "If you want to include your book in articles going forward, you should make edit requests on the talk page using edit COI" which is something you continue to argue you shouldn't have to do. Hence, this is very very relevant and not off-topic. No matter how many times you are told not to self-cite because it violates COI you seem to think it doesn't actually apply to you because your work is just too special. This blind spot is the very reason WP:COI exists. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am fully prepared to use the COI template process for any citation of mine that has been challenged on the basis of COI, even if – as in the case of ThaddeusSholto's objection to the book on the Graham surname – the challenge has nothing to do with the actual content or relevance of the work. I told the WP:3O editor that I would use the COI template if I felt that I still wanted the book added to Clan Graham down the track, after the new revision was available on the Clan Graham Society’s website.
 * I don’t think that my work is special or that WP policy doesn’t apply to me; on the contrary, I keep pointing out that – in respect of Lake Mackay and other similar contributions involving self-citation – I have actually followed the instructions provided in WP:SELFCITE. Something that might not be apparent from the accusations levelled against me here is that the vast majority of citations in my edits have been to the works of others – I can provide a list of these if anyone is interested.
 * ThaddeusSholto keeps insisting that the presence of an academic self-citation in a new contribution automatically violates the WP:SELFCITE policy, but the policy actually says nothing of the sort. It certainly cannot be used to judge, punish and insult good-faith academic contributors in the way that ThaddeusSholto has been doing to me – and I note that I am far from the only scholar to fall victim to this judicial overreach on his part. LloydGraham (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are fully prepared to actually abide by the COI guidelines, why have you still not done so? Why have you not properly publicly disclosed your COI with the article you authored for (and with) your friend Danny Malboeuf? You clearly do think your work is special because you use your credentials as a bludgeon and on Talk:Clan Graham you sang the praises of your own book as to why it should be used in the article. How many times are you going to make the exact same argument about your personal interpretation of WP:SELFCITE? You have done it almost every single comment here. Brevity would make it look less like you are trying to bulldoze your work into articles. As a general rule if a work is so essential to understanding a subject then someone other than the author will add it to an article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point I see no point in replying to the same argument you endlessly make. Stop pinging me in every single comment and please actually wait for the input you claim to want. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help here. I have myself been in the difficult position of having written what I thought was an important article on a topic, and thinking that Wikipedia should cite that article, but not being the best person to decide that question for myself. (For an example that ThaddeusSholto might be interested in, see Talk:Sidney Paget.) I would evaluate myself whether LloydGraham's article should be discussed and cited, but I have no expertise in the subject-matter so my opinion would be uninformed. Perhaps the two of you could identify a relevant wikiproject whose members might be asked to comment? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks Newyorkbrad, I’m pleased to have your input. Referring the paper to a Wikiproject such as WP: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia, which by definition must include the population of the Lake Mackay area, would certainly be an option for the specific case of my Lake Mackay paper, although the Lake Mackay page itself is not a member of that project. But perhaps you can see why I fear that any attempt to reinstate contributions of mine that have been reverted might not get a fair hearing when I have been branded so recently and in so many places as a self-promoting spammer? It seems that you know the editor who has passed this judgement upon me, so I am somewhat nervous about your sympathies and loyalties, but you presumably have read the WP:SELFCITE policy. Would you agree that I have not violated what is written there? Whether the policy should actually prohibit any new contribution that contains a self-citation is of course another matter. LloydGraham (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment — LloydGraham made the reverted edit more than 15 years ago, when perhaps the COI policies and guidelines were less robust, but I was a bit surprised to see that LG didn't use the talk page in 2008, and has also bypassed the talk page to protest its deletion, instead coming to this noticeboard to report an editor who doesn't even have the conflict of interest. I agree with Thaddeus that there is a pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed re WP:SELFCITE, and the failure to "propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it" is part of that. Matuko (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment @Matuko. My principal concern is that the WP:SELFCITE policy opens with the statement "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." Yet the policy now being enforced is the opposite of this, namely "Adding your own paper to Wikipedia articles would violate WP:COI. Simply put: you cannot.”  Can you see the difference? I came to the COIN noticeboard mainly because I too see "a pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed re WP:SELFCITE." Specifically, if editors are in fact not allowed to include any self-citation without first discussing the addition on the article's Talk page, the policy should be amended to say that up front. At present, it only requires a Talk discussion if the contributing editor is in doubt about the appropriateness of the contribution. If the policy is to be left unaltered, then academics who in good faith use some level of self-citation (because they are contributing to topics where they have a research publication record) without seeking pre-approval should not be pilloried as self-promoters and spammers, especially not by individuals who have no knowledge of the subject matter.
 * If WP policies don't actually mean what they say, then I will undoubtedly make further mistakes in trying to negotiate a restitution process for deleted material. Since I feel certain that future misjudgements on my part would again be weaponised against me with maximum prejudice, I have decided that it is safer not to contest this or other recent deletions beyond the measures that I have already taken. LloydGraham (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Katy Deacon


EngUpdate21 adds incredibly promotional text to Katy Deacon (example "Katy has been an inspiring advocate for inclusive engineering and inclusion for all") They are either directly employed by Deacon or by Institution of Engineering and Technology which they also edit (and Deacon is associated with). Warned (twice) about COI but they continue to edit. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indefinitely for persistent promotional editing and lack of communication. It's possible the editor isn't aware of their talkpage, but if so, the block ought to help against that also. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC).

Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida


1. Written like an advertisement

2. Contains classic, out of context, copy-pasted language that is a paraphrase of wording on the company's site.

3. Company is well known in Florida politics for influencing politics, the media, and even academics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you were right to add Template:Advert, and clearly there was a problem with its creator, User:Appletoncreative, an apparent undisclosed paid editor who was indefinitely blocked in March 2012, but it's not apparent to me which users in the years since then have shown a conflict of interest. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Camille Herron


Edit warring to add promotional tone, their primary interest here since 2016 has been this biography. I like the insistence on adding She is known for running with her hair down, a big smile, and eating tacos to fuel ultramarathons. Has endeavored to include sponsors. See also unexplained removal of sourced achievements in other athletes' biographies ;. Requesting a topic ban, at the least. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops--I see they've been blocked for edit warring . 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Santiago Medina


(relisting because zero people commented last time, i hope this is fine) Jordanjemison's only contributions have been creating and editing the article Santiago Medina 2 years ago and has since stopped editing. Article is heavily promotional. See "About the sculptures" section before it was removed, as well as everything below the "Sculptor" section. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The contributions for User:Jordanjemison are all from 2015, not two years ago. Maybe no one replied because this so stale that there is little chance this user will offend again. If the article is too promotional, edit it. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A little mean-spirited but I get your point, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't 100% confident in my thinking that it was COI and wanted awareness of the article. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Arkansas Activities Association


The chosen username happens to be that of the association's assistant executive director. – Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Melissa Simon


Usernames associated with the subject and their workplace, responsible for promotional edits and copyright violations. Since overtly promotional editing began in September 2023, the article has become a mess--textbook example of COI damage. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)