Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 172

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 170Archive 171Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174Archive 175

Anti Defamation League citation advocacy

The user disclosed in their profile that they work for Anti-Defamation League, which is considered reliable on WP:RSP. I have noticed that majority of their edits consist of working ADL sources into different articles either by working it directly into prose, or requesting it through talk. Regardless of how respected the viewpoint of the source is, when the publisher representative become proactively involved in utilizing its sources on Wikipedia and push the sources outside of natural editing process from those not connected to the editor, it disrupts the due weight and neutrality uninfluenced by those who holds stake in particular sources being cited.Graywalls (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a long-term issue. I first sent this user a COI warning on Feb. 3. That was in relation to the GameStop short squeeze, a major page at the time (ITN and tons of pageviews), which they had added a whole section to in relation to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, sourced only to the ADL [1]. (After some discussion, it was removed by consensus.) Since then, it appears the same editor has directly inserted ADL content into several major pages without going through Talk. Some of these are related to right-wing extremism (Three Percenters, Parler, Boogaloo movement), but there's now edits to the main article COVID-19 pandemic and several edits directly to Anti-Defamation League, which I would think is a no-go. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this merits a good discussion, not just ADL, but on the general concern of publishers and source representatives directly citing their own publication into articles repeatedly. As far as the edits they've made to the ADL article itself thus far, I don't see a problem with it. They didn't add or remove any contentious contents in prose or promotional links and they've disclosed their affiliation. The edits on that page was updating/housekeeping to keep things current. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I generally oppose the whole idea of "they have a COI, but the edits are good" exception because it isn't fair to those COI editors who follow the rules and make suggested edits on talk pages. We want to reward that sort of behavior and discourage COI editors making edits to pages where they have a COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't necessarily encourage it, but I wouldn't call simple update edits COI. By the way, even if the editor was to suggest edit, if overwhelming majority of their participation is making sales pitch to numerous talk pages to add their affiliated source, that absolutely ought to be considered advocacy editing by proxy. Graywalls (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to disagree on both counts.
Re: "I wouldn't call simple update edits COI" please read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. If you have a COI you shouldn't make even simple edits to any page where you have a COI (our guideline makes exceptions for reverting vandalism and enforcing biography of living persons policy). The problem with "I wouldn't call simple update edits COI" is that you are depending on the person with the COI to decide whether the edits are allowed, and their judgement cannot be trusted.
Re "even if the editor was to suggest edit[s], if overwhelming majority of their participation is making sales pitch to numerous talk pages to add their affiliated source, that absolutely ought to be considered advocacy editing by proxy", Again, read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. We specifically advise COI editors to make suggestions on article talk pages and let others decide whether to implement them. As long as they follow Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations#Don't push they are perfectly free to suggest adding a link to their affiliated source. The problem with "even if the editor was to suggest edit[s]..." is that you leave no way open for a good-faith paid editor who wants to follow the rules to try to convince the other editors to implement their preferred version. This strongly encourages undisclosed paid editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
What I wanted to convey is that laying everything out and asking someone else to hit the switch to game the system around not being allowed to hit the switch yourself. If the intent is clear that what they're trying to do is elevate their own organization and vast majority of their effort is to push their advocacy goal, it still would be the same thing. Think of it like people who bring children to get around "1 per customer" on things that are clearly not being purchased in a way that relates to the kids. The kids are really not the "customer" in that case even though they get around on technicalityGraywalls (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A couple things: some of the arguments here make it seem like we don't allow people with a disclosed COI from adding material related to that COI to articles, or that it automatically creates a WP:WEIGHT problem. That doesn't align with what WP:COI actually says. We need reasons to remove these edits (why did this need reversion as "spam" or this, which was reverted even after Jorm took responsibility for the edit) other than "you have a COI". OceanicFeeling123 has disclosed the COI and, in all of the cases where someone disputed it, has not restored any of the material as far as I can see. In most cases, their edits appear to be a single sentence citing ADL research. If it were an unreliable source, if it weren't sufficiently related to the subject, etc. I could justifying a mass rollback, but what we're talking about here are 1-3 edits to each of 15 articles over a 5 month period. That's not a flood of refspam or shoehorning research into tons of articles.

I said above "in most cases...", but in a couple cases, they added new sections to articles based just on ADL sources. That's a big mistake. Also they edited the ADL article directly. Also a big mistake. OceanicFeeling123, three pieces of advice: (1) use other sources, too. if you mix ADL and other reliable sources (perhaps sources which cover the ADL research) that presents less of a WP:WEIGHT issue; (2) never create a new section if you only have one source, especially in a contentious topic area. It looks like that happened in 2 or 3 of the cases in question, and immediately waves a WP:WEIGHT red flag; (3) don't edit the ADL article itself. It's not strictly forbidden, but nearly everyone is going to be skeptical (if not cynical) of an employee editing an employer article. Use the talk page. In fact, if you want to be safe, you could always use the talk page to propose changes, but as I said above, it's not required. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The pattern I noticed is that there's nothing substantial they have done, other than to insert ADL's position, generally into highly viewed article. Even if the edit was done indirectly, if the purpose appears to be elevate the visibility and relevance of their employer's standing as a reference, that would be advocacy editing. Even if the inserted sources are well respected like BBC or NY Times, if these edits were to be done by their public relations representatives and pretty much all of their edits consist of adding link to, or adding prose using their own sources, that creates a COI issue. There isn't a firm threshold of quantity before it reaches "spam" status, but it's a matter of being an apparent single purpose account that exhibits the appearance of elevating the profile of the reference being used. When such is the apparent intention, going to numerous articles and bouncing it off the talk page to find a place for their employer's publication doesn't change the intent. Graywalls (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I think WP:REFSPAM is relevant here. The only gauge on how much is too much is the very vague "multiple articles." If you're a lawyer, that means two; if you're an average person, as I expect most of us are and I expect who the rule was primarily meant for, it means a little bit more. Regardless, both thresholds have been hit here, and as Graywalls notes, the editing appears to be done with the intention of promoting the ADL. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I don't like the fact that COI editors can directly edit pages they have a COI with, but they can (I would like to see that policy change to disallow direct editing of pages one is in conflict with). In any case, I checked the edits the user made to the ADL page and they are all perfectly fine. The rest of the article-space edits, with seem to all begin with According to the Anti-Defamation League and end with an ADL source, are clearly advocacy of ADL product.--- Possibly (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. To be clear, the framing of what I said above as "advice" and "mistake" was intentional. Practically speaking, someone working for ADL editing the ADL article is a mistake that I would advise against. It is not explicitly against the rules, however, as you note. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I've counted the number of times they used the format "According to the ADL (or) The ASDL reports... (ADL ref)", and come up with 16 instances. There are perhaps three or four other times when they just inserted ADL sources.--- Possibly (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

comment so there is more going on. As I dig further, I am finding other accounts created in May 2020 exhibiting similar pattern and some with disclosure saying they're associated with ADL. I'm not so certain if they're actual people working in coordination with ADL, or if they're falsely claiming to be associated. I've started an SPI discussion. Graywalls (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for sharing your thoughts. As I state in my user page I work at the ADL. Last spring we started a staff editing project where 8 staff members received editing training. We organized ourselves on this Wikimedia dashboard and all committed to transparently disclosing our COI:

https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Anti-Defamation_League/ADL

Most of my edits have been short, a couple of sentences each, in which I cite trusted ADL reports, don’t state personal opinions, and include content in articles and article sections related to extremism, xenophobia, racism and antisemitism.

Other staff members have been following a similar pattern related to their areas of expertise, especially as the U.S. has seen an upswing in hate groups and militia activity. We are tracking these trends and want to contribute to documenting them based on the research our organization conducts.

We cite ADL sources because they are highly reliable in this area, but we are not just here to promote our organization. Believe it or not, I actually care about contributing reliable information to Wikipedia on the issues I’m familiar with. I welcome your advice and mentorship, but please don’t assume the worst about me.

I totally understand the need for extra sensitivity when editing the ADL organization’s Wikipedia page, and I can make sure myself or other staff members address proposed edits, even minor housekeeping ones, on the talk page from here on out.

Please feel free to ask me any questions. OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added the users mentioned on the Outreach dashboard to the list above. @OceanicFeeling123: are all the editors listed at the top of this thread paid employees of the ADL? This looks a lot like paid editing without proper disclosure... there's a sort of roundabout declaration of paid status ("I work for the ADL), but not the standard required one where client etc are listed, as well as articles with which they have a COI.--- Possibly (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Also,, I cannot see how this is not paid advocacy. The organization does admirable work, but neutrality is not served by paid employees of a source placing their publications in articles. That has to stop immediately, and ADL should post proper PAID and COI disclosures, and use talk page requests when trying to place ADL sources. --- Possibly (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, yes, those are my colleagues, and we work for the ADL. We disclosed that plainly and never sought to hide our affiliation. By "work for" we meant "paid by" and that's generally synonymous. We are not paid just to edit Wikipedia, it's a small part of the work we do on hate and extremism. We wanted to share some of that expertise on Wikipedia because we think our reports are valuable in this time of significant uncertainty and violence. We cited ourselves because Wikipedia generally views ADL as reliable in this subject area. I hope you see that we were selective and thoughtful in what and where we cited ADL over the last months.OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, WP:CITESELF is not necessarily paid advocacy when the sources cited are highly relevant and reliable for the claims made. ADL reports are well-researched and highly regarded in the field. We only cite them where they are most useful for readers. I don't agree that this is paid advocacy and think organizations engaging with Wikipedia can be to the encyclopedia's benefit, too. With full disclosure, I think this is also in line with the COI policy as written.OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. you left out the part of WP:SELFCITE that says "adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." I know you think you're neutral and unbiased, but as an actual neutral party without involvement with the ADL or the subjects you have been editing, I see your placement of ADL sources as plain old paid advocacy by an organization trying to promote its interests. Other neutral editors will weigh in here their views. --- Possibly (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I have negatively noticed the ADL-content-pushing at GameStop short squeeze, where in my personal opinion it has even conflicted with ADL's own goals by displaying antisemitic propaganda in a way that makes it look more legitimate than it is. Regarding disclosures, I disagree about "Affiliated with ADL." at User:Editorialist832 being a proper disclosure if paid contributions have been made using the account. Without disclosure in the edit summary, and without any edits to the Talk namespace, a short "Affiliated with ADL." does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:PAID. Similar concerns apply to FavoriteIrisFlower, who has at least mentioned "FYI, I work for ADL." on one single article's talk page when making an edit request (Special:Diff/1011576416). All in all, WP:COI exists for a reason, and these editors chose to directly edit articles against the explicit recommendation not to do so, and now their behavior is being discussed here because they underestimated the problems. Choosing to ignore the "discouragement" at WP:COI almost always leads to problems, and ADL's good-faith attempts have turned out not to be an exception from this rule of thumb. Every COI editor thinks they're helping the encyclopedia, and 99% of them are wrong. ADL does not entirely unambiguously belong to the other 1%. All I personally would like to see is an official acknowledgement of this by ADL, and a more careful approach to promotion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
another comment Wikipedia policy prohibits shared accounts, for example CompanyEditor is not allowed, but CompanyEditorJane is allowed. Nonetheless, the very similar advocacy type edits through generic sounding name suggests it is planned to escape scrutiny by spreading insertion of ADL contents across many accounts (whether they're each only used by one person only remains unknown). I looked at their form 990 and it looks like they have almost 500 employees altogther and with this said, it's very odd that they have no less than 8 employees editing Wikipedia as it seems absurdly many. I think it clearly falls foul on meat puppetry operating under the direction of management. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The sentences being inserted come across as something like photo-bombing or when you see a paid product placement of, say, a can of Budweiser or Coca-Cola in a movie. I agree with ToBeFree describing this as ADL-content-pushing. I also have an issue with WP:Notability. If the ADL were the only source of information about the antisemitic nature of these people and groups, that'd be one thing. But they aren't. In the Parler case for example, there was a lot of info in the article citing out to a variety of RSes about antisemitism before the ADL line was dropped in. Did the ADL sentence really add any significant information to the article beyond the extensive evidence the article already cited? Was ADL research used by those other journalists (or cited by them)? If what was happening is that those other RSes were establishing the notability of ADL's research by citing it, that'd be one thing. But I don't think they were. So again, having an ADL employee come along and drop it an ADL-pushing sentence where it doesn't really add much of anything of value to the article but does serve as a billboard for ADL seems off. That's one reason the COI strictures exist -- to avoid situations where adding the info comes across as self-serving. Novellasyes (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but I'd also like to note something else; if ADL is in fact the only one covering anti-Semitism re a particular topic (i.e. GameStop short squeeze), then it's almost certainly undue weight – and definitely undue to have an entire section on. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This POV pushing advocacy of their contents raises question if their published contents may contain bias to support their point of view. The POV pushing never came up in discussion about the source in RSP Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Anyone else feel another discussion about possible bias POV pushing would be useful at sources? It certainly makes me wonder why all these accounts were created in a very short span of time on the same day on May 19,2020, with the exception of OceanicFeeling123 which was created two days later. Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean, it's possible they just had a staff meeting or something where they discussed doing this and made the accounts then. Whether or not we find that behavior objectionable is another thing, but I don't think it's that relevant to the reliability of the source. The point is, if the New York Times did this instead of the ADL, we would probably go through the same kind of process and likely reach the same conclusion, but it wouldn't affect its status as an RS, in my view. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
What I was suggesting is a possible shift in organizational culture in which POV pushing, sensationalism and advocacy affecting neutrality could be permeating into editorial process on their publications too. Graywalls (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
comment @Beyond My Ken:, you have been mechanically reverting every single instances of WP:ADVERT source insertions I have removed, marking them as "minor edit" or vandalism reversion. Per WP:ONUS, the burden to establish consensus on questioned contents falls on those looking to restore them. Please do not continue to go against guidelines. The contents have been removed to preserve neutrality of source presentation. Please engage in this discussion instead. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, since the ADL is a reliable source, your removals seemed to me to be unjustified, so I restored them. I then asked you on your talk page to respect WP:BRD and not re-remove the material until there was a community consensus about your edits, but you chose instead to violate BRD and restored your deletions. Other editors here may choose to put this material back into the articles, preserving their atatus quo ante, until a consensus is reached either confirming your opinion of the material, or deciding that your deletions were, as I think they are, totally unjustified.
    The ADL has been examined a number of times at RSN and found to be a reliable source, so the net result here is thatyou are removing information sourced to a reliable source from Wikipedia articles, thus harming them. That's not a good thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Under ordinary circumstance, that's reasonable, but what's happening here with ADL using eight accounts to inject their own publications goes against a normal editing process, thus I have removed them. That is undue emphasis and exhibition of the organization's own publications by the directions of their communications department. This has nothing to do with my personal political POV, and such allegation is unwarranted. Regardless of the political stance of the source inserted, if a publisher/media source was pushing and carpet bombing their own articles using 8 accounts into popular articles, it's a problem. As I have said earlier int his discussion, it'd be a problem regardless of how reliable the source is considered to be. I welcome thoughts from other editors, but please do not re-revert disputed contents prior to consensus having been established. Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
This is what we usually call refspam. Plain and simple. MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not think is a COI, since the edits were not made to articles about the ADL. It's really an issue of Citation spam. COI allows Citing yourself: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." TFD (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The "conflict" of interest is that deploying numerous employees with the organizational goal and interest of elevating the employer's status and reputation and making their own opinions relevant, is conflicting with the overall mission of Wikipedia, thus "conflict" exists. Graywalls (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, Sorry, but I can't find that in COI. Can you provide a direct quote from it? TFD (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - the blanket removal of content was wrong-headed, reactionary, and to be quite frank, just plain stupid. The "offending" material should have been flagged in the talk section of each article first and discussed before deletion, a single editor excitedly running around deleting stuff has created disruption. Should have sorted issues with ADL here at COI/N first, then had discussions about content removal. Acousmana (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with this sentiment and have partially restored the deletion from the Parler article. It seems silly to me to demand that another user seek consensus and provide onus for restoring something back to the status quo ante, rather than doing so before making those changes and even before reaching consensus on this noticeboard. Seems a little backwards to me. BirdValiant (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Acousmana:, there's still no reason to leave combative Special:Diff/1014319555 and hostile edit summary such as this. I believe that others in articles simply didn't notice the convert advovacy edit leading to a delayed discovery. It took some digging around before I realized there were 2-3 accounts used, then I only became aware there were eight accounts being used after one of the corporate advocate for ADL disclosed there were eight accounts being used on behalf of the organization. I don't believe that people in those articles knew either. Had they put in the edit summary saying something like "1 of the eight employees tasked with promoting ADL here adding link to our company's own research", it may have been reverted much earlier. Graywalls (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Graywalls: there's also no reason to run around panic deleting content and citing "no consensus" "onus" to everyone who objects, that's counterproductive, and is in itself "combative." Your intentions can easily be misconstrued. Acousmana (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The first question should be whether the edits improve the articles. If so, simply having a disclosed COI is not a good reason for mass removal. It's even less of a reason to get into edit wars with multiple editors without a COI who viewed the material as a positive addition.
    I don't agree that it's "refspam plain and simple". When we talk about refspam, we're typically talking about the addition of sources which don't actually improve an article just to get a name/link in there. While, as I wrote above, it's not great that they're only adding ADL sources and they should endeavor to incorporate others, too, it seems like it's being done in a thoughtful way intended to improve the article, and when people have objected they have not restored the material. So while not ideal, it's also not a big problem. As above, they seem to be open to suggestions, too. You can find various examples of "COI done right" throughout the lists of Wikipedians in residence, who often work with organizations to figure out how to incorporate material from that organization in a way that improves Wikimedia projects and which are in line with policy. The benefit of working with an experienced WiR, of course, is that they would've probably avoided the mistakes I noted above.
    Getting into a possible shift in organizational culture in which POV pushing, sensationalism and advocacy affecting neutrality could be permeating into editorial process on their publications too., combined with edit warring with people who don't have a COI, suggests this isn't a pure dispute over COI/promo but more about a problem with ADL as a source, which is concerning but outside the scope of this board. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified the remainder of the accounts listed at the top of this discussion about the discussion per policy. This is clearly an organized effort by an organization to (as it says on their dashboard page) add their own content to Wikipedia. That's concerning, as in addition to the COI policy and the related WP:REFSPAM, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. At the very least, these editors need to be held to a higher standard; they should be editing in accordance with WP:COI, disclosing their their COIs more clearly and more often, using edit requests for non-trivial changes, et cetera. ezlev.talk 17:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What they're doing is clearly absolutely prohibited. Their effort should immediately stop, perhaps a TBAN, to the organization itself prohibiting edits related to the addition of ADL contents since they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia in a away consistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Graywalls (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Given the apparently productive and good-faith conversation going on below, I would suggest to Graywalls that they strike the allegation of WP:NOTHERE in the above comment. It is by no means clear at this point in time that ADL employees are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. To the contrary, I see every indication that they were simply unaware of existing best practices and intend to abide by them going forward. Generalrelative (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the heavy self-sourcing on the Anti-defamation league article, which I have been cleaning out, and this explains it. I think we should assume good faith on the part of ADL employees , as it seems like they tried to demonstrate transparency on an individual basis (though group editing is a whole 'nother beast). At the same time, a bright-line rule against adding ADL materials directly into articles is probably warranted, based on what I've seen so far. If the ADL and/or its representatives wants to improve the project, so much the better, but this must be balanced against COI--and there is no balance in adding one own org's materials. Freelance-frank (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

ADL response

Hi all,

I appreciate this feedback and criticism, and upon reflection and reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines more closely, I realize we can do a much better job with regard to COI. I appreciate that you have taken the time to educate me. I have some ideas that I’d like to run by you as a protocol for editing appropriately moving forward:

  • Use standard COI disclosure templates such as {{paid}} to unambiguously communicate our status as paid editors on our userpages.
  • I can see now the lack of transparency over the number and identity of ADL paid editors could invite suspicion of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. We will link to our Dashboard from every editor’s user page. Therefore, any editor will be able to see a list of our editors and all our contributions.
  • Though the ADL is considered a reliable source about extremism by Wikipedia, it is not the only one. We will reflect more of these other groups in the content we write and citations we add, reflecting the best available sources, not the ones that happened to be published by ADL.
  • We will be more cognizant of due weight, taking into consideration that fringe viewpoints do not merit inclusion.
  • Restating a point earlier, we will immediately cease directly editing the article for Anti-Defamation League. Any suggestions will instead go on the talk page.

Employees of the ADL wanted to learn how to edit Wikipedia because of its importance in providing accessible information to the public. As relatively new editors, we have a lot to learn. As paid editors, though, I know the onus is on us to do better. Thank you for pointing out these shortcomings so we could address them. In the future, I can be regarded as the point person to address concerns with the ADL editing initiative. OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@OceanicFeeling123: regarding ADL employees inserting ADL sources directly into (any) mainspace articles, does ADL commit to stop doing that, and instead use talk page requests? This is a major part of why this thread exists.--- Possibly (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
additionally, if the suggested addition are blog entries written by the user proposing the edit, I'd like to see more transparent disclosure, such as "I would like to propose the blog entry, I have written for ADL". However, if this is a part of the ADL's corporate mission to make their contents stick into articles as references, I still see it being inherently in conflict with the mission here. By the way, @OceanicFeeling123:, do adl.org/blog contents have the same editorial process as the contents on rest of the page, or are they more of "opinions of individual author"? Also, are these eight accounts the only accounts ever used to make edits on behalf of ADL formally and informally? Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I see no issue with the self-imposed restrictions above. If edits are problematic, we will of course find ourselves back at some noticeboard. regarding ADL employees inserting ADL sources directly into (any) mainspace articles - again, if someone with a COI is following our policies and improving articles -- disclosing their COI, adding such citations only in specific contexts, with other sources, never restoring them when challenged, etc. I don't see this as a big problem. You'd need to propose some sort of sanction to require it (one which I would oppose at this point). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Usually I would agree, but I think our COI rules were conceptualized for single editors, and not well-paid teams of editors (nine editors, in this case) inserting reliable sources that they also happen to have produced. --- Possibly (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but if you feel that what exists in the policy shouldn't apply, and that something else should, the next step is finding consensus to change the policy rather than apply one that doesn't exist (also when did they become "well-paid"? I mean, maybe they are, but ?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok first, I love the ADL, even being a Canadian. But this is a $100 million per year organization. And they have arranged nine staff on a sort of Wikipedia source placement offensive. I am not saying the COI rules do not apply; I am saying that this is quite a large operation and a unique situation (RS publisher placing RS) that might bear more scrutiny than the usual COI case.--- Possibly (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I too have never come across something quite like this. If the director of corporate communications uses ten accounts directly, that is clearly sock puppetting. If they bring in ten employees into huddle room and direct them to make the specific instructions to make the same edits the director would've like to make themselves, that's constructively the same thing. It's a tricky one, because account must be only used by one individual, so shared account wouldn't be allowed, but when the guidelines were written, this kind of thing was likely envisioned. Even if they didn't know the rules, I personally don't see a reasonable justification for having that many different accounts signing up all at the same time and making edits almost simultaneously. The fact that there's a coherent consistency in starting the sentence with "according to ADL", that's a plausible cause to suggest they were editing under specific instructions from above. I don't think my suggestion that they maybe WP:NOTHERE is off base when you read the very first item even though one editor suggested I strike it out because they said they won't do it in the future. We shouldn't make baseless allegations, but this isn't baseless. Whether or not they were aware of the rule, the appearance of strategic corporate advocacy effort is rather clear. What's even questionable is that four of those accounts with names that look unrelated at first sight edited on the same article QAnon while subtly disclosing they're affiliated with ADL, just enough to be able to say "it was disclosed". So it does have an appearance of gaming the system. Graywalls (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
A minor point, Graywalls, but your representation of your previous comment here isn't quite accurate. Above you stated they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia in a away consistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Here, on the other hand, you characterize this as a mere suggestion that they maybe WP:NOTHERE. As I pointed out specifically in my comment above, it's the assurance of certainty which I take issue with: it is by no means clear at this point in time that ADL employees are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. It's fine to be suspicious in a case like this, and I do sincerely commend you for doing the detective work to bring this to the community's attention, but let's all be careful to avoid prejudging the outcome. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I saw this referenced by Rhododendrites earlier, and thought it might be worth asking: would it be better, or even possible at this point, for the ADL to reach out to WMF for a meta:Wikimedian in residence program? As researchers and professionals, they certainly could help provide assistance on topics relating to anti-Semitism and far-right politics, things that Wikipedia has notably had challenges covering (as reported in the press) and something they've clearly shown in interest in doing. I'm just wondering, logistically, if there's a way to go about setting up a system like that, or if we deemed it's too late – some sanctions similar to the ones voluntarily proposed by OceanicFeeling123 already exist for that project, and then it'd be handled by the corporate end rather than volunteers. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
WMF does not, to my knowledge, typically set up Wikipedian in Residence programs (it occasionally funds them, but most are external). Since ADL is a NYC organization, I'll leave you a message with my Wikimedia NYC hat on if you want to have a conversation about Wikipedians in Residence, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Having direct input from the ADL (which, I remind everyone, we consider to be a reliable source) could do a lot to improve the encyclopedia, but WP:BPCA is the framework we have worked out for that to happen. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The explanatory supplement is about "close association with the subject of a Wikipedia article." Since none of the edits made by the ADL employees were about themselves or the ADL, the supplement (indeed the entire COI guideline) does not apply. TFD (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I am hearing two stories here. At the top of this thread I read "I have noticed that majority of their edits consist of working ADL sources into different articles either by working it directly into prose, or requesting it through talk" Now I am hearing "none of the edits made by the ADL employees were about themselves or the ADL". Or do you (TFD) consider ADL employees working ADL sources into different articles to not be a close association? If so, there are a boatload of people who will disagree with you on that. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I think you are reading that wrong. Contributing sources written by your employer that begin with "According to the Anti-Defamation League..." and end with a source produced by the ADL is contributing to Wikipedia about (your) employer. You're making the argument that a company that places self-published material about themselves ("According to a big soft drink company, sugar in moderation is not so bad for you.." insert source by soda company) has no COI, but they do. It does not matter if it's the soda company or the ADL; both examples have a personal, business-related interest in promoting their product that may impact on their neutrality. Their interest in editing Wikipedia is conflicted, between the neutrality desired by Wikipedia and the promotion of company product desired by the employer... could it be any clearer?--- Possibly (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I am making the argument that if it isn't mentioned in the COI guideline it isn't a COI issue. While it may be right or wrong, it doesn't come under this guideline. If you think it should be in the guideline, then there is a procedure to do that. As the RfC I mentioned showed, broadly considered it is in the interests of practitioners of alternative medicine to advance alternative medicine because then more people will use their services. It's also within the interests of mainstream medical practitioners to explain mainstream medicine, because then more people will seek their services. But it doesn't come under COI guidelines unless they edit articles about their own practices. I think the issue that some editors have is that they feel the extremist organizations the ADL investigates are correct in their views and that any criticism of them is biased. But mainstream scholarship sees these organizations as extremist - whether anti-Semitic, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, misogynist or whatever non-mainstream views they espouse. TFD (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
"Citing yourself" is explicitly listed at "other categories of COI" (WP:SELFCITE); I also believe that the sentence "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." at the very top of the COI guideline describes the edits pretty accurately. The RFC describes a different situation, not people citing themselves while explicitly inserting their employer's name into articles. Additionally, per Special:Diff/1014209904, the editors have received compensation for their contributions, making the section about "Paid editing" and the WP:PAID policy apply to them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
"I think the issue that some editors have is that they feel the extremist organizations the ADL investigates are correct in their views and that any criticism of them is biased." Having concerns about this type of paid editing does not make you a neo-Nazi – let's get that out of the way right now. Also, any argument that boils down to "it's not about right or wrong, it's about what the rules say" means we need to start then considering WP:IAR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

AFAICT, none of the articles were about neo-Nazis. Since "Citing yourself" is allowed in Wikipedia, you need to show how these edits damage the project. Dispute lengthy discussion, no examples have been provided. TFD (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: This is incorrect. See the comments about GameStop short squeeze at the top of this section and the discussion at Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze/Archive_2#Conspiracy_Theories for one example. Also see my comments about what I believe to be incomplete disclosure per WP:PAID by some of the listed editors. Also, per WP:ONUS and WP:COIRESPONSE, the onus for achieving consensus and explaining why the content should be included is on the editor(s) with a COI, not the other way around. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I missed that example because although the edit was about the Daily Stormer, GameGate isn't a neo-Nazi topic. (Although I posted to that discussion, it had slipped my mind. I posted my comment after reading about the discussion on a noticeboard. In fairness I said that since the ADL was the only source for the information, it lacked weight for inclusion.) The ADL also writes about Stop Islamization of America, Act! For America, the Center for Security Policy, the Family Research Council and other more popular groups which are not neo-Nazis. Many editors object to inclusion of these organizations as hate groups which can be seen through discussions on the SPLC talk page. TFD (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The ADL rep says Though the ADL is considered a reliable source about extremism by Wikipedia, it is not the only one. We will reflect more of these other groups in the content we write and citations we add, reflecting the best available sources, not the ones that happened to be published by ADL. That is not sufficient in my opinion. ADL needs to stop promoting its work by adding itself as a source. If it wishes to add such material, it should put in a request on talk pages. I don't think we should accept this bland assurance as sufficient. I haven't seen anything further from ADL on this point and I hope that I missed a stronger statement in keeping with Best Practices. If not, that point needs to be pursued further. Coretheapple (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I would give it more time. They're likely a M-F 9-5 operations, like a lot of corporate business. Graywalls (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls: It's also the Passover holiday. However, I don't believe that their responding or not responding, for whatever reason, is material to the need to deal with their self-promotion forthwith. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
With the evidence we have and general agreement by multiple editors that they have advertisement intent, it should be acceptable to remove every ADL based contents they have added. Tolerating this means that going forward, every news outlet and sources that would be considered reliable as a go ahead to give it a go and worst that will happen is that it'll get removed. When I'm editing an article, I sometimes use local sources. This isn't to be seen as an invitation for whatever media outlet to add "according to our publication...". We can't arbitrary tolerate ADL doing this while not allowing others, so the best practice is to not allow it at all, and remove relatively clear instances of self promotion upon discovery. If the accounts that were doing it were more clearly labeled, such as "ADLpublicist-Adam, ADLpublicist-Jason, ADLpublicist-Hannah" that more clearly described what they were here to do and their association and made the same exact changes they did, I think they would have been reverted very quickly. Delayed discovery of COI editing shouldn't be considered the same as consensus through time. Graywalls (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls: I agree, and I would add that ADL has a perfectly understandable financial interest in spreading itself around Wikipedia, which is why there seem to be so many COI accounts. It is a nonprofit that relies on public contributions to stay afloat. I know that because for some reason I am on an ADL mailing list, and every few days I get another email, and every email contains a fundraising pitch of some kind. Every mention of the ADL in Wikipedia articles is one more feather in its bonnet from a fundraising perspective. From a COI perspective their activities are no better than any profit-making enterprise that seeks to promote itself on Wikipedia, and it should be treated as such. If they are such white hats as they claim to be they'll abide by our rules and our Best Practices, and if they don't then they should be treated like every other sefl-promoting entity. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

ADL second response

Based on the comments after my last response, I think I can provide more clarity about some points that have been made:

  • Our initial understanding of weasel words and contentious labels led to our overuse of in-text attribution (“According to the ADL…”). We were trying to be careful and transparently link statements to their source. Several respondents here think we should scale that back, and this makes sense in an encyclopedic context. Thanks for that guidance. From now on, we'll only attribute directly when necessary to comply with other policy requirements.
  • I think we have largely agreed to most of the practices suggested to us, and will better follow all rules and policies moving forward. At the same time, the best practices offered represent the views of only some editors, and I’m not sure I can commit the ADL to following something that is not backed by community consensus.
  • The characterization of the ADL as a “well-paid team of editors” who are sitting in a “huddle room” planning on how to “carpet bomb” articles is simply not true. The reason there are eight accounts, not one, is that we are not improperly sharing a single account. Different ADL employees are experts in different areas of extremism, so we hoped that each could contribute some of their subject matter expertise by learning how to edit. The entire volume of edits to mainspace has been only 62 edits across ten months.

To be involved in the work of collaboratively building an encyclopedia that is committed to intellectual rigor and critical thinking massively appeals to us, and exemplifies our values. We want to be a constructive part of the process, especially at a time when extremism and hate online is on the rise. Thanks, OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This sounds to me like you are going to continue inserting ADL sources into articles. You're weaseling your way out of many requests to use the talk page. I would support some kind of restriction requiring ADL accounts to use the edit request process when inserting ADL-authored sources.---Possibly (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Yep. Looks that way. I agree with Possibly. Just a gentle and friendly word to the ADL that I am a fan of your work. That's probably how I wound up on your mailing list (mentioned above). But you're not making things easy for the volunteers on this page, you're consuming a lot of time that could be spent in more productive pursuits, and not doing yourselves any favors. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
What's taking a lot of time is that our guidelines aren't clear, leaving some to think an ADL employee is not allowed to add material to an article cited to ADL no matter what, even when otherwise compliant with Wikipedia policy, and others to think they can do so if done transparently and in line with policy to improve articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no question that our COI guidelines have loopholes wide enough to drive a truck right through them. The question is whether ADL wants to get behind the wheel and fire up the engines. On this very page I got into an argument with Jayen466 about whether Wikipedia can handle COI situations, with Jayren arguing that sometimes you need to go to the press and I arguing that such a step is rarely necessary. The ADL's stalling is convincing me that his position has considerable merit . Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Loophole that someone is driving through or activity that simply isn't disallowed except insofar as a few people say so adamantly in a given case? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure and clarification request to ADL

@OceanicFeeling123:, I'm going to ask one more time. Are these eight accounts the only accounts ever used to make edits on behalf of ADL formally and informally? Spreading out edits to multiple editors under the company/org's directions don't increase the allowance of promotional/advocacy contents.Graywalls (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite the "second response" above, I am still waiting for a clear answer to my question:
Is the Anti-Defamation League willing to make a commitment to follow Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations?
It's a simple question. Either the answer is yes or there are specific best practices listed that the ADL has decided not to follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: you asked that five days ago, and it has gone unanswered. I'm wondering if we need to have an ANI-type discussion, here or at ANI, where it could be proposed that ADL, for example, stop inserting their own sources and use talk-pages instead. @ToBeFree:, is that allowed, i.e. are COIN editors allowed to come up with editing restrictions via discussion?--- Possibly (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking much the same thing. I have the following on a post-it note by my monitor:
Possibility #1: well meaning ADL employee who is learning how we do things.
Possibility #2: public relations professional who is learning exactly how much they can get away with.
looking at the response, which was
"I think we have largely agreed to most of the practices suggested to us, and will better follow all rules and policies moving forward. At the same time, the best practices offered represent the views of only some editors, and I’m not sure I can commit the ADL to following something that is not backed by community consensus"
I am convinced that we are dealing with #2. Just read WP:BPCA. Can you think of anything -- anything at all -- on that page that a good-faith editor with a COI would not be willing to follow? I have worked with multiple COI editors who not only don't have a problem with it, but are relieved that they have a way to correct errors and influence what is in articles without being constantly reverted.
So I think we should post an RfC with a simple question. "Is it the consensus of the Wikipedia community that the Anti-Defamation League should follow WP:BPCA? If your answer is 'no' please specify which parts of WP:BPCA the ADL does not need to follow." Then we should all respect the decision the Wikipedia community makes whether we personally agree with it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
No, we don't need a proposal that dissects an essay. Just ask whether ADL should be banned from adding citations to ADL to articlespace. As far as I can tell, that's the only thing that they haven't agreed to which some feel they should be required to do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Point well taken. I guess that's why they pay you the big bucks. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
There's no question that Possibility No. 2 is what is happening here. As I noted earlier, the ADL is no less a commercial enterprise than any other organization whose employees come to Wikipedia to advance its cause, in this case by adding ADL citations. It should not be doing that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability and MER-C: to see if they have any idea on Possibly's question... Graywalls (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Those eight weren't the only ones. Hersei (talk · contribs) was discovered by, I believe Possibly, which they have added to the list. OceanicFeeling123 only opened up about using eight accounts after I started noticing several accounts being used, then opened a SPI. This lack of transparency is not looking good and I maintain my concern that ADL is probably WP:NOTHERE. The Hersei account maybe the "master". This one was created in 2018. Graywalls (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
looking at the last disingenuous response - from what everyone assumes is an ADL representative - re:"not sure I can commit the ADL to following something that is not backed by community consensus," escalation makes most sense, waste of time trying to hammer it out here. Acousmana (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, assuming you're referring to are COIN editors allowed to come up with editing restrictions via discussion, I do not believe that COIN can authorize community restrictions on accounts (if nothing else, it's not like there are a lot of admin-types watching the noticeboard...); pretty sure that's something only AN could impose since it's the dedicated "community consensus" venue. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
And now that I've read this entire nightmare of a discussions, here are my thoughts:
  • As far as I can tell, all of the ADL editors (at least, those mentioned on the dashboard) made a good-faith attempt to disclose their relationship with ADL, even if it was not using the specific templates that we normally ask for.
  • The deliberate addition of links to the ADL website by employees of the ADL violates the spirit of our WP:COI policy, particularly WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SELFCITE.
    • Adding citations to ADL does materially benefit the organization - let's be honest, being cited repeatedly in Wikipedia is generally good for your organization's visibility, and adding one's organization's perspective on various events to Wikipedia articles makes me think of this XKCD.
    • While ADL is deemed generally reliable at RSN and is widely used (if I'm reading the report right, COIBot says that over 14k edits on enwiki have added a link to it). In other words, their additions are not going to tip the scale from "little-used" to "widely-used". However, as noted above, these additions have largely been on high-traffic pages, where the addition of links will be significantly more visible.
  • Being an RS does not exempt you from the SELFCITE expectations.
  • I harbor some concerns about the neutrality of ADL editors even in edits not directly related to ADL. The ADL is, after all, an advocacy organization, and so I am concerned that organization's goals will be more important than the neutrality of Wikipedia. That's the textbook definition of COI.
  • It is unclear to me whether the ADL blog is considered an RS, and these folks have added several links to the ADL blog.
So, what now? Their intentions may have been good, but this is still advocacy editing (both on behalf of the organization itself and the organization's cause), and that fundamentally undermines the goals of Wikipedia. I will accept nothing less than agreeing to not make edits in mainspace relating to the ADL, including addition of links. If they want to add a link to ADL, they can request it on the talk page just like any other paid editor. If I do not receive this commitment, I am prepared to treat these editors as normal uncooperative COI editors and hand out partial blocks. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned press above. Consider the counterpart headline: "Wikipedia editors single out ADL to apply a rule that isn't written anywhere".
I would urge reframing any proposal to be about actually disallowing the practice several people are saying is disallowed in this thread: an organization's employees adding citations to that organization in articlespace. I would even consider supporting that.
What I won't support is singling out an organization that seems to be making an effort to do it right. One which has mostly contributed edits that have been compliant with policy, including many that other editors have since restored after they were mass reverted, which has agreed to use non-ADL sources as well, which hasn't restored material when challenged, which has agreed not to edit the ADL article itself directly, which is actively engaging in discussion, and which has committed to be more careful of weight issues/new sections, etc.
For better or worse, an organization's employee transparently adding a selfcite in compliance with content policies isn't disallowed by policy. Maybe it should be, but that should be done at the policy level rather than singling out an organization that's trying to do it right. Alright, I've said enough through this thread. I'll shut up until/unless there's a proposal/RfC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

press? that's just silly. If the rep (PR employed by ADL? ADL staff? has this been established yet?) is citing consensus as a determining factor, then fine, escalate to the RFC, not such a big deal, the more input the better. Acousmana (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating/suggesting/condoning anyone going to the press over this (nor do I think it would make a particularly compelling story one way or the other at this point). I only mentioned it because it came up above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
yes, I know you aren't, spotted the suggestion, per Wikipediocracy, that would be hyper-reactionary at this stage, and yeah, not exactly compelling news. Acousmana (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I had suggested that they are risking adverse publicity and they are, and this very discussion alone could be grist for adverse publicity. I am surprised it hasn't happened yet, but it still may. I have nothing against the ADL, I was a donor at one point, but its behavior here is not good. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
no such thing as bad publicity. Possibly two issues are being conflated by some: 1) the nature of the content added; 2) the nature of how they went about adding it. The problem I see, based on the information at hand, is with 2. ADL (their rep, whoever), has stated that consensus should determine whether or not 2 is a problem, so fine, Move to RfC and get wider community input. Acousmana (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Well I don't know what you mean by "no such thing as bad publicity." Time will tell but I personally, speaking remember as an occasional though not recent financial supporter am deeply dissatisfied with their behavior here. They need to stop promoting themselves by adding links to ADL publications to articles. Full stop. Maybe they can get away with it but they're doing the wrong thing, they're exploiting Wikipedia rules in favor of their COI, and they are wasting volunteer time. The latter is always a problem in COI situations and my patience for such conduct is fast eroding. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
To expand on what Rhododendrites said, the NYC chapter is prepared to offer direct and personal guidance to any local area group prepared to edit WP in good faith. Had they asked us to run an editing instruction section for them, I think we would have advised them to go about adding content sourced to the organization only very cautiously, and with full disclosure. I personally would have gone further, and advised them to limit their involvement to writing articles within their fields of interest that use other sources than the ADL entirely, and to assume that their organisation is so well-known, and so reliable, that other editors would have looked at their publications for references. And I would have said what seems to have been neglected in this discussion, for the ADL to edit any article relating to its field of advocacy is COI, and must be declared. It is just the same as if any other orgnaization had edited articles pertaining directly to their field of interest--this is coi and must be declared. It's COI no matter how strongly any or all of of us support the organization. (I must add a coi declaration of my own: Although I disagree with some of its positions, I support this organization to the extent that I have repeatedly contributed money to it. I don't think that affects what I say about it here, but it is a coi, it involved money, albeit small amounts, and therefore needs to be reported).
We do not want any advocacy group contributing to our articles in public affairs; and in particular, the section on Political positions is not in my opinion NPOV, and in particular the controversies between the ADL and some generally left-wing Jewish groups about Israel deserves a distinct section to highlight its controversial nature----but here I have another COI--I am also a contributor to organizations that are very sharply opposed to ADL's views of the present government of Israel.
I feel this is especially wrong because it is an organized attempt by an advocacy group , not the actions of an individual member. I refer people to WP:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, back in 2008, and related earlier cases; despite the extreme differences between the two organizations, the same principles hold. Coordinated editing of WP in support of a group's objectives is a violation of not only COI, and the rule that only individuals can edit, but of our very basic policy of WP: NOTADVOCACY. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
To respond to something Graywalls wrote, it does seem, contrary to what you claim, as though this is your #1 scenario, and not your #2 scenario. You said above: "Possibility #1: well meaning ADL employee who is learning how we do things. Possibility #2: public relations professional who is learning exactly how much they can get away with" and then you said you were convinced it was #2. But if you look, these editors engaged an experienced Wikipedia editor and administrator to train them (follow OceanicFeeling123 subpage and comments to;), presumably including on COI, and that experienced editor's page also discloses that they are training ADL. And the ADL editors all self-disclosed their affiliation, so that while they are complying with WP policy as it currently exists, they appear to have tripped over what many Wikipedians involved with COIN prefer and believe to be best practice and particularly important for advocacy organizations. But again, they did disclose their affiliation, they did engage a Wikipedian of serious experience and reputation in the community to train them, they've answered the concerns set out here, they are stopping editing as a result, and considering a WIR. etc. Whatever else we discuss here, I think that shows good faith, as noted by GeneralNotability and others, and the tenor and tone of this discussion should reflect that. I don't see any problems with their content, although I realize that's not the point here. There are a number of things they can do going forward, if they do go forward, which have been spelled out in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaks'nYurts (talk • contribs) — Yaks'nYurts (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

ADL again

Thanks everyone for your feedback on editing policies. The nine of us have decided to stop editing and take time to reevaluate. We're not aware of any other ADL editors (though there are about 350 staff in our organization)...In any case, consider our 'course' complete.

note: Hersei was here well before the ADL training began. They weren't part of the training, so they weren’t on the dashboard. They are on the dashboard now and know not to edit the ADL article.

We are sad to see our well-sourced contributions removed about the intersection of misogyny and white supremacy, the aftermath of the storming of the U.S. Capitol, the spread of conspiracy theories on social media, and misinformation about Antifa. This information is vital to the public. We still believe our expertise offers value to the editing community and to readers.

Our aim was always to collaborate rather than advocate. We value Wikipedia and hope to find a way forward with the community. We listened to your ideas and are thinking of looking into a Wikipedian-in-Residence as one possibility.

Have a great weekend and thank you for your input and guidance. OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to about "well-sourced contributions" being removed, so I can't respond to that and you haven't provided links. I will say that I'm disappointed that people keep making the same points over and over again about your self-promotion and we don't seem to be getting through, and after expending a great deal of time that could have been put to better use we get a lump of self-pity thrown in our faces. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls meticulously went through and reverted all edits made by ADL employees. Some of those edits were later restored, and editors had a debate about it above. (I'm really not a party to that debate nor do I care to be; don't shoot the messenger.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
While I haven't seen the edits in question, I think that as a general proposition reverts of the type Graywalls performed are entirely justified. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@OceanicFeeling123:, Your organization's belief that "we're important" and your own publications are vital to the public and believing that they should be included, and including them on this believe is in fact what prevents your organization from being able to maintain NPOV, whether aware or not. Not any different from Fox News putting things in their own perspectives believing that they're absolutely fair and balanced and NPOV. Wikipedia does not lead, we follow. So what you claim to be "our expertise" can wait. If scholarly journal decides to include it, or it is included in mainstream media, then perhaps it could become relevant, but the insertion should not be made by your organization. Graywalls (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@OceanicFeeling123: Our aim was always to collaborate, yet I can't help but notice that in this entire time-wasting thread, ADL is the party that is that is not collaborating; you want it exactly your own way and have wasted lots of editor time while ignoring copious community objections to the way you are going about it. What we like to see from paid editors with a POV problem is the answer "sure, we will use talk page requests and not edit articles directly". That lets all the very skilled editors you see above stop wondering if the project is being damaged by your advocacy, allowing them to return to building the wiki. I'm really not sure why you had such a problem following the same procedures we ask of other paid editors with an obvious POV problem. That said, if the ADL does return to advocacy editing of the type described above, I think we will need to revisit some kind of formal editing restriction, which seemed to be right around the corner in the discussion above. Several of the accounts have also still not bothered to properly disclose, despite repeated requests.--- Possibly (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It is entirely impossible for them to maintain WP:NPOV over a sustained period. Their worldview is too predominant. I agree some kind of editing restriction is required, as they're certainly not servicing this board. I think certainly once in place, the work will need to be checked for a time. scope_creepTalk 23:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
At this point, would it be objectionable to revert their contributions that ends up accomplishing what they were trying to accomplish as we editors customarily do with spam contributors? As someone experienced with dealing with COIers, it even took me a while to realize how they were using so many accounts. I don't believe that anyone that are not specifically looking for it would notice it. I make the case that it should be seen as having just happened due to delayed discovery of WP:CITESPAM from strategic corporate advocacy edits with ambiguous disclosure. Graywalls (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Article in the Forward

This discussion has been summarized in this Forward.com news article (just fyi). Schazjmd (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the WP shortcut term for that, something like "unintended consequences"?--- Possibly (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Tagging Graywalls, Rhododendrites, and DGG to make sure they saw this story too... congrats, I guess? This whole situation was a nightmare. Also, it looks like they got a scoop which we couldn't: "the organization hired an experienced Wikipedia editor last May to train eight of its staff to contribute" to Wikipedia. Don't know if that changes anything. (Hope it doesn't, so we can all put this to rest. Maybe this'll get in the Signpost, too... yippee. *sigh*) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
At the time I said They didn’t add or remove any contentious contents in prose or promotional links and they’ve disclosed their affiliation. on the ADL's article itself, I was only talking about OceanicFeeling123's edits and I was completely unaware of Hersei (talk · contribs)'s very extensive edits, because I didn't investigate every contributor's user page. I mean, who does? It's time consuming to manually check people's user page and this isn't something I do without a compelling reason. I wonder what "experienced Wikipedia editor" they hired thought doing this was a good idea. Graywalls (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Shocking: journalist takes quote out of proper context. Sorry it happened to you, though. I too am curious about this new development, but I don't know how much it affects the situation – if ADL's not going to be editing anymore, or at least for the foreseeable future, it appears this grueling, protracted discussion has neared its natural conclusion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The good thing that came out of that is that there's no reasonable doubt about ADL's involvement. I'm curious if someone reached out to the press, or if they noticed it on their own. Graywalls (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Rosenfeld contacted me, interested in these events and the broader context of organizations editing Wikipedia. I've posted a TL;DR of what I said on my talk page to avoid belaboring what is otherwise a resolved issue here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
No, the article makes perfectly clear that this matter has not been resolved. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
fwiw, I consider the Forward article to be an accurate representation of the discussion. (but, also fwiw, I have a personal and financial coi there as well.) DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Political reputation management UPE sockfarm

A sockfarm seems to have been working for a PR firm, perhaps specializing in U.S. political figures. - Bri.public (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Blogsdata

He putted an external link to his website that is about the Indian cricketer. The website link has the same name as his username. It is possible that he may have a relationship with him. Or he maybe promoting his website. See this contrib[2] Kaseng55 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:DownTownRich and "African country" COI

All of these above templates, files, WikiProjects, and category serve solely to promote a non-existent "Kingdom of Africa" country. Considering the fairly elevated number of templates created, the numerous COI warnings on said user's talk page and its history, and the presence of various AfDs for said user's articles under the guise of promotion, I believe that a conflict of interest may be present. Casspedia (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that @Liz: posted a message here [3] warning Rich not to edit further until he answers the said question. He seems to have ignored that and subsequent messages by Liz afterwards as his edit history shows active edits past the posting mark. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
DownTownRich has responded to Liz's message and denied paid editing at Special:Diff/1019382851. However DownTownRich needs to stop creating templates etc. which do not serve an encyclopedic purpose. TSventon (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Per the above; however it is to note that said user has repeatedly denied paid editing. Templates and files as such as useless at best and misinformation at worst. Casspedia (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I very much doubt that this is paid editing, I can't see anyone paying for someone to make a wikiproject (a relatively obscure part of the encyclopaedia that 99% of readers are never going to see), especially when their own website is broken and unfinished, as noted in the various deletion discussions. I am inclined to assume good faith and put this down to being an overenthusiastic newcomer who saw that we had wikiprojects for other disputed states, and decided to make one for a "micronation" they had just read about, basing it on copying and pasting WP:WikiProject Somaliland. They probably didn't realise that creating a wikiproject is a serious amount of work and that creating one based on a website that declared they owned Bir Tawil is not a good idea. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the reason why Wikipedia is so detached from reality (in almost every social or political aspect) when it comes to events around Russia.

Not a conflict of interest. Every topic where people have strong opinions, gets opinionated editors. Including, very obviously, the OP. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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.


I found several indications that English pages, describing Russia are purposely sabotaged by a group of strongly biased persons, that do NOT persue a goal of being objective, rather than using Wikipedia to shape the minds.

First, please read this. I didn't compose it, merely found it on webcache of an article which is now gone. However, wikipedia blacklists it, so please replace "livel33k" with "liveleak" (I am sorry that I have to evade the blacklist in order to show you the indirect evidence): https://yandexwebcache.net/yandbtm?lang=en&fmode=inject&tm=1619518131&tld=ru&la=1601323264&text="Iryna Harpy" пользователь&url=https://www.livel33k.com/view?t=1dd_1421975553&l10n=ru&mime=html&sign=9effd7f34355fd239957878bb36f6661&keyno=0 Yes, its a POV, not creditable, but it records subjective capture of events that once did happened.

Second, I found this: https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/iryna-harpy and yes, its another subjective perspective, but it also describes that there exists an influental group.

Third, read this please: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UA_Victory&oldid=698068696#Reply That user wiped his talk page after one year. Specifically, the user "My Very Best Wishes" at the end claims that Russia is aggressor, just because it was ready for the upcoming events and expresses his sympathies with the biased "UA Victory", who at least is sincere with his nickname.

Fourth, you need to translate this into English, as its a collection of poems in Russian that depict it as pure evil in various ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:My_very_best_wishes

These people are very obviously biased and strong haters that are driven purely by emotions and hate, yet they influence nearly every article.85.197.28.59 (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Jabari Simama

The user created the article in July 2010, and is responsible for the vast majority of edits to the article. After the subject of the article was supposedly "fired" (per sources) or dismissed from their position as President of a Georgia technical college in 2018, the user began to make edits to sanitize or otherwise paint the job departure in the most favorable light to the article subject. see:

My involvement with the article came when I was fixing Category:Pages with broken reference names in sbb Jibari Simama edit in March 2021, and the article was automatically added to my watchlist. Subsequently:

I then reverted the reversion, and for WP:BLP objectivity, edited the entire section regarding "He was fired...", to read "GPTC dismissed Simama..." with 3 additional citations supporting the language, with cited statement that Simama objected to the charges of being dismissed, and marked the article with {{COI}} ([4]).

Recent edit by MsMaam:

I tagged the article's talk page regarding the potential COI, and edit diffs. User defended themself on my talk page and speculated if I had any particular interest in the article. I moved the conversation back to the article's talk page, and documented everything here.  — sbb (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods

See previous COIN thread. A UPE sockfarm (Lesbianadvocate) has done most of the editing of these articles in recent years, using a good number of socks. MarioGom (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

See more below at #More Lesbianadvocate sockfarm creations - Bri.public (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Vancouver Tenants Union

Vancouver Tenants Union

This editor has declared on their user page that they are a member of the subject organisation the Vancouver Tenants Union. The article was created as a draft, and accepted at AfC on 25 March. So far so good. As they were unaware of the need from that point on to make edit requests rather than edit the article directly I left them a template message on how to manage a COI. They didn't like this, and replied to me at User talk:Curb Safe Charmer#Conflict of interest where I further explained what the issue was. They replied "I disagree with you and i disagree with your interpretation of the rules. why would one need to disclose their conflict of interest if they can not write or edit a post on which they have a conflict of interest? the rules are meant to ensure the articles are true rather than biased and that is the case for the Vancouver Tenants Union. you do not need to respond to this and i do not wish to engage with you any further. good day to you" Fine, I wasn't intending to contact them again on the matter, but Timtrent felt that it would help to have an uninvolved third party explain the issue which they did here. I would have thought that would have had the desired effect, but today Aïssa has removed the COI messages from their talk page (which they are entitled to do), removed the COI tag from the article (which they should not do) and has left a message on the article talk page accusing Timtrent of bullying and harassment.

Aïssa 93 390, an WP:SPA seems unwilling to accept advice from other editors, and appears not to accept the rules that COI editors need to follow. In an earlier message to me, they wrote "i have made the changes you requested and i have disclosed my COI, could you please review my submission and if you are agreeable, publish the page for our Union ? The Union has an important meeting with the Minster of Housing coming up and we want our Wikipedia Page ready on time for the meeting." This suggests that their motivation is to publicise their organisation, not to build an encyclopedia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my actions. I interpreted Aïssa 93 390's statement on Curb Safe Charmer's talk page as something that required reinforcement. I am grateful to them for brining the matter here.
I was very careful to leave a collegial message as part of a WP:COI warning. I extended our boilerplate warning in a courteous and friendly manner hoping I had dealt with the very limited circumstances n which a COI editor may make direct edits to the article.
I suppose I was not entirely surprised that they have failed to assume good faith after their curt note on CSC's talk page and are now resorting to bluster.
I hope a friendly word from a third person will bear fruit. I hate it when things turn into 'processes', but if that fails I think something may be required to curb their choice not to listen FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the above noted comments. Nowhere did Aïssa express that they would not follow the rules and nowhere did Aïssa show bad faith.
This was a simple process and a requesr for information was made. All the rules have been respected and followed as soon as Aïssa was made aware of them.
Again, timtrent stepped in and claimed that Aïssa stated he would not follow the rules. That is simply not the truth.
Again in the above message he noted that Aïssa failed to assume good faith, which is not the truth and not backed by any facts.
This article was never intended for publicity but rather to document the existence of the Vancouver Tenants Union, another fact that both Curb and Timtrent failed to mention, which suggests they may be acting based on an improper motive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.93.32 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Given this IP editor's previous edits and in particular this one where they signed as Aïssa they are editing while logged out and talking about themselves in the third person. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Given that your IP has made three edits to date, all of which were directly related to the Vancouver Tenants Union (and one of which explicitly signed as Aissa), I'm a bit troubled by the fact that you're talking about Aissa in the third person. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 19:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Setting that aside, I am, impressed with the organisation. I am impressed with what it has achieved. I agree that is notable, and, in its real life role, necessary. I note that a person sharing the same forename as the editor under discussion is stated in the article to be on the steering committee. I understand a steering committee member's need to be assertive in that role. If they are the same person as the editor it is unfortunate that they have felt the need to display something that exceeds assertiveness here. We are trying to discuss the mode of editing, not the pros and cons of the real life organisation. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I stumbled on this from recent changes. If the steering committee is un-paid, then it’s an interesting borderline case. It’s a bit disingenuous for Aïssa to declare that they are a "member" when the article's infobox says that someone also named Aïssa holds a management position. I wonder whether we would have been so generous with the article had it been about a commercial operation rather than a non-profit. But anyway, article passed AFC and Curb Safe Charmer tagged the talk page that he have checked it for CoI neutrality. What's the desired outcome here? Tag the article for CoI also? AfD? Given that Aïssa has already started with talk page section blanking (yes I know it’s allowed), "don’t talk to me anymore" statements, and allegations of harassment, I think it's a good idea to seek more eyes on this, though. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:58 Wed 21, AEDT) 19:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic Thank you for your feedback, i will apply all three points you made available to me to the best of my knowledge. I looked up the wikipedia article for signing with ~~~~ and also the article to ping a user, i am still unsure i understood them perfectly but i will do my best to follow all the wikipedia rules and articles. To give some context, i was a simple member of the Union until the last election during which i was elected to the steering committee. I should mention that the Steering Committee is not a decision making body but rather a group of members who volunteer to help with the administrative part of the Vancouver Tenants Union. We are all volunteers here and all we are trying to do is inform citizens of our existence and our mission is to help the most vulnerable citizens in the community. That being said, i have zero personal interest in this, i am a simple citizen trying to help the community. Aïssa 93 390 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Being a member of a union isn't in the same league as being an official or a branch organiser. # In the linked diff, Aïssa says to Curb Safe Charmer "i disagree with your interpretation of the rules", that's very different from intending to "disregard the rules". # Only WP:PAID editors are required to go through edit requests, others may edit directly so long as their interest is declared.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aïssa 93 390 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Note: The above post appears to have been made originally made at Talk:Vancouver Tenants Union#COI tag (April 2021) by Pelagic here and here and was copied and pasted into this discussion by Aïssa 93 390. Please try to avoid doing such a thing Aïssa 93 390 because it makes it seem as if you are the person making the post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Aïssa 93 390: Please also try to log in and use only your registered account to edit or make posts because it just confuses things and not doing so might be mistaken by some as an attempt to use multiple accounts in an appropriate way.
FWIW, Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, but it does highly discourage it because it can lead sometimes lead to serious problems; so, yes COI editors can and often do directly edit articles about subject they're connected themselves. Wikipedia does, however, encourage them to follow WP:COIADVICE because doing so can really help them avoid any problems with other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which disputes over content are expected to be resolved through WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. So, when an editor is WP:BOLD in making a change, but subsequently WP:REVERTed by another, the editor who wants to make the change is expected to start a discussion about it on the article's talk page and see if they can establish a consensus for it.
Vancouver Tenants Union is a Wikipedia article written about the union, but it's not one written for the benefit of the union and neither the union nor anyone connected to it has any final editorial control or ownership over it. If you or anyone else edits the article and the edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then perhaps they will stand. On the other hand, if another editor disagrees and feels there's a problem with the edits, the WP:ONUS is upon the person wanting to make the change to seek a consensus to do so. This might not fit in with the particular plans or scheduling concerns of the article's subject, but that's not Wikipedia's concern. So, if even one editor disputes a change you've made, it's going to be considered contentious and you are essentially going be expected to make a de-facto edit request on the article's talk page to find out what the concern is and see how it might be addressed. The same would apply to pretty much any editor and pretty much any article regardless of whether they had any connection to the subject of the article.
You can of course decide not to discuss (Wikipedia can't make you discuss things if you don't want to), but not discussing doesn't mean you can try and force through the changes you want to make. Basically, if you're BOLD and subsequently reverted, and then you try to force things through, the response from the WP:COMMUNITY might lead to an administrator being asked to step in and take action against your account. So, if you and the union are looking to have more control over things and find Wikipedia's policies to be too much of a hassle, then perhaps you'll find WP:ALTERNATIVE helpful.
The union seems to do some really great things as Timtrent posted above, but it's not Wikipedia role to help it to continue to do great things. Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect what reliable sources are saying about a subject; there are lots of things that are probably true about your union, but Wikipedia is only really interested in what is verifiable. It makes no real difference to Wikipedia whether article content is positive or negative; only whether it accurately reflects what reliable sources are saying and whether it is otherwise in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Finally, please take a look at c:User talk:Aïssa 93 390 because there are some issues with the files you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons that need to resolved if you want to avoid the images from being deleted. I also suggest you take a close look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:License revocation, c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? and c:Commons:Email templates/Consent to make sure you and the union understand what it means to upload a file like the union's logo to Commons. It doesn't mean you're transfering copyright ownership of the logo to any third-party, but it does pretty much mean that you giving advance permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the logo at anytime and use for any purposes, including to make money off of or to use in a way that neither you nor the union would approve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This is Aïssa 93 390 speaking : I do not understand why you are accusing of speaking about myself in the third person and making a bunch of assumptions and accusations based on this non-fact. I already explained that we do not have 'management positions' in the Union, i am not going to repeat the same thing over and over if Curb Safe chooses to not read my submissions there is nothing much more i can do to help him understand the situation. I also explained that nobody is paid at the Vancouver Tenants Union, everybody is a volunteer and helping the community for free.

i have expressed my intention to follow all the rules and procedures above and i have been doing so since the start, to the best of my ability. i just can not deal with these kind of discriminatory, unproven attacks. i do not know if this is because my name sounds too muslim to you guys or if you have nothing better to do than online bullying new editors, you can rest assured that this is the first and the last time i ever create an article on wikipedia and i will share this horrible experience with all my friends and relatives. Good bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aïssa 93 390 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aïssa 93 390: First of all, I want to apologize if my post seemed to be accusing you of doing something wrong. That really wasn't my intent. I was just trying to provide you with some information that I thought might help you avoid problems when you edit. I wasn't trying to discourage you or drive you away.
The "refering to yourself in the third-person" is a misunderstanding that is due to someone using the same IP address to post this above that you used to post this on the user talk page of Curb Safe Charmer. If you didn't make either of these posts, then someone else pretended to be you on Curb Safe Charmer's user talk page. If you know who that might be, please advise them to not do such a thing anymore because it really confuses things. Another cause of this confusion is that you copied-and-pasted part of a post made to your user talk page by Pelagic into this discussion but didn't attribute the post to Pelagic; so, that made it seem as if you were once again referring to yourself in the third-person. After I figured that out, I revised my above post accordingly per here to remove any mention of "referring to yourself in the third person". You can help avoid such things from happening again if you simply try to remember to log in when you post and try to avoid copying and pasting comments made by others on one talk page onto another talk page.
As for the stuff about your name sounding too Muslim, I doubt that has anything to do with the comments being made by others at all. I certainly didn't know your name is a Muslim name and your choice of username had nothing to do with the comment I made. Moreover, I think the main concern expressed above by others is that your username is also the name of a member on the union's steering committee which might mean there's a connection between your account and the union.
As explained meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure#Does this provision apply to me if I am simply editing or uploading as an unpaid volunteer?, some volunteers do get paid for their contributions; so, asking for clarification is often the only way to find out who these people are. Since you have stated that you're not one of these "volunteers", then that's fine at least as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. At the same time though, you're going to almost certainly be considered to have a WP:COI (even if you're not being paid) with respect to anything written about the union on Wikipedia, and this means that others are going to expect you to follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. You're not obligated to do so, and you should be fine as long as your edits related to the union in any Wikipedia article are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you make some good-faith mistakes when editing, most editors will understand and have no problem trying to sort things out; it's only when the edits you make appear to be like what's mentioned here that you're likely going to find yourself having problems. Avoid those types of edits as much as possible and you should be fine.
Finally, thank you for taking steps to address the concerns raised about File:VTU Web.jpg at Commons. An OTRS volunteer will look at the email that was sent in and they will verify the file's licensing if everything is in order. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Aïssa 93 390:
  1. my name sounds too muslim to you guys → nope, with the diaeresis I was picturing it as a French name.
  2. we do not have 'management positions' in the Union ... i was a simple member of the Union until the last election during which i was elected to the steering committee. ... not a decision making body ... help with the administrative part ... i have zero personal interest in this → okay, "administrative" not "management", noted. You might have no pecuniary interest, but taking on a administrative role suggests that you are somewhat invested in the cause. I'll accept that maybe you see still yourself as a simple member, but can you not see how stating it that way on your user page could be perceived as an attempt to mislead?
  3. harassing me ... i will be reporting this to higher management, discriminatory, too muslim, online bullying, unproven attacks → no, it is you who are making unfounded accusations of harassment, bigotry, and general bad faith against all and sundry here. If people here are being harsh with you, it's not just because we've had bad experiences with COI editors and ideologues in the past. You should consider how your words have contributed to the drama.
  4. I do not understand why you are accusing of speaking about myself in the third person → Then let me explain. Here, you posted a message to Curb Safe Charmer's talk page from Internet address 174.6.93.32, which belongs to Shaw Communications in Calgary. Someone who writes like you also posted a message to -noah- from the same address. Then someone talking about you in the third person, who didn't give a name, posted a message above from the same address. It might be two different people from the same office or household, but how are we to know?
— Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:34 Thu 29, AEST) 22:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

This page has been purged of information by an anonymous user several times over the past few months, seemingly to protect the reputation of the Institute which is the subject of the article. Any revision which reintroduces information having to do with the School of the Americas is deleted not long after on the grounds of "spreading misinformation". 2600:1700:4EBC:1000:A5AE:F4EE:9347:C12 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Julian Smith (saxophonist)

Not the place for declared paid editors (Chrisfilip) to request edits. You have already made the request on the article's talk page.--- Possibly (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Please check the talk page Talk:Julian_Smith_(saxophonist) for requested edits. Chrisfilip (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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.

Kailash Surendranath

Kailash surendranath, who seems to be the subject of Kailash Surendranath has made some significant edits to the article recently, adding unsourced information as well as information that can be verified by existing citations. He was previously warned about a COI in 2015, and I warned him again yesterday. My warning was ignored and he simply edited the article again. From his contribution history he is clearly a single-purpose account as the only article he has edited is his BLP and his edits are clearly not neutral. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, on their talk page the first warning is marked as being given "6 years, 3 months, 25 days ago". I am pretty sure they are ignoring the warnings! Perhaps a case for a pBlock.--- Possibly (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

IP editor at J. D. Mesnard

IP pBlocked with warning.--- Possibly (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

The IP editor User:184.182.32.239 is scrubbing the pages of Arizona state legislators again. The account was previously given a temporary block. I highlighted the blatant COI nature of the account in November 2020 (along with other IP accounts)[6]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I issued a partial block, for a year, for those two articles. IP, if you're going to do more of this, I'm just going to block you altogether. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
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.

Benjamin Smith (executive)

I came across Benjamin Smith (executive) after seeing this request for help posted on Wikipedia Commons. The article’s recent history shows some edits made by two WP:SPA IP editors in November 2020 and April 2021 which might be connected to the subject in some way, possibly even undisclosed paid editing. Prior to that, some other IPs appear to have by trying to add content related to a bonus controversy to the article since April 2020; so, the most recent edits could be an attempt to try and remove that. The edits made by Ben.lipsey trying to add a photo aren’t too much of a COI issue, but only registered account user’s can upload photos to Commons. So, it’s possible that the IPs and Ben.lipsey are one and the same and the IPs’s edits do appear to be COI related.

Would some others mind taking a look at this and assessing whether there’s anything to be concerned about here? The image copyright issue will be resolved over at Commons; it’s the edits made by the two IP accounts which need some assessing. —- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons request now archived at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/04#File: Benjamin Smith - Air France.jpg. TSventon (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Neutrality. I would've gone to the article's talk page first, but the three accounts mentioned above appear to be one-off SPAs and the article doesn't seem to be one that is very highly watched by others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello - the edits are factual and cited/sourced, I was just trying to clean it up and add some context. I also sent a copy of the photo to photosubmissions email with a copyright release template, as requested, so hopefully that resolves that issue. Nothing was edited/removed regarding any bonus controversy. Could you please kindly help me understand what is necessary to resolve this issue and remove the 'deletion' flag?
Thank you
Ben.lipsey (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ben.lipsey thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest (COI) on your talk page. The article has been nominated for deletion by scope creep because they were unable to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). There is a link to the deletion discussion in the notice at the top of the page. So to show the article should be kept you need to find more in depth coverage in reliable sources and post a list of the best three or four at the deletion discussion. The Paris-Match article looks like a start. Deletion discussions can be closed after a week so if you need a few days to find sources you could explain in the discussion, with a disclosure of your COI. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I have added Cagatio and MezzG to the list. The editing history of Cagatio, the article creator seems odd. They made 74 edits between 2016 and 2019, creating two articles, Terrazas de los Andes in 2017 with 8 references and Benjamin Smith (executive) in 2018 with 7 references. Their edits to other articles added 0 references. They also added the photo File:Benjamin_Smith_AirFranceKLM.jpg as their own work. MezzG is a single purpose account, with one edit to the en article and eight to the fr article. TSventon (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

RELX, Elsevier

Articles
Users
  • Some Yoodaba plus many distinct IPs all using the same proxy network.

For more context, see Talk:Elsevier § Undisclosed paid edits. An undisclosed paid editing company is doing reputation management on Elsevier and RELX, removing criticism, etc. Help with clean up is appreciated. Most of the activity uses rotating IP proxies, so there's not much more to be done in terms of blocks. This affects many other other articles about companies, but opening this thread at the moment while I gather more evidence on others. MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the concerned articles could be semi-protected? That should prevent IP socking (and force user account socking instead, which is much harder). Casspedia (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure page protection is needed, at least for Elsevier. It has many active editors watching and part of the UPE edits were quickly reverted even before I reported them. The IP socking is annoying, but it's not really fast-paced. I think we can handle it without protection as long as we are aware of what's going on, and a few editors keep an eye on these articles. MarioGom (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
My expectation is that this sockfarm changes tactics now. They expected this proxy network to be undetectable, and they used that for the sensitive part of their operation. Now that they know it is widely detectable, I don't expect them to continue using it any much longer. But who knows, it will take some time to confirm. MarioGom (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@MarioGom: If I'm following the breadcrumbs properly, the proxy network appears as ordinary residential ISPs when they were editing logged out. In other words a residential proxy. Is this a new development? - Bri.public (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Bri.public: Yes. These networks are usually marketed as residential proxies. They are characterized by highly rotating IPs from residential ISPs. Endpoints are usually mobile phones with dodgy apps or malware. Some of the habitual users at WPOP, including me, are now using a private service to identify these residential proxies. The one used here is a "premium" network that is relatively hard to get an account with, so it's usually used by more established companies. This is different from other proxy networks that accept many SEO users, and the malware proxy networks that are mainly about criminal activity.
I'm somewhat reluctant to specify some of the technical details, because I don't want to publish here a guide on "how to sock for UPE and get away with it" (BEANS), but on the other hand, I think at some point we need wider community awareness of this phenomenon. MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This is very disturbing and I think I found a well known security blogger describing this residential proxy network or one just like it. The worst thing is it appears at least some of the 4G/home broadband providers are effectively in cahoots selling their IP ranges. I agree we need more awareness ... maybe someone would like to do a Signpost piece? I could help sponsor, copyedit, other gnomish things if needed. - Bri.public (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The pattern was pretty obvious: the employees stopped trying to get their edits performed by asking on the talk page. Random unregistered users are unlikely to come out of the woodwork and suddenly get interested in updating financial details on an article like this, so I suspected it was just Elsevier employees editing logged out. I'm not sure there's such an urgency as to justify semiprotection.
Someone should however find a way to contact whoever is responsible for this pattern of edits. I hate to say it, but the most effective method may be Twitter: some of users most active in Elsevier-related discussions are @tomreller, @ClaudioElsevier and @paul_abrahams. Nemo 16:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure. If they fire the marketing agency it would be great. It's one of the most active UPE sockfarms. MarioGom (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just for the record: it looks like a couple of days after opening this thread, Yoodaba has completely stopped using the proxy network I mentioned. I think they are testing other proxies and VPNs, so probably we'll be back at this after some time. MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

More Lesbianadvocate sockfarm creations

Lesbianadvocate UPE sockfarm has created these, in addition to managing or creating the stuff in #Smithfield Foods above. Some are really bad and may be g5 eligible. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe this IP is acting for the sockfarm as well. Note edits on Steve Starks [7], created by the sockfarm; and recent and typically promotional edits at Vista Outdoor [8] and Federal Premium Ammunition [9], which are probably being managed by Lesbianadvocate. Administrator attention would be welcome, because WP:WPOP deemed the technical data inconclusive [10], and did not block. - Bri.public (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In the arms cluster, they have also edited CCI (ammunition) and Savage Arms. MarioGom (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

More proxies, blocked yesterday. Have edited the arms cluster and other stuff consistent with LA sockfarm. - Bri.public (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Another Astrill VPN batch used by LA (reported to WP:WPOP already):

There is also a lot of activity from various Hong Kong IPs. I think that's not proxies, but the possible location of the sockfarm or a team related to it. MarioGom (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Shinjiru colo webhost, blocked. Looks like same sockfarm. - Bri.public (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It is an Astrill VPN node. It's definitely them. MarioGom (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Barry Smolin

Nothing too egregious here, but I figured I'd float the possibility. The editor seems to be overwhelmingly single-purpose, editing only Barry Smolin, Smolin's school, Alexander Hamilton High School (Los Angeles), a previous iteration called Barry smolin that wasn't formally moved, Fairfax High School (Los Angeles), Hartfield-Zodys, Mata Hari, List of University of California, Los Angeles people, Veronica Lake, Weeds (TV Series), and a redirect called Mr. Smolin– nearly all to insert edits mentioning Smolin, NPOV or not. The editing has been pretty consistent since 2008. The editing is remarkably quick, too– this [11] added a new song of Smolin's the exact same day it was released,[1] as was [12] that one,[2], [13] that one,[3] [14] that one (actually, it was somehow edited in the day before the source said it was released),[4] [15] and that one.[5] I didn't cherry-pick examples, those are the five most recent songs added to the page's discography.

This [16] (along with this [17] stuck out at me as being against WP:NPOV, but again, nothing too serious. The first version of the page, shown here, also looks like it was pretty promotional. It was redirected without a formal move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I edited the page [18] to remove some things I thought were needless puffery or otherwise inadherent to WP:NPOV. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Deep In The Sea-Meant Pond, by Mr. Smolin & Double Naught Spy Car". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
  2. ^ "A Pocketful of Poesies, by Mr. Smolin & Marc Doten". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
  3. ^ "Tender Buttons, by Mr. Smolin". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
  4. ^ "A Trespass Offering, by Mr. Smolin". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
  5. ^ "I Knew It By The River, by Mr. Smolin". Mr. Smolin. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
Looks like a WP:BLP1E on the basis of the unproven accusation. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC),
@Xxanthippe: hmm? sorry, I'm not understanding. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I cannot see any notability except for the as yet unproven accusation. prod or AfD would be appropriate on basis of BLP1E Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC).
@Xxanthippe: I happen to disagree, please take a look at the sources for teaching and radio. If we could avoid a weeklong floor fight on this, that'd be appreciated, to be honest. I obviously can't stop you but please double check before nominating. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Notability might be a genuine question. The huge glut of amazon.com links at the end and many other bad sources are clouding things.--- Possibly (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Without question those are extraneous, given the possible COI on the page, but even the LA times article on the harassment acknowledges prior notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Groton, Massachusetts

While I was patrolling recent changes, I came across an editor by the name of Groton Herald— and they were editing Groton, Massachusetts. I immediately thought there might be a COI here, so I checked out their edit. Turns out that they removed an entire paragraph talking about Groton’s former anti-Catholic and racial prejudices. I think that this user, being known as Groton Herald (hint-hint, it’s in the name), is trying to promote Groton by removing the disagreeable parts of its past. They said it themself in their edit summary: ‘this page needs moderation’. They said they’ll be back to work on it more. This user is obviously trying to ‘moderate’ the page by removing certain sections. This cannot go on; Wikipedia is not a censored place. We don’t leave out parts of history we find offensive. Definite COI— Groton Herald’s the name of a newspaper up there. HelenDegenerate (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate, did you read the Additional notes at the top of this page, which say "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"? I warned Groton Herald about their user name and Kinu subsequently blocked them. TSventon (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
TSventon, I didn’t see that part... sorry if I took up valuable space on this noticeboard. ;’( HelenDegenerate (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
HelenDegenerate, don't worry, I just wanted to let you know for next time. TSventon (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Priyamvada Gopal

PostcolonialLitNerd is a WP:SPA that is making promotional edits to Gopal, removing controversies, writing in a non-neutral manner, and adding numerous external links. In the space of their editing career, PostcolonialLitNerd made 86 edits to Gopal and the talk page and one edit to their own talk page. Nothing else. When queried at User talk:PostcolonialLitNerd#Priyamvada Gopal on a possible relationship they denied such a relationship. This denial is not credible to me, and User:Xxanthippe and User:Atchom have raised concerns as well. Pikavoom (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to initiate an independent review of the neutrality and veracity of my edits in the Sewell and 'Controversies' sections. Happy to keep reverting edits that are malign and foolish. PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I confirm that I regard the conduct of spa User:PostcolonialLitNerd as highly suspicious. It might be appropriate to investigate if there is any connection with User:Sidra2311. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC).
I second this. PostcolonialLitNerd has only edited that single article since they joined Wikipedia in 2019, with a marked bias in favour of the subject. They have since engaged in one-side canvassing, been rude and dismissive, and refused to engage in good faith discussion more generally. Atchom (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Atchom, do you know what projection means? PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring continues.[19] Xxanthippe. (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC).

User is willing to openly disregard WP:V to push their POV [20] and removes opinion pieces published in high-quality press (The Times) critical of the article's subject [21]. Should their behaviour perhaps rather be discussed at WP:ANI? 15 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please review my edit

I have added a citation to my academic article to a Wikipedia policy page which made an unreferenced claim that my research cofirms. Per best practices, I am self-reporting here for a review. Diff to my addition. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the addition:
  1. No references are required for Wikipedia policy
  2. As a reference it was malformed on several levels (repetitive content; reference text not in a proper section...)
  3. The paper is not free-access
  4. From the free-access abstract I understand that a key aspect of the study is its survey of "... the importance of interpersonal conflict as an understudied yet highly significant factor": the reference was added to a section that did not mention in any guise such "interpersonal conflict" aspect. If you would like that this aspect is mentioned in the policy section (which might be a good idea but might need some thought), please propose it on talk and find consensus for it.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
...and I've reverted your revert, since the objections are silly. Policy pages don't need references, but there's no prohibition on them, and it's common to use footnotes to link to related reading. Imperfect formatting is easily fixed. Sources don't have to be freely accessible. The full text specifically discusses harassment and directly supports the text it's attached to. – Joe (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Likely COI editing

I'm hesitant to even bring this up, not sure if it warrants an ANI, but... Yesterday while patrolling the uncategorised articles list, I came across this short and unreferenced stub about a book that is scheduled for publishing only next year, and replaced it with a redir to the author's article, Matthew Richardson (author). I then realised that the latter was virtually unreferenced as well, and tagged it for refimprove and notability. Cut a long story short, I think the creator of both articles (and a third one, The Royal Book of Lists), Hadropithecus, may be the same as the author of the two books. When I queried this, I didn't get any response, but I did receive a somewhat irate reply telling me more or less to back off. My next move would be to AfD the articles in question, but I also don't want to come across as a harasser (any more than I already do!), and certainly not if I'm actually the one in the wrong here (in which case, I'm more than happy to have that pointed out to me). So I guess what I'm after is a second opinion and a sanity check, of sorts? TIA, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Look, this is really bordering on stalking. The very old page was updated by me in the spirit of Wikipedia, and now some anonymous creep is demanding proof of the subject's "notability." I have no means of deleting the page myself, so I'm asking Wikipedia to please do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadropithecus (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Moved from ANI to WP:COIN. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah seems like textbook COI and self-promotion since the user has only edited articles to insert and promote Matthew Richardson. Who else would know such details on a book not to be published for another year as well. Looks like this has been going on for a decade , and with lots of non-logged in editing as well judging by the IPs. They even admit it's themselves on their talk page. So yes, all mentions of this person are pure self-promotion and clear COI editing. Since there has not been a single other established editor that has done more than maintenance edits on that page in over a decade, I think it's pretty safe to assume that this person is in fact not notable. We can take it to AfD though and let the board decide. Canterbury Tail talk 15:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved an AfD on one of the articles WP:Articles for deletion/The Royal Book of Lists to start with. Waiting to see what happens to the 'parent' article on the author; if that gets deleted by one means or another, then the other book article (currently a redir) can presumably just get speedied? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The author's AFD is here.--- Possibly (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_172&oldid=1023750939"