Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Orangemoody long-term abuse case and COI cases

• {{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)

• {{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)

Carolyn Bertozzi, 2022 Nobel laureate in Chemistry is absolutely a notable person, but parts of the article come across like a media package (cringe). Maybe someone can have a look. 2601:644:8581:75B0:AEAB:C1A0:E7AD:25F9 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{Pagelinks|Nicholas Halley}}
• {{Pagelinks|Draft:Capella Regalis Choirs}}
• {{Userlinks|MJ2257}}

In {{diff|oldid=1251115922|label=this talk page message}} in October 2024, the user MJ2257 said they are the personal assistant of Nicholas Halley. Yesterday they created Capella Regalis Choirs directly in the mainspace, which I draftified today, and left a COI notice on their talk page. The user denies having a conflict of interest, and claims they no longer work for Nicholas Halley. The user continues to edit the Nicholas Halley article without a disclosure, including removing the BLP primary sources tag I added today, which I think was a justified tag. This appears to be a longstanding issue going on since November of 2024 at least, and more attention from other editors might be necessary here. MediaKyle (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Noting here that MJ2257 has tried to blank this report, twice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1296236262][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1296236467] - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::And also blanked the sockpuppetry notice I left at User talk:SilaGerAllePac25. This is starting to cross a line into disruptive editing now. MediaKyle (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Looks like this is going to be headed to SPI soon as well, see also {{Userlinks|CatLyn94}} for anyone looking into this. -- MediaKyle (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Borehole mining}}
• {{userlinks|BHMI}}

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)

• {{pagelinks|Morris College}}
• {{userlinks|HTemoney}}

HTemoney is a single-purpose account who only edits Morris College. I will not state exactly why I believe they are an employee of the college but I am confident that others who spend a few minutes conducting their own brief investigation will come to the same conclusion. More importantly, they have not responded to any questions on their User Talk page despite several warnings and questions. If they do not respond here, I am afraid that a block is warranted (although a partial block preventing them from editing just that one article would likely be sufficient) to prevent what is almost certainly undisclosed paid editing. ElKevbo (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:They are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morris_College&curid=5759956&diff=1297177494&oldid=1296256943 continuing to edit] without making any effort to communicate or collaborate with other editors. {{ping|Skdb}} Can you please look into this or weigh in? I think administrator tools are needed. ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 24 June 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)

• {{pagelinks|Yadavs of Nepal}}
• {{userlinks|Devid yadav}}

This user is part of this caste. Many users, and the general consensus, have described this particular caste as "middle", which is consistently and persistently reverted by Mr. Yadav, who insists that his caste is "prominent" or "high".
Thanks, Plastixfy (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|Deemak}}
• {{userlinks|StayCalmOnTress}}

Hi all. Earlier when this was a draft, it was rejected by an AfD reviewer. However, this page was moved to mainspace by a blocked sockpuppet.

I appeared on this article just few days back, and based upon my learning and experiece about editing film articles on Wikipedia, I have rewritten and expanded this.

Any experienced editor is most welcome to check this page if it complies WP:NPOV and WP:N. Any suggestions and help will be appreciated. Thank you! M. Billoo 14:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:For [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StayCalmOnTress#11_June_2025 context], this SPI should be helpful. Was going to file a thread here if necessary once the SPI is closed.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::And this as well. M. Billoo 22:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:User sock-blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{pagelinks|The McCallie School}}
• {{userlinks|FredSmith56789}}

FredSmith56789 appears to be an undeclared paid editor for The McCallie School. Continually adds promotional content without responding to User Talk.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:The fact that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_McCallie_School&diff=prev&oldid=1297002515 keep] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_McCallie_School&diff=prev&oldid=1296998641 adding] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_McCallie_School&diff=prev&oldid=1296996573 an] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_McCallie_School&diff=prev&oldid=1296991880 unnecessary] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_McCallie_School&diff=prev&oldid=1296990815 page title] to the top of the lead makes me wonder if they're copying & pasting straight from a LLM generation... Nil🥝 (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:User blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{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)

• {{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)

• {{pagelinks|Melis Aker}}
• {{userlinks|Melis Aker}}

Not sure if this is exactly the right the forum for this, but the article Melis Aker was recently moved over objections from two reviewers (myself and {{u|HilssaMansen19}}) to mainspace from Draft:Melis Aker over concerns of WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI, and WP:Original synthesis. You can see those articulated in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melis_Aker&oldid=1297706532 this version] of the draft. The article was written by the subject, and it was properly disclosed. However, Aker did remove negative quotes about her work during the writing of the draft and purposefully avoided including any materials that presented her work in less than a positive light. For example, The New York Times piece by Elisabeth Vincentelli is mixed with a lean towards a negative review. An unedited quote reflecting this was added by me to the article, but was removed by Melis Aker in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melis_Aker&diff=1285472116&oldid=1285455822 this edit]. The article now uses a highly edited quote by Vincentelli which splices together sentence fragments in a way that I think misrepresents the review. It's clearly been curated as a puffery/promo piece. The article was moved out of draft over these objections by {{u|Theroadislong}}. I moved it back to draft space as the concerns raised by two prior reviewers were not addressed. It was then moved back to main space by {{u|MCE89}} without any discussion. This would seem to violate policy at WP:DRAFTOBJECT. So I am now taking this here. I don't think we should be moving curated autobiographical pages into mainspace that are not compliant with our policies at WP:NOTPROMO/WP:COI.4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure this is the right place to bring up these concerns? surely you just need to take it to WP:AFD? Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@{{u|Theroadislong}} The issue here is not notability, but WP:COI editing. This is an autobiographical page where the author has intentionally removed material that presents her in a less than positive light. I spoke with her about this already at User talk:Melis Aker. We had previously talked about the need to use balanced reviews at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre/Archive_7#Request_for_Review:_Melis_Aker_Draft WikiProject Theatre]. This was an issue she was made aware of. Moving the page to mainspace prematurely undermined those conversations about fixing WP:NOTPROMO issues. The move out of draft space should never have happened under these circumstances. 4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Moving it back to mainspace is not remotely a violation of WP:DRAFTOBJECT. DRAFTOBJECT says that an article can't be moved unilaterally to draftspace more than once. An article can be moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer without needing to consult with everyone who previously declined it. I accepted the draft, as did Theroadislong, because I believed that it would likely survive an AfD discussion. If you don't believe the article should be in mainspace, nominate it at AfD and make a WP:TNT argument about the COI/PROMO issues.

:It is also not true that the article now currently uses a highly edited quote by Vincentelli. You are correct that that quote misrepresented the review, which is why I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melis_Aker&diff=prev&oldid=1297735085 fixed it] when I accepted the draft. I agree that there are problems with the page, and I agree with the tags that you added to it before I accepted it, but both I and Theroadislong were entirely within our rights to accept the submission. MCE89 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::@{{u|MCE89}} Actually no. There weren't enough meaningful changes made to remedy the problems of the article (even normal holdups like bare urls weren't fixed) and it was a controversial move to mainspace that overturned multiple prior reviewers. I objected and per WP:DRAFTOBJECT it shouldn't have been moved to mainspace a second time without a WP:CONSENSUS conversation which never happened. Regardless, the WP:NOTPROMO concerns are strong enough here I think the COI noticeboard should handle this.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Is your argument really that every time an AfC reviewer wants to accept an article, they should get the consensus of any previous reviewer who declined it? That would be, well, an enormous change to the way that AfC operates. WP:DRAFTOBJECT says that an article can't be moved to draftspace over an objection. If you object to a move to mainspace, the correct action to take is to nominate the page at AfD. I'm really not sure what you are expecting the COI noticeboard to achieve here or what outcome you are seeking. And of course I didn't decline on the basis of bare urls after you had already applied the appropriate bare url tag — see point 3 under Invalid reasons for declining a submission. MCE89 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ignoring the cogent issues raised in prior reviews is disrespectful of the other people who volunteered their time at draft review. I believe the original synthesis issues raised by HilssaMansen19 were never addressed and are still extant in the article; as are the overuse of primary source materials. Given this is a WP:BLP it fails BLP policy for engaging with SYNTH and therefore does not pass WP:AFCSTANDARDS (fails step 3). Thank you for fixing the NYT quote, but you did that after I raised the concerns with the move to mainspace by Theroadislong and my move back to draft. The main thing I want is this to go back to draft space and have all of the relevant problems identified in draft review be fixed before this moves to mainspace. I'd also like the COI noticeboard to give this a look over and make sure their aren't any further COI problems in the current version of the article. 4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If what you want is for this to be returned to draftspace, the only venue where a consensus to re-draftify the page can be established is at AfD. Again, please feel free to nominate it there. The article obviously still has plenty of problems and COI issues so I fully endorse your tags, but an article doesn't have to be perfect to be accepted at AfC. If you think those issues are so serious that the article should not exist in mainspace you can take it to AfD and seek a consensus to re-draftify, but I don't think there's really much of a point continuing to re-litigate my and Theroadislong's AfC acceptances here. MCE89 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I completely disagree. AFD is not the only forum which has the power to draftify an article. Any administrative noticeboard can do that. No sense in WP:FORUMSHOPPING when we can make a decision here. There are very good reasons to work through this article further in draft space because it is autobiographical, and that does fall under the COI noticeboard's purview. Also, as noted this was an improper move to article space because of the BLP violations that fail step 3 of AFC review.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:After reading the conversation here and checking previous versions along with the current one, @4meter4 is right. Too many concerns and issues do indicate that it may not be ready for the main space yet, and requires either re-draft, full re or TNT. It is respectfully towards all the other opinions by reviewers here. The content may have been represented one way by the editor and there were problematic edits. I pointed out some non-encyclopedic parts. They edited that specific part out which is well appreciated but more work is still needed on the OR like tone. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 17:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::Specifically in the Career section. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 17:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)