Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/noticeboard)
Latest comment: 4 hours ago by Axad12 in topic Siena College
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Draft talk:Abdulla Al Nuaimi
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion
    Articles
    Editor
    Related discussion

    Rvsingh12, from their very first edits, has extensively edited articles related to the Khanna family/clan, and appears to have access to materials (especially images [1]) that indicate a relationship to members of the family.

    Rvsingh12 has indicated they are concerned with their privacy. Is there a private means that they could use to explain their relation further, if necessary?

    Regardless of the outcome here, the articles need major cleanup to meet content policies and guidelines. I've held off on looking closely and tagging them, but my impression is that at a minimum all the BLPs need trimming and removal of poor references. --Hipal (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

    So, if I understand correctly from the talk page discussion, the user claims no conflict of interest and states that his independent wealth allows him to pursue interests such as... writing Wikipedia articles about many related individuals to whom he personally has no relation?
    Normally it works the other way, i.e. an individual writes articles about lots of people and this provides the individual with independent wealth.
    Are we sure we have this the right way around?
    Also, I'm not sure why someone would need to clarify their situation in great detail in private if they had no connection whatsoever to the individuals in question. And if they had no COI, why would they be so against this being referred to COIN?
    Maybe we'll get some clarity if we consider the edits themselves. I've not looked at the articles. In your opinion are they written from a neutral point of view or do they appear promotional? Axad12 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The articles are highly promotional, Navin Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) especially so. As I said, regardless of the outcome here, the articles need major cleanup. --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Are the subjects actually notable? If not, AfD would avoid the need for laborious cleanup.
    What this all resembles, of course, is a situation where there is a family historian who has created lot of articles for past and present members of his/her family. In those situations the likelihood is that the individual is either related to the family or is someone who is being paid by the family.
    Obviously it is possible that neither of those situations are applicable here, but if the articles are highly promotional then the likelihood of that being the case would appear very low indeed.
    Please proceed carefully here as we do not want there to be any WP:OUTING. Axad12 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Tagged Navin Khanna for AfD as clearly not notable. Haven't looked at the others yet. C F A 💬 03:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not across all the details of commons, but isn't uploading pictures as "own work" the same as declaring you took the photos rather than that you have somehow "acquired" the copyright? Something definitely feels fishy here. The user says I obtained these through various methods. One is public domain and archival collections. Two is estate sales and auctions. Three is amateur photography. Four is acquiring rights and developing historical ones. For one example, I'm not sure how any of these can account for this 2022 portrait uploaded as his own work, or am I missing something? Melcous (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Melcous, you are correct. After looking at the personal pics uploaded by the editor, along with the WP:REFBOMBING, WP:UNDUE additions, and promotion about this Khanna family in many articles, I strongly suspect that they have a WP:COI with this family. An independent editor cannot promote a family like this which has mainly received some coverage and that too for alleged involvement in corruption cases. So, at the very least, they should be topic-banned from the articles related to the Khanna family so that any further damage to this project can be averted. BTW, I cross-checked their Khanna family article. Over one-third of the cited sources are non-independent, poor, or simply don't mention the Khanna family. The editor also added seemingly unsourced details like the birthdates and family relationships of obscure Khanna family members. So I will post relevant comments on that article's talk page. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    A ban from BLPs also seems necessary given the editing since this discussion was started (eg Rajeshwari Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Khanna family). --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Karma Phuntsho

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    A whole bunch of users have been adding more or less the same massive amount of unreferenced promotional text to this article. Every time one user gets a COI warning, another pops up. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    This not an unreferenced promotional text, we are trying to update the text with updated information on this person, since the system. Since the system would not keep the edited versions, we have been trying with multiple users in an attempt to update the information in complete about this subject. SamtenYeshi (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That's not how any of this works. "The system" isn't removing your edits, people are because they go against Wikipedia's policies on promotion/paid editing and referencing. Using multiple accounts like that is also against Wikipedia's policy (see WP:Sockpuppetry). Please stop trying to add this to the article, and use edit requests on the article's talk page as discussed at Template:Edit COI. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Simplellali

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

    The previous username of this user was EyyubVEVO. When you search for this name on Facebook, the profile that appears mentions that the person works at Azerbaijan Railways. Later, when you search the name and surname from that profile (not mentioning it here because of the privacy) on LinkedIn, the profile that appears indicates that the person works at Azerbaijan Railways as a senior social marketing specialist. Looking at this user's contributions, he have worked on articles related to Azerbaijan Railways, the head of the organization, and the Railway Museum on enwiki, azwiki, and ruwiki, and have uploaded related images. On the other hand, the user has created a large number of non-notable singer articles on azwiki, ruwiki, and enwiki, which raises strong suspicions of paid editing. Additionally, the user has created a significant number of items about clearly non-notable people on Wikidata. It's evident that the user created these pages for the knowledge panel. This also indicates paid editing. If it does not violate privacy, I can also provide the links of the mentioned social media accounts. Rosguill, could you please review this? Sura Shukurlu (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Looking at the user's talk page this seems to be a longstanding problem. The user has previously admitted to creating articles for people they know, for example: I have many friends such as musicians. Musician asks me to create their articles on english wikipedia [2]. It seems these articles have very often been deleted on notability grounds. Back in 2020 the user was given a final warning [3] by user:Girth Summit for not declaring COI. In 2022 there were mentioned on the Administrators' Noticeboard (here [4]) for persistently re-creating a deleted article.
    I wonder if it is time to start thinking about blocking this user?
    This [5] is presumably a related account or sock, both Simplellali and the sock have been warned for WP:COPYVIO.
    (Sura Shukurlu, could I ask you to do 2 things? Firstly could you please notify Simplellali that you have opened this thread, as is required by the note in red at the top of this noticeboard. Secondly please do NOT, under any circumstances, link to the user's social media accounts.) Axad12 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I worked as music editor in Public Television of Azerbaijan. I have created articles about them. What is the problem?
    I thought that they are notable. I have been editing, creating articles since 2012. I didn't get money for this activity.
    Now, I work in Azerbaijan Railways. Wikipedia is important for social media presence, so I must edit article.@Axad12@Sura Shukurlu Simplellali (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It doesn't matter if you specifically receive money for posting to Wikipedia; as an employee of companies you're writing about, you have a very significant conflict of interest. You have not followed any of the steps to be in complicance with WP:COI.
    So, yes, it is a massive problem that you've written articles for Public Television of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Railways while an employee of these entities. You've made no disclosures whatsoever, as required, and given that you've been violating these rules for more than a decade, you shouldn't even be touching these articles except to suggest edits on the talk page. You also cannot claim that you were unaware of conflict of interest policies as there are still multiple notifications on your talk page about this, which you have appear to have ignored. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Rosguill, hi, could you please take a look? Is there anything else needed? --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For the record, I had been following this discussion since the first notification, and was waiting to allow for a week to pass by since the last comment from Simplealli, as they have not continued editing and thus there's no urgency. Obviously, Simplellali's responses have been inadequate, and nearly a week has gone by without further comment, so I'll go ahead and impose the block now. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    SIKH DIASPORA

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    No evidence of Coi; this is a simple content dispute, seasoned with failure to AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

    Revert of my painstaking edits to the Sikh diaspora article are lazy and bad faith. Reasoning -- "Reverting what appear to be motivated edits; please discuss on talk page." -- is absurd. All edits are motivated, in this case by a motivation to improve the article, which they do by removing OR and unsourced text going back almost a decade, among other things.

    User:Revirvlkodlaku behaves as though he owns the article. I left a message regarding his revert on his talk page to which he did not respond. I'll leave a notification re this noticeboard on his talk page after logging out here. 50.75.202.186 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

    Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago11 comments3 people in discussion

    I believe there's a conflict of interest at play here. The username of the editor making the edits has the same name as the director for administration of the institute in question (from a quick Google search), and has made 34 edits, all of them to this article, and was created the same day. Alongside the 34 edits made to the article, the user has also removed anything criticising the institute without explanation, such as [6] and [7]. Procyon117 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    What is the best solution here? I'd suggest reverting all the edits and then getting the user to declare his COI on his user page and to make COI edit requests via the article talk page.
    Also, I don't think it was at all necessary to out the user (see WP:OUTING). Axad12 (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with Axad12. An alternative suggestion, if the edits the user made are cited from reliable secondary sources, that can remain, provided the information is presented in a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. The edits that removed information criticising the institute without explanation should be reverted.
    Outing the user (WP:OUTING) was completely out of order. MohReddy (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It looked to me as though none of the changes were sourced, which was why I thought it better to revert the lot and then get the user to present his desired changes, give sources, explain the reasoning, etc., via COI edit requests. Axad12 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You're right @Axad12, my mistake. Your suggestion is the most appropriate solution. MohReddy (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    A general question... In this sort of situation is it necessary to undo each of the edits individually, or is it possible in some way to select the last good edit and then revert back to that version of the article in one go? Axad12 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I am not sure. Is there not a way to just revert it back or am I wrong about how WP:REVERT works ? It seems tedious to revert every edit manually. But then again, editing can be tedious so that should not be an issue for any editor. MohReddy (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. I have raised this question (and the point below re: outing) at the Helpdesk, here [8]. Hopefully we will get a response to both points in the not too distant future. Axad12 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for raising this at the Help desk. I am sure when there is a case of outing they will respond quickly to fix the problem at hand. MohReddy (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah I apologise for that I did not mean to out the user at all and there was no malicious intent behind it. I even read the page about it beforehand so I don't really have any excuses there. Procyon117 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ugh yeah I did not mean to do that. It was 5AM in my timezone and I must have been tired and not noticed. Do I strike it out or just remove it completely? Procyon117 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Indian Army Corps of EME

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion

    I've just reverted every edit this editor has made to the article, on the basis that none of them were sourced and a lot of them introduced advertising-style language.

    Two of their edit summaries are notable:

    • 06:49 30 August 2024 – The changes have been authorized by the office of the DGEME, Corps of EME, Indian Army and is being updated as per directions issued by the.
    • 06:32 2 September 2024 – The page editing was approved by higher headquarter of Corps of EME

    All three are obviously the same person, or people in the same room. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    This reminds me of something rather similar described in this thread at ANI [9] and this thread at COIN [10], both from June 2024. Seems there was an enormous co-ordinated COI editing effort within the Indian Army earlier this year. E.g. here is a quote taken from an unblock request after action was taken against the various accounts involved This is the official account of the 172 Medium Regiment created post Orders from the higher HQ. The unit has been ordered to update the regimental information on the Wikipedia page that has been created by our HQ. Axad12 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Judging by the usernames and edits, this does seem to be a case of an apparent WP:COI editor. MohReddy (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The 3 users have now all been blocked. Looking back through the article edit history there seem to have been other similar editors in the past, at least one of whom was blocked.
    Interestingly, one of the blocked users from the June 2024 Indian Army activity (mentioned above) said that they had received orders as follows: These directions have been received pan Indian Army to Update/Create a page of the respective units under the following subheads i.e History, ONLY the names of the Operations participated (Not the details of it), Gallantry Awards (if any)/Citations and Achievement in Sports, if any. That is broadly speaking the format of the article under discussion here. I wonder, is the long list of individual gallantry awards usual in a Wikipedia article for this sort of subject, or should it be removed wholesale? A quick look at the articles for several (non-Indian) units suggests that it is highly unusual. Axad12 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Lists of names like this, as it was explained to me anyway (I can't find the guideline), should be blue links at best and individually cited for each name if there's no article for the person at worst. Lists of red or black names with no citations are a WP:BLP issue if the people are alive and just poor practice and a disservice to our readers either way.
    TL;DR: the list should be removed.
    I'd do it myself but as an IP someone (or a bot) would be guaranteed to revert such a big deletion asap despite a useful edit summary! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, many thanks. Now deleted (and then a further large section on 'Sports & Research' was deleted by the admin who gave out the blocks, Writ Keeper).
    Seems that there is an ongoing problem with articles for units of the Indian Army. Axad12 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Noting this edit

    this is the official account of the Corps of EME created from the higher HQ.The unit has been ordered to update the Corps information on the Wikipedia page that has been created by our HQ
    — User:TGEME serverroom1 (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

    for the record. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Copying in Writ Keeper and 331dot who dealt with the recent blocks and the unblock request…
    I had a look through the contribution histories of the articles listed in the section on “Arms & Services of the Indian Army” given at the very foot of the Indian Army Corps of EME article. Here are links to the contribution histories of a number of other (unblocked) users who seem to be involved in similar activity for other units in the Indian Army. Some are quite prolific, covering multiple articles (including those for senior figures in the Indian Army): [11], [12],[13], [14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20].
    Maybe worth taking a look at with a view to dispensing further blocks… Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I've tried to encourage these military personnel to move this up the chain to whomever is issuing orders to units to edit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I agree that that is a good idea. However, the accounts I linked to above are responsible for the same kind of activity as the "TGEME serverroom" accounts and would appear to be working on similar instructions. That being the case, should they not be blocked? Personally I think we should be taking a consistent line on this with all the accounts involved. Axad12 (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Draft:Bradley_J._Franc

    edit
    Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Hello there! I have a very slight conflict of interest here as I edit The Succession Solution LinkedIn page which is one of Bradley J. Franc's company's.

    I am trying to get the page published and I have cited many publications including Forbes and independent podcasts etc. I hope that this is acceptable?

    I very much look forward to hearing from the experts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helena clegg (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Hello @Helena clegg: I don't think your problem is the conflict of interest you have declared. The main issue is with the draft itself, which fails on a couple of fundamental minimum standards we have here at Wikipedia.
    If you go to Draft:Bradley J. Franc, you'll see a big pink box at the top of the page which lists (in further grey boxes) the two main problems.
    If you can't correct those problems yourself, further down the pink box is the heading "Where to get help" with a little [show] button to the side. Click that and it will give you advice on the correct pages to ask for further help. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Can I also suggest that you formally declare your conflict of interest on your user page, as required by the relevant policy, WP:COI. If you work for one of Franc's companies (or are paid by him in any way) then you also need to declare that you are a paid contributor, in line with the Wikipedia terms of use. It looks to me as though the conflict of interest here is more than "very slight". Axad12 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Epik

    edit
    Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Articles

    Editor

    Discussion

    This editor has previously declared to have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing on behalf of clients of an advertising and marketing company. The editor has fewer than 270 edits and has gone dormant in the past for months/years at a time. However, since May 2024, the editor became more active and focused on Registered Agents Inc. and its corporate subsidiary Epik. In addition to initiating a failed attempt to have Registered Agents Inc. deleted, some of their more recent edits indicate attempts to whitewash the reputation of Epik following its acquisition by Registered Agents Inc. (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). Because this is a (formerly?) paid editor that has reacted rather hostilely to COI questions in the past, it would be useful to get thoughts of those uninvolved on whether there is more here than a simple content dispute and and whether there might be a potential COI at play. - Amigao (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    International Churches of Christ

    edit
    Latest comment: 7 days ago70 comments15 people in discussion

    There as been previous discussion here about this article and these editors (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_207#International_Churches_of_Christ and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_203#International_Churches_of_Christ) however the discussions didn't seem to come to any conclusion and naturally petered out each time. Both editors have stated that they have connections to International Churches of Christ (see Special:Diff/1173776566 and Special:Diff/1200469908 respectively). Now there is a discussion at ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meta Voyager's tendentious editing in which some editors are stating that being a member of a specific denomination does not constitute a COI for editors editing that subject. Currently there are connected editor notices on the article and in its talk. There has been suggestion by some of those arguing that no COI exists or that the COI is weak that those notices should be removed. Can I please get advice from editors whether a COI exists, weak or not, and whether the connected editor notices should be removed. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Pinging @Cordless Larry, @Secretlondon, @JamieBrown2011, @Hydrangeans, @Bon courage, @Meta Voyager, @Horse Eye's Back as editor involved in the previous COIN discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Pinging @Isaidnoway, @Sectioneer, @Axad12, @WhatamIdoing, @ARoseWolf, @Doug Weller, @DeCausa, @Oaktree b, @North8000, @Snow Rise, @Traumnovelle, @XZealous, @Tgeorgescu, @Shushugah as editors involved in the ANI discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The usual interpretation of WP:COI is that it involves money, or an undisclosed financial interest. Merely being a believer does not create WP:COI—while that can be a WP:NPOV problem, it isn't COI. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Conflicts of interest can exist even when there is no monetary interest. For example if I were to edit an article about myself or my family in the unfortunate circumstance that any of us were ever notable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    A COI of belief can be serious in individuals who are (say) zealously committed to nationalist or political causes, among many others. Religious belief can be a basis of a COI; as WP:COI observes "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI" (my emphasis). Any decent editor with a religious belief I'd expect to steer clear of editing about it. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, but see also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI is not simply bias. A non-financial/non-employment religious COI would involve things like volunteering for a marketing project or being engaged in outreach programs. It would not involve being an ordinary member of an ordinary religious organization or simply believing certain things (though what those beliefs might be doesn't appear to be predictable; for example, most US Catholics support abortion rights [21] and the death penalty [22], which is the opposite of their religion's stance).
    As for expecting "decent editors" to steer clear of things they believe, I'd be astonished if Wikipedia:Featured articles#Religion, mysticism and mythology was written only by people who had no beliefs about those subjects. Actually, I'd be surprised if any of the FAC noms had no religious beliefs related to the subjects they dedicated so many hours to researching and writing about. Under the rule that "decent editors" steer clear of editing about their beliefs, editors subscribing to atheism would have to be counted just as strong a COI as editors subscribing to theism. The end result would be that all religious content must be written by apatheists – and they aren't interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    A "belief" is not a relationship. A membership or employment is a relationship, but general membership is not usually a COI for anything, although employment regularly is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I believe that previous experience in the threads above (and the ICOC talk page) indicates very strongly that membership of this church constitutes a conflict of interest. I appreciate that membership of other groups (Catholic church, Boy Scouts, etc) has been presented as broadly comparable and as not representing a conflict of interest. However, I don't agree that those are at all comparable.
    Also, the suggestion directly above that COI has to involve money is demonstrable untrue, you only have to read WP:COI to see that. Axad12 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    WP:Paid referred to receiving money, which being a church member does not constitute. As for WP:COI, they’ve disclosed they’re a member and ARE discouraged but permitted to edit the article if COI applied. Even so, they’ve largely stayed within talk page and made reasonable edits. On all grounds, I am not seeing the issue. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Shushugah, I'm not asking if there is an issue. You are correct that they've mostly stayed to the article's talk and suggested edits from there. I'm asking if a COI exists and if so should the connected editor notices be maintained, as there has been a little bit of editing of the article by them. TarnishedPathtalk 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No, merely being a member of a congregation - especially one this big - doesn't constitute a conflict of interest, under any reasonable interpretation of policy. If there are actual problems with POV edits made by a contributor, we already have mechanisms to deal with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just a thought here…
    The fundamental issue with this article is that users with some association with the church repeatedly try to remove certain material which reflects badly on the church (either removing it directly or attempting to create a consensus for such removal via the talk page).
    Unfortunately for them, that material is reliably sourced and there are no realistic chances of it being removed, regardless of how many different interpretations of policy they attempt to put forward. Hence their argument gets diluted and re-presented as a question about what constitutes due coverage, about whether those issues should be mentioned in the lede, etc. etc.
    Given that those disagreements appear to be never ending, would it not be better to resolve the issue by protecting the article in a compromise version (e.g. something like the current version, which mentions one of the 2 contentious issues in the lede but not the other one).
    I don’t really see the present discussion as being likely to result in any resolution. A lot of ink will just be wasted in further disagreement on COI vs POV and the underlying problem (which is really just the never ending content argument) will continue. Axad12 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The lede has recently changed to remove the lawsuit material, which I was agreeable with once a reliable secondary source was presented which confirmed the lawsuit had been dismissed. The article can I think do with some reworking as parts outside the lead are repetitive. However that's not what I started this discussion to get clarity about. I started this because I want to know what the community thinks. Does a COI, however weak, exist and if so should the connected editor notices be maintained? TarnishedPathtalk 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "I appreciate that membership of other groups (Catholic church, Boy Scouts, etc) has been presented as broadly comparable and as not representing a conflict of interest. However, I don't agree that those are at all comparable." Ok, so where is the line, then? I don't wish this to come off as unfriendly, but the fact that you say that attachment to some religious denominations should impute COI but not others, but then fail to clarify which suggests that you haven't really thought this through. For myself, that's one of the reasons why he proponents here seem to be playing an immensely high stakes game of hot potato with regad to project stability. SnowRise let's rap 20:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Look at the article about International Churches of Christ, specifically the second paragraph of the lede. Then use your skill and judgement to guess the distinction I draw between, on the one hand, the ICOC and, on the other, the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I see. So only members of religions which have been described by a reliable source as a "cult" would be subject to this rule? Surely you realize that is a distinction without a meaning? Further, you don't think predicating whether users will be able to edit articles on their faith on whether or not there is content in the article describing their faith as a cult might not just make them all the more entrenched and inflexible on the inclusion of such coverage. Or that their rhetorical opposition would therefore be given an incentive to push even harder for such language in the article, that many tendentious editors would quickly avail themselves of in order to restrict the editorial privileges of those they are already in editorial disputes with.
    The standard you propose would accomplish nothing but to create a cycle of disruption that, far from ameliorating the issues it proposes to address, would deeply exacerbate them and inflame both edit wars on the article itself and needless personal disputes in talk space. SnowRise let's rap 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    You seem to be under a misapprehension. I didn't say that the distinction I drew should be a universally applicable rule. I said that that was the difference that I perceived in those 3 particular cases.
    WP:COI states that the distinction between significant and insignificant COI is to be determined by common sense. As far as I can see, what I said was a reasonable application of that concept.
    Obviously different people will set the 'common sense' bar in different places and there is room for discussion on the exact interpretation on a case by case basis. To my mind, that is the strength of the current wording of WP:COI. If the wording aimed to be very specific and to cover all possible eventualities then it would actually end up being unworkable (which I believe is your general thrust above). Axad12 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, fair enough, but here's where that leaves us: the issue in dispute here (or at least the primary one consuming the most attention) is still whether or not affiliation with a religious denomination imputes an established COI for a given editor all by itself (and such that all the provisions and restrictions which adhere to such editors apply).
    If there are other arguments or factors for why JamieBrown or Meta Voyager should be listed as having an established COI on the talk page, I'm not prepared to address them until I see them. I've already said, as an uninvolved party at the ANI discussion, that they are wrong on the content issue, and (though I supported the consensus decision not to take action at this time) that there is potential for them to be found WP:Disruptive and face a TBAN eventually, if they do not accept the talk page consensus on certain content issues.
    But those are all distinct issues from the suggestion being made here that affiliation with a denomination creating a COI regarding that denomination, all by itself. And that rule just cannot be imputed from the policy, based on the fact that it obliquely uses the word "religion" once. That is very weak tea from which to construct a blanket ban on all editors and prospective editors of this project (including subject matter experts) from participating in all articles touching upon their religions, with massive implications for the project.
    By an epic margin, that would be the largest such mass editorial restriction in the history of the project, and such a rule simply cannot be promulgated by a handful of editors extrapolating such a broad mandate from one word in a very large and complex policy, which then goes on to provide no further elaboration. Such a rule (which I can't imagine the community countenancing, honestly) would at least need to be extensively and carefully vetted in a central forum, using the accepted community process and broad community involvement. Not a half dozen editors on COIN reading such a massive and questionable rule into existence from such a short and vague reference point. SnowRise let's rap 23:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    As I said at the (current) foot of this thread, I don't believe that anyone is actually suggesting that membership of a religious group automatically constitutes an actionable COI. I certainly have not said that, indeed on several occasions above I have said the exact opposite of that. I suggest that we wait to see what Tarnished Path and Cordless Larry have to say at the (current) foot of this thread, where that issue is currently being discussed. Axad12 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think editing articles about one's own religion is a COI, unless you're working for the church/synagogue/temple in question. NPOV is of course important, which I think is the issue here. The editors seem to be trying to hide facts that don't leave a good impression of the religious institution; good or bad, facts are facts and we have to present them. I'd support a topic ban if needed for the editors. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think I would define "working" broadly (to encompass, say, retired priests or volunteers responsible for hiring religious staff). I'd also say that a (very) few ex-members have a relationship that should be considered a COI on par with "disgruntled ex-employee" or "ex-spouse". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • SNOW Oppose per the the conclusions already reached in the presently live ANI discussion. And there's absolutely no surprise in that. The OP's proposed rule is utterly infeasible for this project. It would impute to the majority of the English speaking people of planet Earth (i.e. almost every prospective editor of this project) an automatic COI for their "denomination" (which could be as expansive a category as Catholics, Anglicans, or Shia Muslims, to demonstrate just a few examples of how broad such a rule would be). Further, it would, in one fell swoop by a handful editors in this one discussion, ban the vast majority of subject matter experts for religious topics from editing articles within their field of expertise. The impacts to subject matter coverage, article neutrality, editorial gamesmanship, editor recruitment and retention, and project reputation (to name just handful of the countless practical concerns) would be incalculable.
      This is clearly not what the existing COI policy contemplates by any stretch of the imagination. Any such rule would absolutely need to be authorized by the community and expressly memorialized in the policy. It is frankly difficult to express just how much the suggestion that the proposed rule is already implied by the existing COI policy does not pass muster. This is an ill-conceived and odious idea that conflicts not only with this project's open and pluralistic creeds and methodologies, but also basic practical common sense. SnowRise let's rap 13:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      @Snow Rise, a lot of what you said resonates with me, and I think that as editors, we might have a little disconnect with reality. I read a while ago that about 85% of the world subscribes to some religion or another. On wiki, I think we are far more likely to be "religious nones". If you get used to that as the default worldview (very easy in a place like San Francisco, where subscribing to any religion is a minority viewpoint [23]), and especially if your own is better described as "ex-religious for very good reasons", then it might feel like the actual majority is ...not what the actual majority of people are like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Just because some Wikipedian's may have something like a disconnect with reality, does not mean that group of "some" is broad, even if sometimes peculiarly or serendipitously up-front, on occasion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Indeed: the only times I have felt embarrassed to be an atheist, in all my long life as such, it was because of other atheists. Typically self-styled rationalists convinced that they inhabit some kind privileged plane of perspective. Which dovetails with just one of the massive issues that would emerge if this community ever authorized the kind of rule the proponents here seem to think is somehow feasible: virtually every talk page and revision history of every article that touches upon religious and ethno-religious issues would, overnight, turn into an unremitting cesspool of ceaseless accusations about every other edit proving that someone is a member of a given faith. The chaos that would ensue would be indescribable and would forever change the tone of the project to the vastly more acrimonious and disruptive. SnowRise let's rap 20:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Proponents of such a rule – assuming there actually are any who would really go that far, and aren't just trying to wikilawyer in response to a bias problem (because we have simple rules that can produce a TBAN for COI, but not for ordinary bias) – would IMO do well to contemplate what would happen to WP:ARBPIA articles if we tried to implement a religious litmus test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • I've been hanging out at that article since invited by the bot to an RFC in April. IMO the COI, by the real world meaning of the term does not exist, and by the Wiki meaning of the term is so negligibly weak that COI provisions and tagging should not apply. The main challenge at that article is that independent sources which thoroughly cover the topic in depth seem to not have been found/identified/used. And so in the tricky areas, the situation has been reduced to selecting tidbits from sources that don't meet that standard and debates about which tidbits (including characterizations of ICOC) to select. Including selecting tidbits which make them sound good or bad. Also, since they seem to have changed significantly, it's a more complex job to make sure that time-context is included information provided in those areas. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I 100% agree about the lack of reliable sourcing making it difficult. I've stated elsewhere that the article is too reliant of WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing and really those sections which are over reliant should be trimmed. TarnishedPathtalk 23:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • I don't think there is necessarily a COI just because they are members of the church, but Meta Voyager appears to be a SPA whose primary objective is to change the article's content by downplaying negative aspects of the ICOC, and their edits have been confined to the talk page. As for JamieBrown2011, out of a total of 2494 edits, ~1306 have been to the ICOC article and/or talk page, and they are listed as one of the top editors by authorship to that page, but so is Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath. I didn't investigate the substance of any of those edits for NPOV or biased editing, so I can't say if there is any significant issues that should be addressed with any of those three editors contributions to the article. JamieBrown2011 is #2 out of the top 10 for added text, so JamieBrown2011 has definitely had a sustained interest in the topic over the last 13 years. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      @Isaidnoway, Wikipedia:Who Wrote That? gives a different set of numbers:
      I notice, though, that TarnishedPath's contributions, though reported as 11.4%, only seem to highlight a single edit as still being on the page, so I'm not quite sure what's being counted in these percentages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Similar figures have been raised by editors at ANI and I'm not sure exactly what they are trying to interpret out of those numbers. By my counting I've made 18 edits to the article since 3 May 2024. The largest of my edits (see Special:Diff/1222018308) was running IABotManagementConsole over the article to add archived links to references. That edit was 6,030 bytes and didn't change any of the prose. That one edit likely accounts for the lion share of the 11.4% of my contribution to the article. Again I don't know what is supposed to be read out of that? TarnishedPathtalk 23:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      Here are the 18 edit you made in 2024, and anyone is free to examine and interpret them. Here are the 76 edits Cordless Larry made since 2023, and here are the 894 edits made by JamieBrown2011 since 2011, and anyone is free to examine and interpret them as well. Just so we are clear, I'm not casting aspersions about your editing behavior at the article or talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • There seems to be a la-la-la fingers-in-ears reality distortion field among some Wikipedia editors about religious COIs. Since I've been here we've had (just to name the most memorable examples) problems with Christian Scientists wanting to impose the Church View™ on Wikipedia, Sahaja Yoga adherents desperate to whitewash cult allegations away from the article, LDS editors with undisclosed connections pimping article, and don't even start on Scientology (those last two had arbcom cases). Of course it's an issue. It sucks up a lot of time. It's why WP:COI specifically says religious belief can give rise to a COI. An external connection to any organization gives rise to a COI to some degree. Religious types don't get some sort of special treatment exemption. Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    But wouldn't you say that at some point it gets negligibly small? At one extreme would be a member of the human race editing articles on humans. Outright paid editing is at the other extreme. North8000 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    "But wouldn't you say that at some point it gets negligibly small?" ← Yes. But editing about your religion is towards the larger end of things. I'd expect any ethically diligent editor to avoid it (I mean, why go there? Wikipedia has a huge range of topics that aren't COI-dangerous, for everyone). Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    North8000, do you accept that there is a pretty obvious difference between (a) a member of the human race editing articles on humans and (b) a member of a church acting as an SPA to continually attempt to remove adverse material about that church?
    The issues surrounding the ICOC article are quite serious. It really isn't appropriate for you to continually use it as a proxy for the issue which is really of interest to you, which is of course downplaying conflict of interest around BSA-related subject matter.
    This whole "humans editing about humans" nonsense is a device that you have regularly used to try to downplay the general impact of COI (e.g. in this thread [24] further up this noticeboard) rather than to address the actual issues in whatever the case is that is under discussion. Axad12 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Axad12: Please read what I wrote more carefully and stop insulting me and falsely inventing bad faith. I identified it as the the extreme that could still fall under a "membership of a group automatically = COI regarding that group" rule to illustrate what could be included by using just that criteria. And the falsely invented bad faith is that my intention in such a discussion is to " try to downplay the general impact of COI" when I point this out, and in conjunction with IMO extremely weak COI's. North8000 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If you think "Wikipedians editing about Wikipedia" is nonsense, what do you think about Wikipedians editing the articles on Wikipedia? I'd bet that a lot of experienced editors feel more strongly about Wikipedia than about their (present or former) religious beliefs. Not only that, Wikipedians have publicly discussed their concerns about Wikipedia's reputation on thousands of talk pages. In your mind, do we have a COI for those articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well Wikipedians do have such a COI, but at least it is obvious to the reader. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My point was that there was a very obvious difference, in COI terms, between (a) an SPA repeatedly trying to remove adverse material about their church and (b) hypothetical weak (or non existent or abstract) COI alternatives. Let's not get diverted. Axad12 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia:Single-purpose account is something we throw around when an editor happens to have a narrow interest. Think about it: Most of your effort seems to go into chess and boxing articles, and you could be credibly accused of being an SPA. But that doesn't mean that you're a bad or unwanted editor, or that there's anything wrong with your contributions, right? Especially for someone who hasn't been around for decades, it's normal and even desirable for an editor to do one area deeply instead of flitting around.
    But let's talk about bias in editing. One of the editors who is claimed to have a COI has edited the article to say:
    • that the church split [25]
    • a key leader's children left the church [26]
    • that same leader was eventually kicked out of the church [27]
    • that there were some apologies from related churches, but not reconciliation [28]
    • that the same leader and the church were sued over sexual abuse [29]
    All of these edits survive in the article (some in modified form). It looks to me like this editor is adding "adverse material". Is that what it looks like to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There are two broad and totally unrelated topics that I edit in: articles on chess opening theory and articles on late 18th/early 19th century boxing. In addition, most of my work in recent months has basically been trying to help in resolving issues raised here at COIN. I really don't see how I could even remotely be credibly accused of being an SPA.
    If you find that sort of user profile even remotely comparable to that of a user whose almost sole preoccupation is trying to remove adverse material about their church then you are wrong.
    I don't consider SPA's to be a bad thing per se, but when the "single purpose" is also a COI I think it's fair to say that that is a bad mix. Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Also, re: the diffs you give, I wasn't referring to that user. I was referring to the other one. Axad12 (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well, you are not likely to get far with COI unless the user says 'I am an elder' or some such, significant bias and revert war can lead to sanctions though. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Bon courage, I think you are making a leap from "religious belief can give rise to a COI" to "religious belief usually does give rise to a COI", and I don't think it's warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agree, religious belief can lead to bias but is not automatically COI. Voluntary organization membership usually depends on the editors control or place in the org (or if it is a very small org) -- members can regularly have beliefs at variance from whatever the orgs official line is, even. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Well I'd certainly resist interpreting it as "religious belief never gives rise to a COI" or "religious belief seldom gives rise to a COI", as some editors seem to want. If you're editing about your religion you are in the danger zone. Best avoided in my view. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't disagree with any of that, Bon courage, but I think you're somewhat misinterpreting the concerns expressed here if you think anyone is advancing the argument that "religious belief never gives rise to a COI". The question is what nature of affiliation with a given religiious institution creates a WP:COI in the meaning of the policy. The standard the OP has advanced is that mere declared association with a faith is sufficient to impute the policy such that all the most requirements and consequences of the policy adhere to them. That is clearly far too broad a rule to ever work on this project.
    You point out above that religious association is specifically identified in the policy as a possible source of COI. Fair enough, but it is clear from the rest of the policy that a relationship has to meet other criteria in order to give rise to a presumptive COI. We're not talking about interceding when a prominent leader of a church or their staff are involved. Few veteran editors would disagree that a COI would impute from their editing the article on their own church.
    But what is being proposed here is literally the suggestion that policy says that all members of a faith have an inherent COI for their religious "denomination" And that's just clearly an asinine conclusion to attempt to leverage from one oblique use of the word "religion" in one sentence of a massive policy. If the community had intended that to be the rule when it created the COI policy, it would not have been so circumspect about it: there would be clear language stating this denominational rule. It strains all credulity to suggest that the community requires all editors to avoid editing articles directly pertaining to their faith and yet somehow failed to say is much in the policy.
    And that underscores one of the biggest issues that I have with this discussion. If some here feel that such a rule would be advisable, that's one thing. As TarnishedPath was told at ANI, they or any other party are free to make such a WP:PROPOSAL at the Village Pump or the talk page for the policy. But attempting to get the rule put into effect through the back door here, by implying that it already represents community consensus is deeply problematic, in my view.
    If such a rule (which would be by far the most expansive rule of automatic restriction of editorial privileges ever promulgated by this community) was already meant to exist in the COI policy, it would be expressly and clearly stated in the policy. It's not. The entirety of the COI policy's treatment of religion comes down to one single word in one sentence. Trying to hang the proposed denominational rule from that one word is like trying to hang an anvil with a single string of sewing thread. With similar likely consequences for the community that has to walk underneath it, I might add. SnowRise let's rap 21:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Very well, @Snow Rise, I don't disagree with that either. We do not need a change in the WP:PAGs, but at the same time it should be acknowledged that religious belief can be, and has been a problematic root of COI-tainted editing on Wikipedia, as we have seen from Scientology/LDS/Christian Science and so on (and I don't believe the problem editors involved in these cases were 'prominent leaders', more just ... true believers from the general membership). Bon courage (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Personally, I haven't the slightest disagreement with so much as a single word of that perspective. I simply think that 1) the existing rules are the best tools (if admittedly often labour-intensive) for dealing with the WP:NOTHERE editors who represent a small minority of our religiously-inclined editors, 2) that the denominational rule suggested here is not only clearly not authorized by the community through the existing policy, but also a rule that does not comport with out broad rules on user inclusion and would create (rather than solve) many problems, and 3) that this is not the forum to entertain such an expansion of policy anyway, and certainly not without broad notification and community involvement. SnowRise let's rap 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Just so. And every bit of the type of disruption that Bon courage and Axad12 are concerned about in their comments above can be (and is) routinely and adequately addressed through existing. Further, creating a rule that all editors with a religious affiliation have a COI with regard to their religious institutions and beliefs would create far, far, far more disruption than it could ever possibly hope to contain. Think this through, my friends: such a rule would unleash an absolute tsunami on virtually every article containing religiously and ethnically contentious subject matter on the entire project (particularly those relating to sectarian divides) of gamesmanship by the most tendentious of our WP:NOTHERE editors constantly leveraging this rule to remove their rhetorical opposition from the article. Further, it's an absolute certainty that it will encourage editors to to attempt to dig into the offline lives of our contributors in order to WP:OUT them for their religious affiliations.
    Those are just two of the unfathomably multifaceted and massive sources of disruption such a rule would both enable and encourage. The cost-benefit of the proposed rule is so obviously ill-advised, I'd be flummoxed at the lack of foresight involved in advancing it, if not for the fact that I've seen a lot of such short-sighted, shooting-ourselves-in-our-collective-foot-while-aiming-at-a-pest style arguments here of late. SnowRise let's rap 20:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is no need for a rule change. In many cases the most damaging COI editors in the Project have either been unforthcoming (or flat-out lie) about their COI making such rules worthless anyway. Pursuing COIs on Wikipedia is usually a fool's errand that can drive you mad, or at least into sanctionsville. By their edits shall ye know them. Editors engaged in advocacy are bad news, COI or not, and there are mechanisms to deal with that. Bon courage (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, I'm in agreement with every word of that. In fact, I'd take even a step further: creating a "your affiliation with this church subjects you to our COI restrictions" rule is actually counter-intuitive to restraining the bad actors. All it will do is encourage savvy LTA editors with religious biases so strong that they make them WP:NOTHERE to attentively hide their affiliations, depriving other participants in an editorial dispute of a useful data point for considering whether that editor has a problematic bias. In other words, the rule would make it more difficult to identify the actual problem editors while drastically restricting the good faith contributions of the much more numerous reasonable editors of faith, all while creating mountains of administrative and oversight headaches for the community as a whole. In short, a lose-lose-lose outcome. SnowRise let's rap 21:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    TarnishedPath, I see you asking whether the {{connected contributor}} template "should be maintained", and I wonder if you could explain why you are asking this. As far as I can see from the talk page's history, nobody has tried to remove it recently. Are you proposing to remove it? Or are you primarily hoping that you can get an official ruling that the editors who disagree with you about the content of the article have a COI? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    JamieBrown2011 is asking whether it can be removed towards the bottom of Talk:International Churches of Christ#COI editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @WhatamIdoing, there was a suggestion in the ANI discussoin that the templates should be removed because of an editor's intepretation that there was concensus that no COI existed. By my reading of those editors !voting oppose only three discussed COI and the rest opposed for other reasons. So I've brought it here to get a understanding of whether the templates should be removed. That's the extent of it. TarnishedPathtalk 23:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The WP:COI guideline states that Any external relationship [...] can trigger a COI, but it immediately follows that up with How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense, and common sense is that mere affiliation with a religion is not usually a close enough relationship to become a concern—i. e., it's not an actionable COI. This coheres with the movement charter principle of inclusivity, and that this sense is common on Wikipedia was demonstrated earlier this year by a different ANI thread, where a user who believed that mere religious affiliation was an actionable conflict of interest and behaved accordingly—saying that Muslim editors should be disregarded in discussions on talk pages for articles about Islam and removing citations to academic sources solely because Muslims wrote them—was themself sanctioned with a community topic ban from articles about Islam. In any case, bias can exist in the absence of a conflict of interest, as can misbehavior. If a user edit-wars in material or edit-wars material out, or makes contributions whose content are contrary to consensus, that's actionable whether or not there are affiliations or conflicts of interest. But apparently the users under consideration have either been participating through the talk page rather than editing the article directly or have contributed additions to the article that weren't flattering for/biased in favor of the denomination? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    JamieBrown2011 has made many direct edits to the article, some of them promotional, e.g. this, others removing material critical of the ICOC, e.g. this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Very well then: avail yourself of the many consensus formation, dispute resolution, and oversight processes available to you when they make edits which you believe violate our editorial policies. Nobody is saying that highly religious people don't occasionally create content issues--just as we wouldn't say that hyper-political or ethnically motivated users don't create issues, but we don't automatically create COI's for affiliations with political parties or ethnic associations either. What we're saying rather is that the proposed "if you have a religious association with a denomination, you are subject to WP:COI restrictions regarding articles about that denomination" rule is overbroad, untenable for this project, and rather than being likely to solve an problems, would beyond a shadow of a doubt create a whole bunch of them. This is not a trivial rule you and TP have proposed. It's implications would be massive.
    More to the point, this is not the place to propose such a shake up. If you really want to float this standard to community, make a WP:PROPOSAL in the appropriate space: the Village Pump or the talk page of the existing policy. The suggestion that has been made here (that the community authorized by far the most massive rule of editorial restriction in its entire history and then just neglected to expressly include it in the relevant policy) doesn't begin to pass the smell test. The rule is clearly not currently a part of existing policy, but if you want to advocate for it, absolutely go for it through the appropriate process in the appropriate forum.
    But in the meantime, stop trying to enforce what you think the rule should be via talk page fiat and attempts to conjure it from one oblique reference to religion in the policy. This is not the way, and I say that as someone who remains very much convinced that you and TarnishedPath had the right end of the stick on the content issue and identified a need to keep whitewashing out of the article. You two clearly started down this road in good faith and with laudable intentions, but you've both lost the plot at this point, big time. You've gone from "I think this editor has an agenda due to their religious convictions" to "the world's 1.4 billion Catholics should not be allowed to edit on the topic of Catholocism on Wikipedia." Friend, that's one hefty overreaction. SnowRise let's rap 22:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hold on a moment...
    Has anyone in this thread actually suggested that all religious people have an actionable COI? As far as I can see, all those who have commented on that issue have said the exact opposite - i.e. that it might or might not be actionable depending on circumstances. That is entirely in line with the current wording of WP:COI, surely? Axad12 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think that such a claim is implicit in the assertions regarding these two individuals. That (merely) being a member of an affiliated church is sufficient to consider it to be a sufficient COI to activate COI editing restrictions and to tag the article as such. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    My own understanding was that what might (or might not) be appropriate in this case would not then be extrapolated to apply to all adherents of all religious groups. However, it may be best to hear from Cordless Larry and Tarnished Path to see what they had intended. Axad12 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's not so much a matter of their intention or an extrapolation. It's a matter that it was the basis given for all of the COI discussions and assertions. I.E. that just being a member was sufficient to be an actionable COI. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. Unfortunately, because if this was just a matter of mistake, the issue would be much easier to resolve. But the proposed rule of thumb that a person acquires an actionable COI via mere association with a religious denomination is, aside from being pretty expressly inquired about in TPs opening post here, also baked into any suggestion that JamieBrown and Meta Voyager have a COI. Actionable COIs are created by off-project relationships. As far as I am aware, from the foregoing discussion at ANI and this thread, we know nothing else about JB and MV's relationships that would suggest an actionable COI.
    I think part of the confusion here is that there has been come conflation of the concepts of COI, bias, and tendentiousness. Hypothetically, MV and JB could have no actionable WP:COI as defined by the policy, and yet still be very disruptive to the article. Indeed, the initial ANI report was situated more in the question of disruption than COI. But the topic ban TarnishedPath proposed in that discussion was rejected because most respondents found that MVs conduct (while suboptimal around the edges and indicating a need for further familiarization with our content policies), did not at this time necessitate a sanction or other community action beyond a warning to get up to speed on said policies.
    The question here is therefor much more narrow (even if it's implications to the project are massive): does affiliation with a denomination lead to a direct, automatic, and actionable COI with regard to articles related to that denomination? Because if there is no such existing rule (and there isn't) there is no other grounds (that I have seen presented, anyway) that would justify a finding of COI for Meta Voyager and JamieBrown. Their conduct on the talk page could be hypothetical cause to find them disruptive or tendentious or biased in some way that would require other community action, but it is not cause for a finding of COI. COI is about off-project associations, by definition. And again, I believe we know nothing about JB and MVs off-project associations except that they seem to attend congregations which are in some way related to ICOC doctrine. If one of them had instead revealed that they were Kip McKean's wife, this discussion would have a very different complexion, but that's not the scenario we are looking at. SnowRise let's rap 23:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I've barely commented here so I don't know why Snow Rise has decided that I'm proposing some wide-ranging rule. The issue with this particular article is that a small number of editors with an association with the subject are consistently trying to whitewash it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Great. And sincerely: thank you for making the effort to prevent said whitewashing. However much pushback you and TP are getting here, know that the underlying motivation is appreciated. But I'll repeat: in that case "avail yourself of the many consensus formation, dispute resolution, and oversight processes available to you when they make edits which you believe violate our editorial policies." A finding of actionable COI is a specific tool for specific circumstances, and if you can't provide evidence of a more specific relationship than "they are members of this faith", it doesn't apply to Meta Voyager and JamieBrown in these circumstances. Period.
    So utilize processes that actually do apply in these circumstances. Honestly, I don't like being on the side that is criticizing two editors who set off down this path because they were trying to prevent the whitewashing of sexual abuse allegations. If you knew me better on a personal level, you'd in fact know that's about the last thing I'd want to be doing on a given day. But you and TP very much have been pushing the angle that MV and JB have an actionable COI based on their association with a religious movement alone--even placing tags labeling them as such on the talk page, despite no affirmative community finding that such a COI existed.
    That dog won't hunt here. This strategy has been a huge and unnecessary distraction that has only hindered your ultimate ends. And doubtless halted many of us (certainly at least me) who would rather be supporting you on the underlying content and behavioural issues, but who have instead been diverted into opposing a radical and unsupported reading of COI that the community can't possibly permit, given the damage it would do to the project if we allowed editors to try to invoke it willy-nilly against their religiously-inclined rhetorical opponents. I applaud your motivations here, but you don't get to just create new COI standards out of whole-cloth in order to remove the other side from the editorial equation altogether, just to make the process easier. SnowRise let's rap 08:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not proposing any such rule, Snow Rise. I was replying to a comment that suggested that the editors concerned hadn't editing the article directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Isaidnoway posted some links above, one of which shows that Jamie has edited the article 894 times and has been editing the article since 2011. TarnishedPathtalk 07:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm sympathetic to the arguments of Bon courage, who points out various problems we've had with religious whitewashing, but what is the need to classify that as COI? We already have Wikipedia:Advocacy, which seems to describe these cases much better. As the page states, Advocacy is closely related to conflict of interest, but differs in that advocacy is a general term for promotional and agenda-based editing, while conflict of interest primarily describes promotional editing by those with a close personal or financial connection to the subject. Advocacy is an explanatory essay while COI is a policy, but ultimately everything in Advocacy comes from Neutral point of view. We already have robust policies in place to deal with POV-pushers, so my question is what do we gain from declaring that those religious POV-pushing edits are also COI? Pinguinn 🐧 02:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Helmut Maucher

    edit
    Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I’m not sure about the exact procedure for bringing this to attention, so I thought I’d start here. There’s an account that’s mostly an SPA whose focus seems to be adding one specific person as a source to as many articles within that area of interest as possible. The articles are royal connected ones, so nobility articles, honours articles, and the like.

    The source/person is “R.A.U. Juchter van Bergen Quast”. The editor is 54geren, who has added Bergen Quast, using two of Bergen Quast’s websites, to the following articles:

    • Order of Christ (Kongo)
    • Order of the Eagle of Georgia
    • Russian tradition of the Knights Hospitaller
    • Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam
    • Nobility of the First French Empire (prev. removed as promotional)
    • Orders, decorations, and medals of Portugal
    • Order of Orange-Nassau (prev. removed as “irrelevant blog link”)
    • Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (prev. reverted)
    • Helmut Maucher

    54geren has also added an award to Helmut Maucher’s BLP. The award comes from the Swiss Chamber of Commerce, which is run by R.A.U. Juchter van Bergen Quast, adding yet another tally to the SPA’s almost-sole focus.

    I am aware of the policy of not outing users. I’m not speculating on the identity of 54geren and don’t think I’ve run afoul of that policy. That being said, this account appears only to exist to insert Bergen Quast and his activities into as many articles as possible in the royal world.

    What should be done about this? CPR certified and forgetting it all (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    User: Abu ali (Moved to ANI per advice)

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
    Discussion now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Abu_Ali_-_POV-Pushing_and_WP:NOTHERE. Please weigh in there to keep it centralized. Star Mississippi 14:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

    This report can be considered superseded by another at ANI, any relevant comments can be left there.

    Relevant context: The Trotskyist groups "Committee for a Workers' International" (CWI) dissolved in 2019 over a split in direction. Two new groups were formed as a result, with one choosing to "refound" itself under the old name (CWI 2019) and the other later moving to the name "International Socialist Alternative" (ISA). Both claim to be the continuation of CWI.

    The user linked above demonstrates an editing pattern that heavily suggests they have an undeclared COI when it comes to CWI 2019 and associated articles, namely they are a member of CWI 2019 or one of its constituent sections. It is also contextually important to note that the account was dormant for 12 years until 2020, and since then has almost exclusively edited articles related to the split in a non-neutral way.

    The two main throughlines of COI-suggestive behaviour are:

    • The user will make edits that favour CWI 2019 and their stances, such as repeatedly inserting claims that CWI and CWI 2019 are one and the same (while ISA's claims of being a continuation of the original CWI will not get the same treatment) or seemingly trying to use the CWI 2019 page as a means of promoting each section's website [30][31][32][33][34]
    • When it comes to ISA the user will instead only introduce negative content, sourced without reliable sources but instead inappropriate self-published websites (which in one instance looks to be from the CWI 2019 itself) or citing non-linked internal documents they claim support the edits.[35][36][37][38]

    Overall, it's hard to see such behaviour as anything but non-neutral and likely an undeclared COI. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Rambler, looking at the rest of this user's recent history I wonder if you'd be better advised to take this to ANI and argue that the user is a POV pusher and WP:NOTHERE (which I'd say is self-evident) rather than that they have an undeclared COI (which is harder to prove and less likely to result in sanctions). It looks like this situation needs some admin oversight, which you'll be far more likely to get at ANI than at COIN. Axad12 (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks @Axad12, I was in two minds given the extent but if you think it's better placed there I'll do so. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I think it's worth a try. I'd also mention the user's mass re-introduction of poor quality material to the Peter Taaffe article. Axad12 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Axad12 I've done so and added in that too. If you'd be willing to add your view of their behaviour to that report I'd be extremely grateful. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In short, my feeling is that the recent activity by (now blocked) user Jamesation and the result of the recent AfD has clearly provoked a reaction from someone else involved in that argument. Unfortunately, as we saw with Jamesation, when people hold extreme political views they are unlikely to be able to edit in a neutral way.
    For the time being I'd prefer to wait for input from others over at ANI, specifically on the conduct side of the issue. Axad12 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Users EastThermopolis & Lullaby09!/ Belmond Limited

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments1 person in discussion

    Concerns over COI/UPE with user EastThermopolis have previously been raised at COIN here [39] and here [40] [Synopsis added in a separate post below, 9/9/24]. The user recently emerged from a 4 month dormant spell with this large edit [41] to the article for hotel chain Belmond Limited. History indicates that this user's larger edits are very often flagged as being PROMO. The user's talk page [42] gives some insight into the various other promo-type issues they have experienced.

    Also, not connected with this user, some of the hotels etc in the very long list at the foot of the Belmond Limited article may be worth a look for notability reasons, for example [43] and [44], or more generally for PROMO and sourcing reasons. It looks as though the company previously had an in-house UPE account here [45] creating/curating the various articles, similarly more recently the apparent UPE/SPA user:Lullaby09! has served the same purpose. Regardless of the individual content, I'm not convinced that the long list of hotels etc is appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

    In any event, the combination of a user where previous COI concerns had been raised (EastThermopolis) plus company articles with extensive UPE seemed worthy of raising here. User Lullaby09!, on the other hand, appears to be a straightforward case of UPE. Axad12 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Further potentially non-notable, inadequately sourced, promo, etc. articles relating to this hotel chain and usually originally installed by UPE/SPA:
    [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], and [58].
    Further eyes on these articles would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Synopsis of previous COI/promo activity by user EastThermopolis:
    Unsourced personal info added to article of Russian oligarch Farkhad Akhmedov [59], also large scale removal of properly sourced material from that article here [60] and here [61]. Fallout here [62].
    Completely rewrote the article for Turkish company Ciner Group here [63] adding press release material and removing properly sourced adverse material. Some of this edit was later removed as puffery and a tag added to the article for ‘reads like an advertisement’. A month later EastThermopolis completely rewrote the article for the company’s owner [64].
    Article created for Zenus Bank, half of which later removed by another user to ‘tone down promotional material’ [65].
    Article created for businessman Nick Capstick-Dale deleted for failing GNG [66].
    Article created for ACF Investment Bank, subsequently nominated for speedy deletion under G11 (“unambiguous advertising”). [67]. Then undeleted and eventually removed via AfD [68].
    Promo tinged page created for a Mongolian businesswoman and politician [69].
    New article for Digitalbox rejected 3 times at AfC , the second and third times for ‘read like an advertisement’: here [70] and here [71]. Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Siena College

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 hours ago6 comments2 people in discussion

    Off-wiki evidence (Googling) suggests that this user has a connection to Siena College. Some of their additions have read promotional, such as Siena College offers a vibrant campus life. I have posted on their Talk page about this twice, but not had a response. Tacyarg (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Tacyarg (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Hi Tacyarg,
    I see that there's been quite a lot of recent activity on this article with yourself, ElKevbo and LizardJr8 reverting some of the COI user's edits. I thought it might be useful to note something here, even thought it isn't directly related to the COI user you mention...
    Looking at the article's contributions history I saw that there had been a long history of (likely COI?) SPAs working on the article so I checked for WP:COPYVIO. The article's History section seemed odd to me, with phrases such as 'this risky venture', 'luckily for the [...] students', etc. What I found was that 4 of the 5 paragraphs of the History section are actually directly lifted or very closely paraphrased from the History section on the college's own website, here [72].
    My understanding is that the relevant paras in the Wikipedia article probably need to be completely removed.
    I didn't check any further through the article but there is presumably a chance of further COPYVIO in other sections. The COI user you mentioned above had a large edit to another article revdelled for COPYVIO in August (see here [73]) so some of their recent additions to the Siena College article may be worth further scrutiny. Inevitably there may also be further COPYVIO predating this user's involvement.
    Hopefully this note is of assistance. Axad12 (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I looked further into the WP:COPYVIO issue, info below:
    'Academics' and 'Athletics' sections are fine.
    'Siena College Research Institute' section: This only consists of one sentence, but that sentence is a direct lift from here: [74].
    'Student Life' section: various lifts, as below...
    As Siena College grew in size, so did the demand for on-campus housing is a direct lift from here [75], section on 'Growth of campus facilities).
    Section commencing Freshmen are typically housed in traditional residence halls such as Hines, Plassman, and Ryan Halls is closely paraphrased from here [76].
    Siena provides a range of on-campus housing options including traditional residence halls, private bathroom rooms, and townhouse units is an almost direct lift from here [77], section 'Where will you live?'}.
    'Notable Alumni' section is fine.
    So, the areas of concern are the 'History', 'Research Institute' and 'Student Life' sections. Axad12 (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    For the record, the various recent deletions of promotional material that had been added by Emily Beames also included an amount of COPYVIO material lifted directly from various locations on the college website. I won't give the full details here as the material has already been deleted - but I will quickly note that the section for the 'Siena College Research Institute' used to be legit non-COPYVIO material until the user recently replaced it with direct lifts from the college website (as part of this edit: [78]). I've reinstated the pre-COPYVIO version of that section, here [79]. Axad12 (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks very much for spotting that, Axad12. Tacyarg (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    No problem.
    With regard to the History section, the COPYVIO material was added by an SPA IP user who made 13 highly promotional edits back in Oct/Nov 2023. Prior to that the history was very short, but I suspect it is preferable to the current COPYVIO version. Thus it may be best to simply reinstate the pre-COPYVIO version (e.g. as per the 'pre' version in this diff: [80]).
    There's a long history of COI editing and COPYVIO on this article, going back to at least 2008 (based on now deleted material from the article talk page). Axad12 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1245478709"