Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Norman Bettison

• {{pagelinks|Gondwana Records}}
• {{pagelinks|Mammal Hands}}
• {{pagelinks|Hania Rani}}
• {{pagelinks|Matthew Halsall}}
• {{userlinks|GeorgiaGondwanaRecords}}
• {{userlinks|Will Gondwana}}
• {{userlinks|Dangondwana}}
• {{userlinks|Mlee164}} - suspicion based on the combination of edit history and user name similarity to [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leem1020 Leem1020] on Commons who uploaded record label press label as "own work"

Username implies official connection to record label. No disclosure of paid editing has been made by the editor. Edits consist almost entirely of edits to the record label or to artists signed to the label (including deleted articles). Chubbles (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am a fan of the label. GeorgiaGondwanaRecords (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::We still don't allow usernames implying official/shared use regardless of whether or not it is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Off-wiki evidence also points to "is". DoubleCross (‡) 16:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Assuming it is a personal name at the beginning of the username, then this falls into the "Sara Smith at XYZ Company" category of an acceptable username.

::::Certainly a well-founded concern about COI and undisclosed paid editing. {{u|GeorgiaGondwanaRecords}}, if you are employed by this company, then you are a paid editor. Attempting to conceal a paid relationship won't bode well for you on Wikipedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Looking at the editing pattern, various accounts, band member participation in bands, it's more likely than not that there's concerted public relations editing effort by Gondwana. I've added additional accounts and articles I've spotted. I also noticed someone uploaded Matthew Hasall's picture on commons, then added onto Commons by a PR account. After this photo was deleted for copyright violation per [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Matthew_Halsall.jpg], an SPA re-uploaded and a different SPA added it to Matthew Halsall page. Graywalls (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Chubbles}}, good catch. There seems to be a concerted effort placed across various artists' pages released by this label. Graywalls (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Section resolved|1=Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Borehole mining}}
• {{userlinks|BHMI}}
• {{userlinks|Greg Abramov at Borehole Mining International, Inc.}}

I suspect that the username BHMI stands for "Borehole Mining International". I previously removed an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borehole_mining&diff=prev&oldid=1284821674 unnecessary credit] to that company and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borehole_mining&diff=prev&oldid=1284821508 a link] to that company's website in the external links. Today {{u|BHMI}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borehole_mining&diff=prev&oldid=1296243367 added] another image with the same credit.

{{u|BHMI}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Y&diff=prev&oldid=1289500606 identified] themselves as "Greg Abramov". That named is used in references on both Borehole mining and in Draft:Geotechnology (created by BHMI). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Will the user name "Greg Abramov at Borehole Mining International, Inc." work, instead of BHMI? BHMI (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::@BHMI I don't think that would be an acceptable username, but it is a secondary issue. The main concern is that you have an obvious conflict of interest. Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that would, actually, be an acceptable username, per WP:ISU, which permits company names in usernames as long as the username also identifies a particular person. @BHMI, changes can be requested at Wikipedia:Changing username. Jahaza (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Section resolved|1=Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)}}

{{atop| 1= Article deleted. User has not edited since 19 June. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC) }}

• {{pagelinks|Sabrina Lund}}
• {{userlinks|Michael Psaila}}
• {{userlinks|Nanocreatorpage}}

User:Michael Psaila (recently renamed User:Nanocreatorpage) created the biography Sabrina Lund, who he claims to have no professional connection to. Although he acknowledges that he took the picture which is now in use on the biography. Michael Psaila has since abruptly blanked the conflict of interest discussion on his talk page and changed username, before I had the chance to respond. I am continuing the discussion here. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 08:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Fancy Refrigerator}}, I think that is moot as {{u|Nanocreatorpage}} is an SPA and you have already nominated their article for deletion, so there is not much more to do at this point. TSventon (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Nanocreatorpage. The picture you uploaded to Commons appears on jeyranmain.com [https://jeyranmain.com/2025/04/18/consequence-of-power-by-sabrina-lund-book-review-2027/], one of the sources you added to Sabrina Lund. Are you affiliated with this website? Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 09:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Lund. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{pagelinks|Draft:Worldwide Call Centers, Inc.}}
• {{userlinks|Nsepeps}}

@Nsepeps created an account yesterday and their first edit was to create a draft for that company and all of their edits are to that draft article. I left a comment on their talk page but they haven't responded, despite making edits to the article after my comment was posted and resubmitting the article to AfC. The account might be an SPA here to promote that company. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 02:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Draft was declined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Nihil novi}}
• {{userlinks|Logologist}}
• various articles per below

I brought up COI editing on Nihil novi's talk page a couple days ago but the page was archived, leaving me without any response, so I bring it here for discussion.

A quick preface: a few weeks ago, I came across Perfection via the random article tool and after some talk page discussions I initiated an AfD because I took issue with its sourcing, or lack thereof. It was decided to keep the article but I ended up discovering what I think are likely COI violations. That article is maybe one of the most prominent examples but I must stress this isn’t some attempt at a follow-up or some sort of retaliation as I made this discovery fairly late into the AfD process and had no intention to use it as a new argument/piece of evidence (see my discussing with administrator(s) on my user talk about this).

NN=L=K

I am certain that Nihil novi (“NN”) and Logologist (“L”) are operated by the same person. There was a sockpuppet investigation raised a while ago. Some of the links now seem to be dead but I reckon what’s still there is quite compelling. I have additional reasons to believe they’re the same user:

• this instance where after a period of relative inactivity, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=174317118 L becomes active and involved] in a dispute which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=175151609 includes NN] and some other editors re the inclusion of images in an article, L ceases editing and resumes inactivity the same day;
• the amount of articles where NN and L remain primary contributors by a wide margin. Some are listed below, some others include [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Julian%20Ochorowicz (1)], [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Tatarkiewicz (2)], [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Robert%20Stiller (3)], [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Ignacy%20Krasicki (4)] (non-exhaustive list);
• very, very similarly worded paragraphs atop their user talk pages re maintaining continuity of discussion. I’m aware similarity in prose isn’t the most sound argument but the specific phrasing is quite telling.

L ceased editing many years ago. I’m not concerned about any sockpuppetry or whatnot but it’s still best to establish this link as makes the COI editing a bit more apparent.

As for the accounts’ association with Christopher Kasparek (“K”), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihil_novi&diff=prev&oldid=1276881300 there is this diff here], chiefly the “my English translation”, from which I think one can safely assume that NN is confirming that he is the translator in question who, if we look at the book (I found a copy on Internet Archive), is K. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihil_novi&diff=prev&oldid=1297368836 This section was recently removed] then, as mentioned above, the whole talk archived.

I have liaised with a member of the COI volunteer team via email and while they did not deem this as WP:OUTING because NN identifies himself as the author, it was thought best to not use K’s full name so the above is the only time I’ll be doing it (as there’s not really any way to avoid it once).

A selection of possible COI violations

In no particular order:

• L & NN being primary contributors to the aforementioned Perfection article. The AfD/talk page gets into the nitty gritty of it all but the article is more or less derived entirely from K’s work. Whether or not the substantial amount of close paraphrasing also constitutes a copyright violation is above my pay grade – it’s a bit of a weird one because NN/L is paraphrasing his own work (which is in turn a translation of someone else’s work). Not super pertinent to the COI but a twice occurring argument from NN against the article being unbalanced/poorly sourced is that the author of the untranslated text is an authority who “wrote the book” on the subject matter – it’s hard for me to not see a bit of bias or vested interest here;
• L creating/being a primary contributor & NN being a primary contributor to the aforementioned article about K and also this article about a relative of K – self-explanatory;
• L creating/being a primary contributor & NN being a primary contributor to Pharaoh (Prus novel) where there’s a substantial amount of self-citing (including a fairly unencyclopaedic part in which another translator’s work is branded “incompetent” compared to K’s...).
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List%20of%20multiple%20discoveries&diff=next&oldid=997310524 NN adding a para] about K’s discovering/inventing “recombinant conceptualization” to List of multiple discoveries;
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monterey_Peninsula_College&diff=prev&oldid=657084515 NN adding K to the “notable people” subsection of a college];
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monterey,_California&diff=prev&oldid=780986424 NN adding K to the “notable people” subsection of a city];
• Some of NN’s (and potentially L's?) contributions to Translation. This one’s a bit more of a maze to navigate via WikiBlame/rev history as the prose has morphed substantially over time (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=994101676 this addition] has evolved to three paras cited to K) but a decent amount of self-citing remains in the present revision including one in which K’s stating that translators “have helped shape the very languages into which they have translated” has at some point made its way into the lead - as far as I can tell this is when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation&diff=prev&oldid=291641722 it was first added in some form]. I can’t comment too much on veracity of the actual statement (my own work in translation is limited) but when it’s someone stating their own opinion on the matter as if fact I feel it’s rather WP:UNDUE.

This is not all of them but I don’t want to go overboard and pick out any and every instance I can find - whether or not some of the more minor edits one can find when searching Wiki for references to K fall afoul of COI would depend on your interpretation of WP:SELFCITE, I suppose. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

While ToeSchmoker (hereafter "TS") placed a notice on my talk page accusing me of "conflicts of interest", he did not state any allegations for me to respond to.

According to Wikipedia, a conflict of interest "[t]ypically relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual... might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party." I submit that TS has not made a case for conflict of interest on my part. Rather, he shows a conflict of interest in connection with his disappointment at the Wikipedia community's decision rejecting his recent attempt to delete the "Perfection" article from Wikipedia.

There has been no time overlap between editing by L and NN. NN began editing in 2007 after L had ceased to edit. NN's revert of the "Translation" article to an earlier version by L in no way indicates a conflict of interest. It is merely a revert to an earlier version, which earlier version could equally well have been written by someone other than L.

The fact of L and NN each having both (at non-overlapping times) contributed to a number of the same articles, in no way constitutes a conflict of interest.

I do not see what TS's "outing" of L or NN contributes to TS's complaint of L's or NN's "conflict of interest". The Wikipedia community, in fact, condemns "outing" Wikipedia editors. ("Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline.")

I will leave to the Wikipedia community's consideration whether the existence of the articles about K or K's relative constitutes a conflict of interest – whether these articles "might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party."

The article on "Pharaoh (Prus novel)" cites articles by K which, again, in no way prejudice a third party. The author of the novel's 1902 translation, Jeremiah Curtin, is long-deceased and, in any case, had previously been shown, as K indicates in a cited article, to have been an inadequate translator from the Polish language.

The propriety of NN's inclusion of K in Wikipedia-article sections listing notable individuals is, again, best left to the judgment of others who are more familiar with K's contributions to the edification of the world community, including (but not limited to) readers of Wikipedia.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not going to lie, I didn't read this entire report. But I did read Christopher Kasparek, and it's in pretty rough shape. We have a citation to [https://www.amazon.com/Constitutions-Poland-United-States-Genealogy-ebook/dp/B01H304EUG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Joseph+Kasparek-Obst Amazon], and a citation to one of his own books. Without even getting into how to deal with the COI concerns, I think there's a strong argument for sending this to AfD, even if just under WP:TNT. There's no problem with COI if the article doesn't warrant inclusion anyways. MediaKyle (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why this is at COI at all; in fact, the most serious problem I see here is WP:OUTING. I don't see a clear problem with WP:SELFCITE, but issues of WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV can be discussed in various articles, one by one. If and only if we reach consensus in several discussions that UNDUE/NPOV/COI have been violated, this can be escalated. I am familiar only with the issue of the Perfection article and I don't recall seeing such a problems there. As for issues with WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:GNG, WP:AFD can be used without prejudice anytime (and yes, that article is in a pretty poor shape, to say the least). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::As I clearly stated, I'd liaised with the COI volunteer team over email before bringing this here. The administrator I spoke to didn't deem it outing because "the user idenfied themselves as the author of work that they linked to". I'm happy for the COI volunteer team to share the email chain with you provided they redact my name and email address.

::I disagree that it's necessary to raise it at every article "one by one" before bringing it here when the crux of the matter is Nihil novi repeatedly adding material about himself across an array of articles. Yes, these articles have their own separate flaws (poorly sourced, unbalanced etc. etc.) which we can perhaps iron out in the future but there is a common thread in the COI issue so I have elected to raise that. Thanks. ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::I've looked into this more since my prior message, and the idea that Nihil novi does not have a COI seems pretty inconceivable to me with all the evidence that has been provided. That being said, I think Piotrus might be correct in that AfD is the only venue in which this can properly be dealt with, given the tools available to us at this time. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How to handle conflicts of interest - it says to send it to the COI noticeboard. Okay, well you did that. Now what? We don't seem to have any concrete policy against what this user is doing, other than to say that you "should disclose your COI", not even that you "must disclose your COI". WP:TOS doesn't appear to contain the phrase "conflict of interest". Even WP:SELFCITE is rather vague and subjective. Unless there was broad consensus that this user's edits were problematic enough to warrant some sort of administrative action, AfD seems like the only way to go for a lot of the involved articles. MediaKyle (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Kevin Mensah (American footballer)}}
• {{userlinks|Kwamebofo}}

The article was created by Kwamebofo and all of their contributions are to that page, except three edits to three different articles related to the subject, e.g. to add a Wikilink to the subject's name [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_UConn_Huskies_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=1297604056]. I left a comment on their talk page (granted, wording could have been better maybe) but they haven't responded, despite editing since.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Mensah_(American_footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=1297663540] Then a newly-created account, BrandonJonessr made their 3 and only edits to the same article. An IP also edited the article once (their only edit). The IP [https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2600:6C64:4E7F:6528:A02D:7A91:8FD5:2B4A Geolocates] to the same city as the subject of the article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please explain how this is a "probable COI". With 16 of 20 edits to the new article, even calling the new user a Single-purpose account seems premature to me. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::I thought I did in the op. It seems like an unlikely coincidence that three separate editors thought to edit an article on this one person at exactly the same time. If the subject of the article was in the news recently then that could explain it, but I didn't see any evidence of that. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Another way to describe the events:

::::One person created a new article and linked to it in three other articles; 10 hours later, an IP made one edit; 2 hours after that, another user made two edits, and followed with one more edit 22 hours later.

:::When I see new articles created on subjects of interest to me, I often read them and make improvements if I see the need. Perhaps there is a conflict of interest; perhaps not. I don't think you've shown it to be probable on the basis of people editing a new article. Do you see any issues in the article contents that might suggest a conflict of interest? -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq| 10 hours later, an IP made one edit}}

::::10 minutes after Kwamebofo made an edit. The IP is also from the same city as the subject of the article, wacky coincidence I guess.

::::{{tq|Do you see any issues in the article contents that might suggest a conflict of interest?}}

::::* The editor wrote details about the subject that aren't in sources, such as {{tq|Raised in a single parent household with two younger siblings}}

::::* They linked to a webshop as a citation for two claims, like this one: {{tq|Mensah is active as an A&R in the music industry.}}[https://kliqbrand.com/q-a-kevin-mensah-uconn/]

::::Maybe the editor is a psychic and they just guessed the details about the subject's life. Linking to a web shop instead of an interview is satire about athletes being walking advertisements for merchandise, very deep. Perhaps Wikipedia rules changed in the last few hours to allow astral projection as a reputable source and BLP articles to become vehicles for biting social commentary. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 01:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:Copyright concerns with the image in the article, too. It was uploaded by Kwamebofo and the source is: {{tq|Picture was used by Stephen Dunn including Kevin Mensah}}, the author is credited as Stephen Dunn, and the image is supposedly in the public domain. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::The image was deleted as a copyright violation on Commons at 09:56, 30 June 2025. New editors often make mistakes with copyright, whether they have a COI or not. TSventon (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Atop| 1= Process not followed; accused editor is no longer editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC) }}

• {{pagelinks| Paula Duncan}}
• {{userlinks| Michaeltrilogycare}}

User created a section at Paula Duncan, talking about advocacy while also promoting Trilogy Care and using cited sources to promote the company.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paula_Duncan&diff=prev&oldid=1297071865] As their name is Michaeltrilogycare, this seems blatantly promotional. A user reverted them for using WP:LINKSPAM and their response has been to argue[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeltrilogycare&diff=prev&oldid=1296924685] and insult the user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeltrilogycare&diff=prev&oldid=1297070683][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoingBatty&diff=prev&oldid=1297079262] NJZombie (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Tl|uw-coi}} was left on Michaeltrilogycare's talk page at 19:16 (UTC) on 24 June 2025. They have not edited since 01:45 (UTC) on 24 June, so why have you brought this here now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::Because another admin suggested I do so. NJZombie (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at :meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. Some1 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Spring Education Group}}
• {{userlinks|NR12141988}}
• {{userlinks|Bouncyball2019}}
• {{userlinks|Breezy6508}}

These three editors are new and have declared their COI (it's their employer). They've gone through the article and substantially rewritten it. All three will work on the article in the same day, and generally it's good to have attention paid to quieter articles. However, I think it would benefit from some eyes to review the changes. {{diff|Spring Education Group|cur|1293721393|Here's the current full diff from when the editing started a few weeks ago}}; {{diff2|1298137035|this voucher program termination for Chinese ties}} and {{diff2|1298136873|credit rating change during COVID}} are examples of removals that might be worth preserving. tedder (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:This one doesn't sit well with me. Part of me says we should revert all those changes and request that they go through edit requests properly, as the NPOV of these edits is very questionable. MediaKyle (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Now at AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC) }}

• {{pagelinks|William Graif}}
• {{pagelinks|Chess prodigy}}
• {{pagelinks|New York State Chess Association}}
• {{pagelinks|Edgemont Junior – Senior High School}}
• {{userlinks|Chessy12}}

This account appears to have been set up exclusively for the purpose of promoting a rather obscure chess player. Wikidata edits also. Player is ranked [https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2609835 61st in Canada and 7439th in the world] according to the international chess governing body FIDE; this strongly suggests the player does not meet WP:GNG, or the informal WP:NCHESS guideline used by participants in WP:CHESS. References in the main article are trivial and passing, e.g. friendship with a MLB player, and usually sourced to small obscure local papers. User [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chessy12&diff=next&oldid=1298358602 refused to engage] on talk page when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chessy12&diff=prev&oldid=1298358602 conflict of interest concerns were raised], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chessy12&diff=prev&oldid=1298358602 edit] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Graif&diff=1298383549&oldid=1298379372 warred] to remove the COI and notability templates from the article, despite having a self-declared COI. Editor does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to use wikipedia as a vehicle for promotional purposes. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Absolutely false.

:The page passed the actual review process, including GNG, for very good reason. It features the current and 146th New York State Chess Champion (past champions include Pal Benko, Jose Capablanca, Hikaru Nakamura, etc), multiple-time Natl Champion for age group, and FIDE Master with an IM norm and peak rating 2335 FIDE, as well as a very notable figure within the chess community. This is demonstrated by the fact that the subject has been fully *featured* in several notable outlets, available in the 41 references at the bottom of the page, including but not limited to:

:- MLB.com

:- Bloomberg

:- The Daily News

:- The Scarsdale Inquirer

:- US Chess Federation

:- Westchester County Government

:- The Chicago Maroon

:- National Scholastic Chess Foundation

:- Uptown Radio

:- ChessMood

:- Empire Chess

:The user I am replying to did not seek to improve the article in good faith, which would have of course been welcomed. Rather, they immediately proposed deletion on a page that had just passed through the actual review process. Their only stated concern (a cited reference to Connect 4) was deleted on my part, and I removed the PROD tag while noting the above. Again, however, this user returned with strange tags on the page, rather than any good-faith attempt to improve the page. I would encourage the user to direct their energy away from futile and strange crusades against well-written and notable pages, and towards improving Wikipedia. Thank you and all the best. Chessy12 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::I have made many contributions to the encyclopedia over the years, and not only to chess articles. You, on the other hand, are the very definition of a WP:SPA whose only purpose is to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to do this. If this person were truly notable, somebody independent of the subject matter would have created the article already. It is also extremely poor etiquette to remove maintenance templates from the top of articles without addressing the concerns raised, and to edit war. Nobody is obligated to fix your article for you, and I have no interest in doing so since I fully expect it to fail the upcoming WP:AFD. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::As mentioned, the above User's personal attacks fall flat as they are entirely untrue. Here are the facts:

:::1) The article {{pagelinks|William Graif}} was created and passed through the actual review process and was published

:::2) User shows up on the article's page, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Graif&oldid=1297904026 offering nothing but a proposed deletion]

:::3) They mention "Connect 4 master? really" (this was discussed at length in a couple sources), but I take the advice assuming it is in good faith and delete this one sentence from the article, while getting rid of the WP:PROD tag, and noting my edit

:::4) This is not enough for User, and they return to the article page piling on multiple more nonsensical tags

:::5) User also leaves comment on my personal Talk page with these false personal accusations

:::6) With the objectivity of the matter settled, and not wanting to engage in something so petty on the internet, I remove the comment on my talk page and likewise remove the tags from the article while noting my edit

:::7) This public discussion occurs

:::8) (This may be the craziest one of all!!) In some sort of bizarre desperate attempt to undermine the notability of the subject of this User's crusade, the User takes it upon themselves to outright lie on other pages. At {{pagelinks|New York State Chess Association}} , User undoes my edit noting and citing Graif as the current NY State Champion, instead reverting it to a version that displayed the 2021+2022 state champions. When https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_State_Chess_Association confronted by a bewildered separate editor for this change, the User responds "I'll admit my edit was related to my current dispute over the article William Graif, which I don't think should exist", and continues to argue that Graif should not be written as the current State Champion because "he didn't beat anyone rated over 2150" (as in, during the tournament to clinch the championship, in the opinion of User, Graif did not defeat anyone "strong enough"?), and in the opinion of User, "the achievement sounds more impressive than it actually is". To be clear, since it somehow needs to be said, Graif is the undisputed current New York State Chess Champion, and was featured on the cover of Empire Chess magazine as a result (this is also in the Graif article!). [https://nysca.net/empire-chess-fall-2024/]

:::I would encourage User to cease their WP:DISRUPTIVE, lest the moderators need to get involved here, although that ship looks like it has already sailed unfortunately. Thank you. Chessy12 (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Clearly you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't have "moderators" here, we have admins, and their job is to enforce policy. One of the core Wikipedia policies is WP:NOT, and among the things that "Wikipedia Is Not" is a social media site, a WP:SOAPBOX, or a vehicle for self-promotion. Try TikTok or something. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::It has grown quite apparent that the only one with an agenda — and who is breaking Wikipedia’s rules for it — is this User. As aforementioned and proven, they are making blatantly false edits to pages across Wikipedia in order to push said agenda, while also engaging in WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:PA. They are again encouraged to cease such actions. Chessy12 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Per the instructions at the notability tag template, I have nominated the article for deletion at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Graif. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:I was going to comment in this discussion, but I will go to the AfD discussion instead.

:I am the "bewildered" editor referred to above. Now that I have been clued in, I generally agree with {{u|MaxBrowne2}} in his assessment of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Atop|1= No obvious COI issue here, per MediaKyle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Kim Novak}}
• {{userlinks|Ieonine}}

Ieonine has repeatedly restored excessive, contextless post-retirement photos (pictures with no indication of their significance, if any), despite getting no support at Talk:Kim Novak#Excessive photos. They have even essentially admitted they are working for Novak. See their edit comment at 08:20 today (July 1): "Undid revision 1298220764 by Clarityfiend (talk) I did too provide a counterexample. After your misrepresentation, this is the last I'll engage in your petty, futile arguments. For no good reason, you seem obsessed with excluding any photo Novak's web manager uploaded." (bolding mine) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Just looked into this one real quick. I'm not sure if what you've provided here is necessarily evidence of an undisclosed COI. The photo being added was uploaded by User:Hanasazi, who states on their userpage that they work for Novak. It could therefore be reasonable to assume that Ieonine knew of this user somehow, and is not the one working for Novak themselves. They've edited a variety of other articles as well, so it's not an SPA situation. This could still simply be a fan. Is there anything else about their edits that you find problematic, aside from this mini edit war over images? MediaKyle (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::Not photo, five photos, which they now seem to have cut down to a mere four (including the one in the infobox). The fact that Ieonine requested a discussion, then ignored the consensus and reasoning, is suspicious, or at least in bad faith. Their childish comment when they deleted my remarks from their talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ieonine&diff=prev&oldid=1298348394 "Hey Einstein, the captions state quite plainly that those pics were sent to web manager"] (they don't) is also deceitful. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::A couple of them do in fact say "Provided and approved by Kim Novak" ... I still don't think you've raised anything here that warrants a COI report, and in fact your conduct towards the user in question has been rather unbecoming as well, particularly with the comment {{xt|If you persist, I will report you, which will likely get you blocked or even banned.}} I would suggest that this be dealt with through normal dispute resolution... I don't see any grounds to conclude that this user has an undisclosed COI based on the information you have provided. MediaKyle (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{pagelinks|Gaston Rivero}}
• {{userlinks|CraigAmstrong}}
• {{userlinks|Shazam2020}}
• {{userlinks|Bounty22surfen }}
• {{userlinks|Cat22Sparrow}}

Users have edited exclusively on this one article, inserting unsourced information. Users CraigAmstrong, Shazam2020 and Bounty22surfen claimed to be the authors of photos of the subject. 2A02:3037:205:7189:1087:3696:62AA:9F23 (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Studienstiftung}} (and all other scholarships)
• {{userlinks|FortunateSons}} (and all other relevant user)

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place, so please direct me wherever I should go if there is an a better place to ask this: within Germany (and to a lesser degree, other German-speaking countries), certain students receive national level merit scholarships, which are either ideologically neutral or affiliated with a religious or political group. Those students regularly engage in 'recruitment' - unpaid ambassador positions to spread awareness (and improve access to the scholarships for people without privileged backgrounds). It's not paid (the scholarship money isn't tied to that function, and is instead a fixed or variable amount based on personal circumstances). However, I was wondering if this is a COI per se, or if it can be treated like the way current and former students editing about their Universities is, where it's not a COI unless there is a particularly close relationship to the subject that goes far beyond that of the 'average' member? FortunateSons (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:My (unasked for) opinion: if their monetary reward is truly not influenced by their recruitment activities, then it's not paid editing.

:However, if they are actively advocating for a particular institution and editing Wikipedia as part of that aim, then it's most definitely a COI. I would not trust that person to be an objective contributor, as they have secondary motives to contribute content that sounds favourable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|User:KevinVD}} has introduced major edits to the Good Article HNLMS De Ruyter (1935), with many of their new bare URL references having been written by the user or heavily features the user, which includes 'personal correspondence' with someone, and interview with himself, and an article the user wrote and appears to have self-published. I have ran out of reverts, and per KevinVD's request here, would bring the matter up at a noticeboard. GGOTCC 15:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:Per the many red messages on this page, you are required to notify the editor via talk page when you bring them to this noticeboard; I have done so for you. GoldRomean (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, but I did do that on the talk page of the respective article since they are the ones who requested it. Is that not sufficient? GGOTCC 23:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, overlooked that, but I think user talk page is still needed; it makes sure the user can see it :) GoldRomean (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah, I see. Thank you for telling me! GGOTCC 01:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|KevinVD}} should not be citing himself, and as a COI editor, he should be making suggestions on the article talk page for unconnected editors to review the edit requests and after analyzing them, either make the edits or not. Exceptional claims should be independently sourced. Blogs, or his personal correspondence should not be used, especially for a GA. KevinVD should also follow WP guidelines for connected editors found at WP:COI and if there have been any financial remuneration for his work on the shipwreck, he should follow the guidance for paid editors. Netherzone (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

::I've placed the standard COI template on KevinVD's talk page. If they have received any compensation for their work on the shipwreck through grants, donations, paid employment, in-kind sources or other, they must follow WP:PAID. Netherzone (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Tommyong8008 created an account today and all of their edits have been to Chung Cheng High School (Main). I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tommyong8008&oldid=1298867680 left a template] on their page, but they either didn't see it or ignored it, since they continued to edit the article. They added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chung_Cheng_High_School_(Main)&diff=prev&oldid=1298871176 unsourced information] that shows intimate knowledge of the subject, in that example they added something that happened at the school today. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

:Editor has been blocked for 7 days for the persistent addition of unsourced content. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Tacmocc}}
• {{pagelinks|Hakan Akbas}} - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakan Akbas
• {{pagelinks|Draft:Crystal Williams (cosmetologist)}}
• {{pagelinks|Draft:Manuela Kelley}}

Tacmocc was kindly requested by Amigao to disclose their relationship with Hakan Akbas, but they have blanked the talk page and are creating more COI-related drafts, such as Draft:Crystal Williams (cosmetologist) and Draft:Manuela Kelley. More eyes requested. Gheus (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Gheus}} The editor must be informed of this discussion by leaving the {{tl|coin-notice}} message on their talk page. I will do it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Fasthosts}}
• {{userlinks|Zo-tal25‬}}

I’ve posted an edit request on the Talk:Fasthosts page with several factual updates supported by independent sources. The Fasthosts page is relatively outdated, and currently displaying nonfactual information. I’d appreciate if an uninvolved editor could review and consider implementing or advising on these suggestions.

I have a disclosed conflict of interest (COI) and am seeking neutral, factual updates to the Fasthosts Wikipedia article. My userpage includes a full COI disclosure in line with Wikipedia’s paid contribution disclosure policy.

Thanks!

Zo-tal25 (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Zo-tal25‬}} You already posted your requested edit on the article talk page, and it's in the queue awaiting review. I'm not sure why you posted here; it won't speed up the process or affect the result. The top of this page explains its purpose: "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." --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

::I posted on here as I couldn't be sure the edit requests were in the queue. This is my first time editing a Wikipedia page, and I was recommended to post on here as a next step. Thank you. Zo-tal25 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Misericordia University}}
• {{userlinks|Amywbachman}}

I believe the user is engaging in undisclosed paid editing, based on their username. I am not sure what counts as "personal information" so I am not sure how specific I am allowed to be here, but can email if necessary. The user is not responding to talk page messages. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

:I think you've given us enough information to figure it out, and I agree that this is UPE. I will note that they were not informed of this discussion, so I put the required {{tl|coin-notice}} message on their talk page. All of their edits were made in the span of 90 minutes; let's give them a chance to answer here or on the user talk page. If they still fail to respond, then it can be escalated further. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm new to this noticeboard so apologies in advance if I'm doing this wrong. I strongly suspect these following articles were created by undisclosed paid editing. The histories of these articles are also dominated by sockpuppets (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chuckfinley94).

• Jeff Grant (attorney)
• White Collar Support Group
• Sam Mangel
• Craig Rothfeld

Could someone who is well-versed with the Notability guidelines help assess these articles and nominate them for deletion if you don't think they meet WP:N? I'm getting pretty annoyed that I have to basically file a sockpuppet report every couple of weeks now because the sockmaster keeps popping up to edit these articles. Please put these articles on your watchlist too if you can; any help is appreciated. Some1 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|CapitaLand}}
• {{userlinks|Jamboo2325}}

Editor Jamboo2325 has consistently added promotional content about CapitaLand. While there is some improvement in sourcing, the references are primary sources. I had placed COI notice and done follow-ups with no responses. Various warnings had been put on talkpage but Jamboo2325 failed to reply in any kind. ~ JASWE (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|{{resolved}} There is rough consensus that alumni do not have a COI solely due to their alumni status. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|California State University, Northridge}}
• {{userlinks|Supertowel}}
• {{userlinks|Melchior2006}}

I have been given a COI for the mentioned article by Melchior2006 because I am an alumnus of the university and have made extensive edits to the page. These edits have followed UNIGUIDE, been extensively sourced, and maintain NPOV.

I find being an alumnus too tenuous a relationship to be considered a COI, especially when this noticeboard also clearly states a "conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics". Having attended a university seems to me to not be a close enough relationship to constitute a COI. Probably most pages on Wikipedia are edited by people who have such a tenuous relationship to the article they edit (from universities to local soccer clubs). I also could not find a clear consensus on this in the archives.

I would like to find a consensus on this.

Supertowel (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Merely attending a school does not give a COI with regards to the school. If there is something else, like editing at the direction of the school, or at the direction of someone else(like an alumni association), then it might be a COI. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, being an alumnus is a conflict of interest. It's not a financial conflict but many alumni may feel compelled to paint an overly positive picture of their alma mater. But in the big picture, it's a relatively minor conflict. ElKevbo (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think it's enough to prevent editing, any more than a customer of Walmart would have a COI with regards to Walmart. An alumni is just a customer of an educational institution. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The Walmart comparison is weak, because it ignores the prestige factor. Wiki higher ed articles often have problems with boosterism because alums want to make their alma mater look good. That is understandable, but it is a COI and there is broad consensus about that. Having said that, an alum can certainly contribute to an article about her alma mater, but with the necessary caution. I explained all of that to Supertowel on the user page. This is all standard practice. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Stating something is 'standard practice' and has 'broad consensus' without providing any proof to back this up is insufficient.

::::What I could find on consensus in the archives is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_33#c-ElKevbo-2020-12-25T05:28:00.000Z-Vincentvikram-2020-12-25T04:55:00.000Z]. The consensus here was (in my interpretation): leave it unless a user is making problematic edits.

::::Hence singling out a user who has made extensive good faith edits to an article and slapping the user with a COI because they disagree with your own edit does not seem to be 'standard practice' based on 'broad consensus'. Supertowel (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's my understanding as well. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is standard practice to exercise caution if there is reason to believe that a COI is leading to all the classic behaviors associated with one (i.e., boosterism, puffery, poor sourcing, etc.). That's why we have COI templates for editor talk pages. Melchior2006 is right in approaching Supertowel about the value of exercising caution because Supertowel is a single purpose account that is dedicated to California State University, Northridge articles.  GuardianH  17:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've seen people on both sides of this dispute assert that established practice favors their position, so I'm going to tag in WP:Higher Education and WP:Schools for their input. My two cents: as a sanity check, let's take a look at school or university articles that have passed GA or FA. Right now there is only one university FA on Wikipedia. Neither the article talk page nor the primary editor have COI disclosures. Frankly, I don't know whether sdkb went to Pomona and I don't care. The more relevant questions are: 1) have these articles been meaningfully improved by alums, and if yes, 2) has their quality been recognized by the broader WP community? A "yes" on both counts suggests that a blanket COI-for-alums rule is unnecessary, since the quality of the work tends to speak for itself. I'm not disregarding all the shoddy alumni edits committed on this website over the years—but if you think an edit is boostery, why not just revert it and discuss it on the talk page, like any other Wikipedia article?

:With respect to Supertowel in particular, I am not sure I would have opened with a message as aggressive as {{tq|you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly}}: the claim is probably overbroad and implies a consensus that doesn't seem to exist. After Supertowel pushed back, Melchior2006 walked back their statement somewhat, but I think the first message would have been enough to scare off some good faith editors. Namelessposter (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you all for the input ElKevbo, 331dot, Namelessposter, GuardianH, Sdkb, SarekOfVulcan, Rublamb, and Robminchin. I think enough input has been provided to reach consensus. I would summarize the consensus as: regardless of if it is a COI (opinions do still differ on this), it is too minor to warrant a COI citation that would discourage users from editing and restrict editing rights to an article. Would you agree with this conclusion?

:If so, I would petition in my case for the COI given to me by Melchior2006 to be removed from the talk page of the article in question (and hence the removal of my editing restriction) as well as the removal of the close connection notice on the article by GuardianH. Supertowel (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::While I agree that so far, everyone (even Melchior) seems to be fine with you editing the article, it’s not going to resolve your content dispute. Even if you had no connection at all to CSUN, Melchior would have had the authority to revert you (and then you would have had the authority to revert back and discuss it on the talk page, etc.).

::I’m not sure how to handle the close-connection maintenance template. I’d caution that even if GuardianH were to take down the template, they could still replace it with a similar template, such as Template:Academic booster, which may come off as less of a personal criticism but may still be cold comfort given that everyone who reads the CSUN article will see it. (GuardianH does, in fact, do this.) Ultimately, I don't think there's an easy way around the content dispute, COI or no COI, and you'll have to find some common ground with Melchior and GuardianH. So I'd advise trimming, listening, negotiating, narrowing your dispute to a couple simple questions, and then bringing the sharpened, narrowed points of dispute to WikiProject Higher Ed for the community's verdict. Namelessposter (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} This is indeed an interesting debate (thank you Namelessposter for inviting me!). My general understanding is that alumni may be motivated to promote their institution in a favorable light, but its unclear whether or not this constitutes a COI, at least enough to make a disclosure. We have had editors from an institution promote articles on their respective institutions into GA status or even FA status before, and that was generally accepted whether it was disclosed or not. For example, our article on the University of Edinburgh was promoted to GA status by an employee/alumnus — this was disclosed on the talk page. There have also been similar editors at the University of Notre Dame. Skdb also brought Pomona College to FA status, and (I think) they were a current student/alumnus at the time aswell. User:Supertowel's comment on the consensus above seems to be de facto standard[?].  GuardianH  17:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top}}

:I would date the beginning of the conflict with Supertowel's two reverts within a few hours (12:38, 31 May 2025 Supertowel). This approaches edit warring. Also, note that Supertowel was particularly interested in keeping alumni (ahem, alumni) listings on the Northridge page although they are covered extensively on a list page. Why do we need such extensive alumni listings on the Northridge page? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Under the right circumstances, it's perfectly valid to ask a user whether they have a COI or attended a particular educational institution—particularly when the user is an SPA or their edits appear to be puffery. That being said, I would have assumed good faith and started with content discussions on the talk page, as I do not think edit summaries are a helpful way to debate 27,000-byte deletions and reverts. (I think Melchior2006's discussion on Talk:University of Chicago#Inclusion of public transit/shuttle program in transportation section is a good example of a positive discussion that builds consensus.)

::I should note that while I haven't reviewed the CSUN page closely enough to say whether Melchior2006 was right in trimming Supertowel's contributions, I firmly disagree with the points Supertowel made to defend their edits (the fact that another page contravenes a Wikipedia policy does not mean that you have the right to do the same, cf. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). However, Supertowel was wrong in a way that suggests they are new to Wikipedia and should be given a little grace. (See WP:HERRING.) We were all inexperienced editors once, and I still am. Namelessposter (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::And I am perfectly fine discussing the reverts because in my view the edits by Melchior2006 were too extensive to abide by UNIGUIDE. But instead of opening up a discussion on the talk page of the university or my own page, I immediately get slapped with a COI and my editing gets restricted. That, to me, is a major overreaction and skips quite a few steps to try and resolve the issue in a civil manner. Supertowel (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you. I think this is a good point to separate our two discussions (the content dispute over the reverts and the alumni-COI question). IMO, you were right to raise the COI issue here and early on. However, I don't want that issue to get sidetracked with content questions that haven't been properly ventilated at the CSUN talk page. (See WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.)

::::I note for the record that Melchior2006 technically [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACalifornia_State_University%2C_Northridge&diff=1293274627&oldid=1264918867 opened a discussion on the CSUN talk page] four minutes before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASupertowel&diff=1293275117&oldid=1258288787 asking you for your university affiliation]. To be clear, I think Melchior jumped the gun there and should have provided more time. But that discussion is a good place to start debating the nitty-gritty. Namelessposter (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Because I was not tagged, I did not even notice it was raised as an issue on the talk page. I will take some time to take this part of the discussion there tomorrow! Supertowel (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{collapsed bottom}}

Generally, I would say categorically no, there's no COI, with caveats like 331dot raises. See the note at the bottom of the header of Talk:Knights of Columbus for a previous similar discussion I participated in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• (Coming from the WP:HED invite; the attempted ping failed because of a misspelling of my username.) I concur with 331dot and others. Ultimately, colleges (even nonprofit ones) are businesses and students their customers. While I take Melchior2006's point that there is a greater level of association than with e.g. a Walmart customer, I ultimately view it as roughly akin to editing one's hometown: Some editors might feel a level of hometown pride (or animus, just as some alumni resent their alma mater), and they should be cognizant of the potential for that to introduce bias into their editing, but it's not a formal Conflict of Interest (capitalized, making it a reference to Wikipedia jargon rather than a generic description) that would require someone to make a COI declaration or use the COI edit request process. Sdkb ^talk 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I respectfully disagree. Someone editing an article about their hometown does have a conflict of interest. And someone editing an article about their alma mater has a stronger conflict of interest. They're both pretty minor conflicts and they're almost certainly not ones that anyone would consider to be actionable in Wikipedia. But they are conflicts of interest (technically, those who study or work with these kinds of issues might more properly consider these to be conflicts of commitment).

:A conflict of interest is not a scarlet badge or something to be ashamed of - we all have many conflicts of interest. Most are minor and few rise to the level of being actionable or of any concern in Wikipedia. But we need to discourage the misconception that having a conflict requires a direct and obvious financial relationship. And we need to discourage the misconception that having a conflict is a binary state where we either have a conflict that prevents us from editing an article or we don't have a conflict at all. So a better question might be: Is being an alumnus of an institution a strong enough conflict of interest that they should be discouraged from editing the article? Although I believe that there is a conflict of interest I think the answer to this question is typically "no." ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry to ask a potentially obvious question, but to clarify, would you require editors to preemptively disclose that they are alums when editing the school article (while still presumptively allowing them to edit)? Namelessposter (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think there is a consensus among editors that this is a conflict so there certainly isn't a consensus that this relationship must be explicitly disclosed prior to making edits to an article. And asking editors to preemptively disclose all of their minor relationships with subjects is neither practical nor compatible with our dedication to allow editors confidentiality. ElKevbo (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with @ElKevbo. A university's alumni might have a conflict of interest (negative or positive) but not at the level that should prohibit them from editing an article. This certainly does not rise to the level of COI for edits made by someone working in the university's PR office. (Note that this is allowed, although self-disclosure is encouraged). Conversely, someone doesn't need to be an alumnus of university to have a COI--consider someone updating an article about their alma mater's rival. I know we become programmed to look for trolls and assume the worst, but most editors join Wikipedia to update a specific article and, hopefully, expanded their interests. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with only having worked on one article. As with all edits, it should really come down to content, tone, and sources. Rublamb (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would say that, for Wikipedia editing purposes, being an alum is not a conflict of interest, i.e. something that should lead to a person being discouraged from editing articles on that institution. While ElKevbo is correct that there is some level of COI, as there is for editing an article about someone's hometown, this doesn't reach the level implied by "Editors should not edit where they have a conflict of interest", so for Wikipedia purposes - which is the real question being asked here - this is not a COI.

::One thing that might be considered is whether recent association is a COI. For NSF grant reviews, having worked at or received an award from an institution within the last 12 months is considered an institutional COI with respect to that institution.[https://www.nsf.gov/policies/conflict-of-interest] Robminchin (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In going back through the COI policy, it is clear to me that there is a difference between a true COI and a potential for bias. The COI policy provides direction regarding articles yourself, your immediate family, your business, or a financial connection to the subject of the article such as working for subject or receiving payment to work on the article. Attending a college may result in bias but does not reach COI as defined in the policy. Rublamb (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Note: I have listed this discussion at WP:CR. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 17:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

{{abot}}

{{atop| Promotional account blocked, copyvio revdeled, promo removed. Rusalkii (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{pagelinks|Sacramento Police Department}}

More eyes are needed at Sacramento Police Department, where people associated with the police department (I can't state the exact connection here, due to WP:OUTING, but it's obvious) have attempted to remove sourced negative content and replacing it with a puff piece about their organization structure. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

: {{reply|ChildrenWillListen}} I believe that if you've googled a username to establish a connection to an article they are editing, you have already exceeded the guidelines of WP:OUTING. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::Nothing in ChildrenWillListen's post above violates the policy. ElKevbo (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• I have page-blocked {{u|Aheinlein}} indefinitely from Sacramento Police Department and semiprotected the article for 3 months to stop IPs from adding promotional content. I hope some other admin can take care of the copyvios, as I'm in a bit of a hurry. Bishonen | tålk 12:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC).
• :There's still some more that has to be revdel'd so I've opened a new request. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}