Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The Hidden World of Wikipedia Page Creation Services
"This is where Maximatic Media's expertise comes into play, crafting pages that not only go live but remain intact against the scrutiny of Wikipedia's dedicated community of editors and administrators."

For the interested. Sadly, the writer never asked about if they follow WP:PAID. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd go even further and say it's downright malpractice to write a whole article about undisclosed paid editing and not mention that it is banned. Maximatic Media doesn't disclose their username where they advertise their services and therefore are violating Paid-contribution disclosure. But WP:RSP tells me that this is a self-published content mill, so it's probably no use trying to get it corrected. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well you know, there's that delicate balance between doing stuff they can get paid for and other stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this outfit 'Maximatic Media' is already on our radar. It's not on WP:PAIDLIST and I couldn't find any previous discussion of it, but they might just have changed their name. A Newbie-Friendly Guide to Creating and Self-Publishing Your Own Wikipedia Page claims they are "a somewhat renown [sic] Wikipedia editor" and implies they have access to an account that's "been around for 7+ years and has made 3,000+ edits across various existing pages alongside the 300+ pages they've created and published themselves". Of course, they all say that, but the actually-quite-good knowledge of our policies and how to circumvent them on display in that article suggests it might not be total bullshit this time. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article includes a disclaimer at the top that Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own and also that You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media. That this would be a sort of paid news piece doesn't seem to be all that surprising, and editorial standards regarding paid news tend to be quite low; this piece is somewhat indistinguishable from an ad. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, Maximatic Media list this as one of the sites that clients can pay to be published in. I would be unsurpised if they felt that something good for their clients may well be good for them. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see UPEs making high quality BLPs (+30 refs, photo, full MOS-editing), but where the refs are primary/speaker bios/obscure publications etc., and ultimately the main source of their notability is their Wikipedia blp (e.g. like Ian Khan (theoretical futurist)). We should have a WP:ACRONYM for such cases (e.g. WP:WIKINOTABILITY or WP:CARTBEFORETHEHORSE). Aszx5000 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

See this super-gross Rolling Stone UK piece with a tiny disclaimer at the bottom "Stream Publishing not involved in this content" i.e. it's churnalism under their name. Of course, reputation management is Maximatic's business; their Wikipedia page creation service is listed under the wonderful sub-heading "Mastering Online Reputation Management". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * So band spam? Secretlondon (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Band spam, but since it comes from a Rolling Stone url and the thing that lets us tell that it is sponsored content appears at the bottom, it might be a bit more likely to slip through the cracks at AfC or NPP. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've had no luck trying to tie this company to any on-wiki activity. I think it speaks to the evolving tactics of UPE operations. They know that it's very difficult to slip non-notable subjects by NPP, so they focus on manufacturing (pseudo-)SIGCOV through paid placements first. They know that running your own sockfarm isn't sustainable, so they focus on—unfortunately there is no escaping this now—getting accounts with the NPP flag so that they can mark reviewed articles created by one-off freelancers. It's a challenge. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If that's the way that the game has changed, perhaps an audit of NPP review actions by trusted users might be worthwhile? Could even be done on a sample basis, but it should help to catch/mitigate some of that. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah we already do that. There are 800 NPPers doing several thousand reviews a day though. It's a crapshoot. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that there was a systematic audit in this area. Is there some page that describes this, or is it mostly ad-hoc? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a tool that can cross-reference specific citation sources with editors who frequently insert them? Cross-referencing some of the sources mentioned in this article would give a hint. There's even a spreadsheet that list the dollar amounts and impact of the sources the PR company can publish in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is COIBot, but it's a bit hard to use, and its use is somewhat restricted. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What the fuuuuuck? I had no idea RS did stuff like this. For any confused reader, Stream Publishing is Rolling Stone UK's publisher. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 04:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zanahary It can pop up in all sorts of places: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442, WP:RSNOI, WP:KIRKUS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

https://maximaticmedia.com/twitter-username-claims/ "our Media Partner representative at Twitter and await their approval." Sorry, maybe a Media Partner representative at CNN or White House? This smells of scam. Only an idiot would risk employment at Twitter for this travesty. These aren't playing with you. Fired, and black listed till no-one will hire you again. Why, it's illegal actions. Fraud.Gamma1138 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a broader discussion to be had on the evolving unreliability of US news sources once thought always RS (Newsweek, NY Observer, Sports Illustrated). I see a lot of churnalistic crap sources during AfD procedures on BLPs. The pros are using our rules and creating the cites they need. At scale this makes sense. So far the dike is holding. BusterD (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yousuf Bhailok


To quote edit summaries I am his assistant. I have updated more about him and This is the real version for yousuf Bhailok. I am his election campaign manager, both left while turning the article into a hagiography. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The slur by association in that article is terrible and certainly was correctly removed. Secretlondon (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * IE the controversy section which is all about someone else. Secretlondon (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I hesitated to remove it entirely due to it being sourced (people get weird when an IP removes sourced information, even when it's as terrible as that para was) and am happy that it now has been. The hagiography that replaced the entire article a few edits earlier is now something to watch for in case it returns, in my opinion. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. Secretlondon (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, just adding to this again - this assistant keeps removing information about the person. Is this allowed? Prestoncitizen123 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm just adding to this - this person who claims to be his summary seems to be removing alot of things; while I agree it was wrong of me to add the slur by association (i own up to this) He seems to be removing valid information which adds to the page. Please advise? Prestoncitizen123 (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Marathon Asset Management


This user has been adding advertising (or at least very spammy Title Case Industry Jargon) to this article. No communication; reversal is met with instant reversion. Coming here to avoid 3RR issues. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I will note that the user has not edited since they were warned about our undisclosed paid editing policy. None of the user's contributions remain in the article. Please ping me if the user edits again, or if there is any additional sort of promotional fluff coming from new accounts to that article. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * appeared yesterday making the same edits, but got squashed by Cluebot. Just FYI at this point. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to semi-protect the page for a month to see if that calms things down. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

UPE - Message from Simple English Wiki


I received a message on my talk page on Simple English Wikipedia which led to this discussion also on Simple English Wikipedia about user Nuel Jr. Copying information here for those interested and notified the person who pinged me to email evidence to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I received a similar ping. I usually don't respond to off-wiki material like that, but the link is 100% compelling and I've disabled the Nuel Jr account. I don't really want to fall afoul of our limitations on outing, so I'll avoid linking to anything. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I had that thought too which is why I told the user to email the appropriate people. Thanks for checking into it. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of this. I have requested a revision deletion per WP:OUTING (though I am not familiar with their local policies) and reverted the obvious paid edits by the user in question. However, further review is needed to identify any additional spam. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Without having seen any external evidence, I was considering blocking the account as a spam account. It has an extensive history of blatantly promotional editing, so much so that It's remarkable that he's got away with it for so long. JBW (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Nine pages created by this editor have been deleted as promotional, by various administrators. Others probably should be deleted. JBW (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now checked the editor's page creations, and deleted two more of them as promotional. There is one more draft, which in my opinion is promotional-ish, but not enough to justify speedy deletion. JBW (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was much needed. From their off-wiki profile, it looks like they were also hired to create draft:Vijay Kumbhar, which they got undeleted through WP:RFU. The draft is a complete mess and should be deleted too, imo. Also, their need a review since they’ve flooded it with citations from YouTube videos and other poor sources. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you for pointing Draft:Vijay Kumbhar out; I've deleted that too. Nuel Jr was effectively responsible for the existence of that article, but since his name didn't show as the creator of the page I missed it first time. I don't have time now to check Alec Torelli, but you may like to see if there's any reverting you would like to do. JBW (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Borodich


The latest undeclared paid editor on this article appears to have a single goal – removal of the UPE template at the top. It was removed without comment by them as their first ever edit, and removed again without comment as their second. They then made a series of very minor edits culminating with the removal of the template again. Once more (wrongly, I should've come here at this point, I put my hands up to it) it was removed this time saying that their small changes of capitalisation and word order meant that the UPE tag no longer applied, and again with the same reasoning.

I'm done here, as I should've been about 4 edits on the article ago, but would like others to take a look if possible. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked as a sock. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Back as . Just reverted again. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:4087:A0C5:26D7:210A (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Uma' Anũpa'

 * User talk:Uma' Anũpa'

I am member of the Houma Language Project. We are a volunteer-led group of community members and linguists passionately focused on the reclamation and reconstruction of the Indigenous Houma language which was spoken in south Louisiana. In addition, we focus on cultural activities and archival documentation of the history of the Houma people and language.

As a result of our work and our expertise, we have noticed a myriad of pages on Wikipedia relating to Indigenous peoples of Louisiana, especially the Houma, that do not reflect existing published resources and lack substantive and in some cases accurate information. To remedy this, I volunteered to create a Wikipedia account on behalf of the project in early June. I made an error in that I created the account for use by the Houma Language Project team as a group, which I now understand to be in violation of Wikipedia's account policy. This has been rectified in that now I will be using the account as an individual, and the username has been changed to reflect this. However, I have received confusing and unsubstantiated mandates from several editors to not edit pages directly but instead to post edit requests (please see the User talk page). It has not explained why this would constitute a COI under Wikipedia guidelines but has instead placed the onus on me to seek an explanation for an arbitrarily dictated ruleset not clearly outlined (to the best of my knowledge) under Wikipedia's own terms.

Houma Language Project is neither a for-profit business, an incorporated non-profit, nor a tribe-affiliated entity at the time of writing. We are a group of individuals who have decided to dedicate our time to work together on the language. No one is an employee of the Houma Language Project, and as such, there is no possibility of payment in exchange for editing on Wikipedia. In addition, the COI guidelines were clearly written to avoid self-promotion and the entangelement of financial and business relationships with editing on Wikipedia. It has not been demonstrated to me how the editing of pages about the language and the Houma people, rather than, for example, a page about the Houma Language Project itself, while operating under Wikipedia's terms (such as using neutral language and acceptable references) coincides with any of these conflicts and constitutes promotion or advocacy of a particular point-of-view.

- User:Uma' Anũpa' (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

John B. Goddard School of Business & Economics


I came across an interesting situation and wanted to make sure this doesn't represent an unusual variation on a paid COI. See the talk page for for details. In short, they are a student at the school and are unpaid but acting under the direction of the dean's office. I asked them to follow the unpaid COI rules but may be mistaken. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * My understanding, based on the Paid-contribution disclosure page, is that if they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose. But this doesn't look like an internship in the traditional sense; these sorts of volunteer groups can almost function as pseudo-student clubs. There might be perks (such as bowling or escape room trips), but I'm a bit hesitant to label it as compensation for purposes of our policy—I'd struggle to see how it is different than a professor who is running a WikiEd class that happens to have dinner at his/her home one night or hosts a catered classroom edit-a-thon.
 * That being said, it's obviously a conflict-of-interest if the individual is acting on behalf of the school itself (or on behalf of a student group whose raison d'être is to promote the school), and you are correct to insist that the user follow the ordinary WP:COI rules and avoid claiming ownership of the page. If the editing pattern becomes overtly promotional, we would treat them no differently than any other sort of editor who is acting in an overtly promotional way. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Harlette


On the article Harlette, LuxuryUK72 has added content about the subject in a promotional tone, as well as on King's College London. Since the article subject operates a UK-based company called Harlette Luxury Lingerie & Swimwear, this username may be a reference to the company. With these two factors in mind, I gave LuxuryUK72 a COI warning on their talk page. Said user, however, has ignored this warning and continued to re-add the promotional content to these two articles, while adding snide comments on my talk page such as "clearly you have no understanding." Therefore, I'm opening up this case for investigation from more experienced users.--Panian513 02:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The COI is obvious and presumably a continuation of who was warned about COI back in 2019. I couldn't find any decent sources so have nominated it for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Sujandahal76


The user account was registered nearly two years ago, and the very first edit was to create a draft on Classic Tech, a business in Nepal. Since then, the user's almost entire edit history Special:Contributions/Sujandahal76 has to do with this draft, or discussions about it. (They have more recently diversified into a couple of other topics, so can't call them quite SPA.) Paid editing has been queried on the user's talk page, previously by another editor and most recently by me, but the user denies it. However, off-Wiki evidence (and I'll say no more, so as not to out anyone) shows that an individual, whose name matches the user name of this editor, works at Classic Tech. My contention is that either the edit history or the user name could just about be coincidences, but put together the more likely explanation is UPE. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, purely for the purposes of my own understanding (and not wishing to suggest anything untoward) how is it not 'outing' to state, when suggesting a COI, that the SPA username matches the name of an employee of the company that the article is about?
 * I ask the question simply because I was once in a position where I was aware of a similar possible COI situation. On that occasion I didn't mention the information because I felt that to do so would probably breach WP:OUTING.
 * My reading of the policy was simply that making an observation such as the one above is effectively posting another editor's personal information when that editor has not posted that information themselves.
 * I'd be grateful for some guidance on this point. Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be equally grateful, @Axad12. I don't know, TBH, and if I've crossed a line, I'm happy to have my knuckles rapped (or worse, as may be seen fit), and this thread to be redacted.
 * My rationale, FWIW, was that the username is what it is, and is visible to everyone. If my real name were Double Grazing, and someone said "hey, aren't you Double Grazing?", I'd say "sure, as it says right there". But if my real name is John Smith, my username is DoubleGrazing, and someone said "DoubleGrazing is actually John Smith", I'd probably be unhappy to have my cover blown. That's not the case here, though.
 * As for the off-wiki evidence I mentioned, that's again publicly available. I haven't doxxed anyone, I'm just saying that it's there.
 * If I got that wrong, I trust someone will tell me soon enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They are using their own name to edit Wikipedia which is the same name as somebody who works for the company, that is not outing? Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:OUTING is that if the user has not previously stated on Wikipedia that their username is their real name and that they work for a given company, then for another user to observe that such info can easily be located elsewhere is outing.
 * If the username was in the format '[realname][employer]' then they have effectively outed themselves. But if the username is just '[realname]' then for someone else to state that the user works for a given company is outing. Correct? Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to point out the irony here, the user is saying they are not the person working in that company, and I'm barking up a wrong tree. If that's true, then I haven't outed anyone. The only way I might have outed them is if they are indeed that person, in which case we have a UPE situation. (Okay, you might say that two wrongs don't make a right, an UPE doesn't justify outing, but I did give them the opportunity to disclose paid-editing without having to come to COIN, which they declined to do.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't doubt that you were right to raise COI concerns in this case. I just think that speculating on the user's identity is unnecessary when they are an obvious SPA who has had the article repeatedly declined to be included in mainspace.
 * Also, saying that you haven't tried to out anyone, because they previously denied being that person, is illogical. You tried to out them, and whatever they had to say about it (and whether they were telling the truth or not) is irrelevant. Axad12 (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether I've actually outed someone or not, remains to be seen; so far this is your opinion, so let's not treat it as a foregone conclusion just yet. And how you could know what I did or didn't try to do, I'm not sure.
 * Anyway, if you have a problem with my actions, maybe you should take me to ANI, because this discussion is becoming more about me than about COI/UPE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear that what happened here was based on a misunderstanding of the relevant policy which has now been resolved - so no need for ANI. Axad12 (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Poppodoms


Poppodoms seems to be a Single-purpose account dedicated to creating articls related to Huawei such as BiSheng compiler, Cangjie (programming language), ArkTS, Ark Compiler, ArkUI, HarmonyOS NEXT, HarmonyOS kernel and more. I added a template on the Cangjie page which seems to have upset him as he wrote on my user page that I have 24 hours to remove it or else he will get other wiki mods to challenge it, one minute later an IP address removed the COI template and 3 minutes later the IP address wrote that my page that it has been "it has been resolved", 1 minute later Poppodoms responded thanking said IP address and wrote an unfounded statement about "discrimination and racism needs to stop". Frap (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me how you got from SPA to COI. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it does not makes sense. Poppodoms (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's not unfounded, you targeted my account, throwing unfounded accusations around "single purpose account". Yeah, I gave you a notice and shortly it was resolved because your behaviour is disgusting on this account in not being objective, abusing the policies of Wikipedia objectiveness with blatant racial biases in your decision making and you are doing it again right here. FMOD, Apk (file format), Vulkan are not Huawei properties, last I checked when contributing those pages before. BTW, it is spelt "articles", not "articls" Poppodoms (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not explained from your side how did you get from SPA to COI. You throw tags without any purpose of your decision making. Poppodoms (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * others contributes these pages you mentioned Poppodoms (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think given my experience at Template talk:Programming languages and looking at their edits,, is likely connected as well. Skynxnex (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello
 * Could you please tell me why and how I'm connected to this user?
 * Best regard, XeVierTech XeVierTech (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have primary edited HarmonyOS and Huawei related articles. You also somehow found the discussion I started on programming languages template talk page an hour after Poppodoms commented on it to support their position. It can be, of course, you noticed it some other way and it's coincidental but, to me, it seems like it needs to be explained. Skynxnex (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello
 * I want to clarify that im mostly editing Huawei related topics as that's my topic of interest and I run a whole community on discord around Huawei. That should briefly explain why I edit only Huawei related topics.
 * How I found this discussion? One of my friends who's into programming on HarmonyOS os sent me link to this discussion and I found poppodoms point valid. Sorry if I caused any problems by that.
 * Best regards, XeVierTech XeVierTech (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool and look forward to your future contributions! I hope it's clear why I was concerned. I'll note that in some cases notifications like that can be considered WP:MEATPUPPETry (which mostly is about the person sending the notification), which may be a useful read (mostly sharing for context and for you to keep in mind about future editing). Thanks for explaining how you found it Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

UPE account
This account,, is most likely a UPE. They have interest in Pakistani politics, created a biography of obscure "independent film director", and an obscure Saudi event sourced with press releases, InFlavour. Maybe we can draftify InFlavour? I also found this ad by InFlavour when I did a Google Search (accessible once you register on the site). 217.165.8.38 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * IP - are you sure there's WP:UPE involved with Syed Fakhar Imam? Because if there is, this is intriguing to me, and I'd definitely like to look into it. Also I'll give you props if you can also provide evidence to support your claims. — Saqib  ( talk  I  contribs ) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

COI edits by User:Jonmsweeney


It appears that Jonmsweeney has been editing in violation of the clear conflict of interest for many years. If they are not Jon M. Sweeney then they should probably be blocked for using that person's name as their username. If they are Jon Sweeney or closely connected to him then have edited in violation of that conflict of interest many, many times despite being warned several times on their User Talk page. Examples of edits that appear to be problematic include:


 * Adding Jon M. Sweeney to the "Notable alumni" section of Wheaton College (Illinois)
 * Adding their name to Phyllis Tickle (as the author of a biography about Tickle)
 * Adding their name and publication to Paul Sabatier (theologian)
 * Adding their name and a center they directed to Sacred Heart School of Theology
 * Editing the article about Jon M. Sweeney

These edits have been occurring since 2017. They did pause for about two years but they began again today. These edits are not acceptable and they must cease, one way or another. ElKevbo (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The CoI edits to the Jon M. Sweeney seem to be particularly problematic. That article reads like a self-published fluff piece.  Of their other edits, most do appear to be self-promotional.  I'm very concerned about the fact that they have clearly ignored the multiple TP notices regarding CoI.   Butler Blog   (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Jordan Schmidt


I'm bringing this here after discussion on my talk page, which has left me a little concerned about both the application of WP:OUTING and whether I am applying WP:COI too strictly. So it would be good to get other editors to weigh in. Quick summary from my point of view is that I observed apparent WP:SPA and promotional editing on the article (as well as some related articles), did some googling on the usernames which shows some possible connections, and therefore left COI notices for two editors (Mark (daschent) and Josephchudyk) and a paid notice for the third (Chelseadelmege). User:Mtjannetta then asked me why I had done this, leading to the ongoing discussion on my talk page, in the course of which, he has stated that User:Mark (daschent) is a family member of the subject of the article, and further that he has known him personally for many years. I do not believe that user has ever disclosed those details, although I do note that was uploaded by them as the copyright holder with a caption saying it was created by a similar name "as business manager for Jordan M. Schmidt for marketing purposes". Melcous (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to contribute my thoughts on this matter.
 * I do not understand the underlying motives prompting this editor to target this country western star. His page was relatively lightweight compared to others in the music industry. I was asked to look at the page for recommendations on improvements. I mentioned that I only specialize in articles about silent movies and biographies of dead people. Ultimately, I made the decision to make it a personal project due to my lack of experience in that field, i.e. writing about living people.
 * Melcous selected three editors from a pool of 128 who have worked on the page since 2014 and alleged they committed COI violations. I wondered why. One of the users happened to be the subject's father, who I've been friends with for years. Yes, there could be COI issues here. I have pointed out that when Mark (his father) made any additions to the Jordan Schmidt page that could be deemed promotional or biased, other editors quickly removed them. I have also noted that Mark has very little experience navigating Wikipedia. If he included wording that may seem promotional or biased, he didn't mean to. Mark was unaware of the identities of the other two users.
 * Moreover, I pointed out to Melcous that most of the three users with potential COIs have specifically added content to the discography and awards sections (discography has since been moved to its own page). These additions are all from public sources and can be easily verified. In other words, they are plain vanilla and are not promotional. They are merely straightforward additions to this celebrity's growing list of accomplishments.
 * I would also like to ask–Where does this COI start to unravel?
 * I innocently requested the editor to remove the COI tag, thinking it would be an easy task. This simple request has turned into a huge verbal battle. Jordan Schmidt's status as an established country star means that the business generated by his Wikipedia page will have minimal influence on his successful career as a songwriter, producer, and engineer. Who are we going to start flinging these COI accusations next? Will you accuse Jordan Schmidt's wife, her 6,000 Facebook friends, his sister and her 1,400 friends, his older brother, and his mother of COI? Mark and his son are both involved in a small family-owned business located in Nashville, Tennessee. Should we prohibit all business members from contributing to Schmidt's discography?
 * I would also like to point out she now accuses me of having COI. She added to her talk page, "As you have a personal relationship with a family member of the subject of the article, it would seem you too have a clear conflict of interest.." When will it all end??
 * Now I notice that after a 53-day hiatus from editing Jordan Schmidt's page–She's back. Shortly after our heated debates on her talk page about this precise article, she has opted to conduct a more detailed examination of Jordan Schmidt's page. Could there be a certain level of vindictive behavior? I am not sure if this is the proper venue for this request. However, I would like to suggest that Melcous be prohibited from any further edits on Jordan Schmidt's page and any edits to my articles. In my opinion, she has shown excessive bias against the subject, his father, and myself. The community discussion and her talk page discussions indicate that this editor will continue to display maliciousness in her editing, both now and in the future.
 * Lastly, she stated on her talk page, "My suggestion would be that both of you need to step away from articles that you are connected to by virtue of your relationships."
 * Thus, now I need to step back. Maybe we all need to step back!
 * Thanks
 * Michael Jannetta (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Michael, I'm afraid you are wrong. Having a familial relationship, working relationship or friendship with the subject of a Wikipedia article constitutes a very clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia policy is clear on this point and is strongly on the side of Melcous' position.
 * By suggesting that Melcous is 'display[ing] maliciouness' and 'vindictive behaviour' in simply reflecting Wikipedia policy you are engaging in unsubstantiated personal attacks on a very experienced and highly respected editor. I would suggest that you stop.
 * Melcous has responded to your points at some length on their talk page. Their interpretation of the various points discussed is correct (including on the matter of you appearing to have outed several other editors in contravention of the relevant policy). The real issue here, I think, is that you need to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies (probably starting with WP:COI, WP:NPA, and WP:OUTING) rather than asking for sanctions to be taken against someone working within those policies.
 * (Also, re: you comment above about 'my articles', see WP:OWN). Axad12 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your insightful thoughts. This is the first time, in my 6 1/2 years of writing for Wikipedia, that I've faced a situation like this. I'm entering unfamiliar territory here.
 * Let me once again address the outing situation. I google two users names and innocently posted their name in what I thought was a semi-private conversation. Nothing nefarious was planned or intended. Now, that I am aware of that Wikipedia has an "Outing" policy and what it means. This will never happen again! I reiterate, this was new territory for me.
 * I have read WP:COI. I am uncomfortable adding this tag - to the top of a country-western celebrity page. If I post my username, it could attract some questionable characters. Posting  on my Wikipedia home page is not a problem for me, and I have already taken care of it.
 * The discussion began with a request to Melcous to remove the UPE tag on the subject's page. I thought a Wikipedia non-editor could do this once they believed the situation had been remedied. Mark, who is Jordan's father, attempted this but the removal was swiftly reverted.
 * Since this is/was my pet project, I will be implementing several alterations (hopefully improvements), primarily on the discography page. At present, when a user opens this page, they are greeted with a prominent notice stating - This article might have been produced or modified in exchange for undisclosed payments. Since I am posting the majority of changes on this page, as an older adult pushing 80, it looks like I'm trying to supplement my meager pension by charging individuals to write Wikipedia articles. I guess I should feel flattered in some ways due to my age, but the label is offensive to me.
 * So, to circle back to my initial question that sparked this conversation, what actions do we need to take in order to eliminate this “… undisclosed payments” flag?
 * Thanks
 * Michael Jannetta (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the broader issue on that point relates to the connections that the other three users listed at the top of this thread have to the subject of the article. Looking at the discussion on Melcous' talk page you have said there are no connections, but Melcous states that there is clear evidence to the contrary. I haven't looked into what that evidence may be, but if there is reason to suggest some form of link then it doesn't seem unreasonable for there to be a flag saying (as at present) that the article 'may' have been edited in return for payment. Axad12 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers,
 * I have placed this on  user"Mark(daschent) home page. I would be more than happy to post this notice on the two other userids, but I have no idea who they are or what connection to Jordan Schmidt they have. And, I also would like to see this "clear evidence" of their COI conflict. Is it possible to present this evidence on this thread while adhering to the guidelines published in WP:OUTING ?
 * Since Jordan Schmidt is a celebrity, it follows he is going to have tons of friends and business relationships. What happens if a certain number of his friends or business associates decide to edit his page over time? Does an editor need to be permanently assigned to police this page for possible COI violations. This what I mean by getting out of hand.
 * Is an editor monitoring e.g. Mitchell Tenpenny, Blake Shelton, Hardy(singer), some of Jordan's friends, for possible COI conflicts? Which circles back to another one of my original question - why is this celebrity being singled out?
 * Thanks
 * Michael Jannetta (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Posting information about another user which they have not themselves already posted on Wikipedia is outing. The answer to your first question is therefore 'no'.
 * With regards to the rest of your post above...
 * None of the reports here on the COI noticeboard are the result of people being 'singled out'. I'd suggest that you drop that suggestion, which is just you doubling down on your previous ill-advised comment that Melcous was behaving in a malicious and vindictive manner (when all they were doing was reporting, as any responsible user would do, reasonable cause for concern on COI grounds).
 * Or is your line of argument that because it is impossible to catch all COI editing, that no one should ever be reported? If so, don't expect to find anyone here who agrees with you. Axad12 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Michael Jannetta (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * there are two key elements to responding to COI/PAID editing: disclosure and review. Thank you for disclosing your own COI. You cannot disclose a COI for editors you don't know, they would have to do that themselves. I'm not 100% sure you should be disclosing one on behalf of, but I guess if you are communicating with him that is ok (although I think he should probably be encouraged to make a paid editing disclosure for this and all related articles he has edited). The next step is review: this means you should use the talk page of the article to propose any changes, not edit it directly. And it means that non-conflicted editors need to be satisfied that the article no longer contains promotional content before the tags can be removed. A few other thoughts:
 * * You have said here that you were "asked" to edit this article. By whom? Editing at the direction of someone connected to the subject raises similar concerns to WP:PAID
 * * You have said you have made this article your "pet project". What does this mean? Why? Nobody owns articles here, and as you have a WP:COI, you should not be directly editing the article anyway.
 * * Nobody is targeting anybody, please stop making such accusations against editors. If there are other articles where people are paid or conflicted, the same policies apply. If you become aware of any, please feel free to bring them to this noticeboard. Plenty of "more famous" celebrities than this have had this issue arise - read the archives of this page if you're bored sometime. The same policies apply to all.
 * * There is no rush. Slow down. This is an encyclopedia, not someone's personal website. If they want to have up to date accurate information about themselves available to the world, they should use their own website for that. Maintenance templates are placed for a time to let the wikipedia community do its thing, in this case, have volunteer, neutral editors review the issues (which is what I have been trying to do). You might just need to sit back and wait a couple of weeks/months for that to happen.
 * Thanks, Melcous (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

John Kyrle High School


User has added promotional material to this school's article, and writes as if they are the school. An example: The aim of Respect is simple: we want the students to respect the laws of this country, respect each other and us, and respect their own bodies, have pride in themselves and lead happy lives. Username includes the school initials. I reverted their initial edits on the grounds that they were promotional and sourced to the school's website, and posted on their Talk page about possible conflict of interest. User responded that The edits are factual and sourced, there is no conflict of interest. I have asked directly whether they work for or represent the school, but they have not responded to that. User reverted my changes; I went through the article again and removed the external links, information sourced to the school's website, or promotional, and left in what I could. User has reverted this; they have removed one of the references to "our students" but missed another. These edits still look promotional to me and I am finding it difficult to WP:AGF. Tacyarg (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User has responded Any edits we carry out on Wikipedia (and our own website or other sources) are not for promotional purposes, and suggests that government guidance means that they must edit the school's article on Wikipedia. Tacyarg (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting point that they say govt guidance requires schools to edit Wikipedia. I accessed the govt link provided by the user on their talk page but I couldn't see anything to that effect. Is that an opinion you've encountered before?
 * If other UK schools will be interpreting the guidelines in the same way we can look forward to lots of school-based accounts trying to write their own promotional Wikipedia articles.
 * Seems from the user's talkpage that they've received advice to this effect from some other agency. I'm surprised if schools are being encouraged to directly edit Wikipedia. Seems to me like a very bad idea. Axad12 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think the govt guidance means that at all. As I understand it, it's purely about schools making sure that various statutory documents are on the schools' own websites. The heading is "must or should publish on their website" - I'd say it's hard to read that any other way than "on the school's own website". Later it refers to "on its website", meaning the school's. My guess is that this interpretation is an outlier. If I spot anything similar I'll take it to the schools WikiProject. This particular case is hopefully more or less resolved, with JK7ET! having responded on their Talk page, albeit no formal coi declaration. Thanks for your help. Tacyarg (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's how I see it too. The schools are required to publish certain information, and this school is, for some reason, attempting to do so on Wikipedia rather than on their own website, https://www.jkhs.org.uk/ . I'll keep an eye out for more problems too. Meters (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it’s hard to see how they reached that interpretation.
 * However, given some of the other interpretations that they give in the same talk page post, probably it should all be taken with a pinch of salt….
 * (E.g. interpreting that UK govt regulations ensure that the school’s own website is an independent source, that therefore no COI could exist and that none of their edits could have been promotional.) Axad12 (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Boston Pizza


I don't want to assume bad faith, but I can't see how this, this and this are anything other than WP:UPE. I'm at two reverts and would like to stop there, so further eyes would be appreciated. 87.74.252.246 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User has been CU-blocked. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ejb11131979


Keeps removing properly cited information about controversies on John Mannion (American politician). Is obviously connected to the subject in some way and has not addressed the issues. No communication at all. I have not reverted their edits again because that would breach WP:3RR. C F A  💬  23:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * who reverted their edits previously.  C F A   💬  23:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And now they've broken 3RR...   C F A   💬  23:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them for 48 hours for the edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not the first account to have had a suspected COI with that article, either. I added this one to the article talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Across the River and into the Trees (film)


Can someone explain to this editor what paid editing is? They clearly have a financial stake in the movie: they admitted that it is their movie, and that they're paying people to promote it. But they refuse to disclose their paid editing or even that they have a general conflict of interest. C F A  💬  16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As I've repeatedly explained to you I'm not being paid to put this edit up on Wikipedia. But you keep insinuating I'm lying and saying that I'm being paid when I'm not. Understand why that is any business of you or anybody else. For a company you've got nothing to do with this film so what business is it of yours? I simply want to adjust the information on the page because at the moment it's incorrect. What do I have to do to be able to correct the information? 151.71.102.61 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The only way you could not be a paid editor in this context is if you're an unpaid volunteer for whoever's making the film. But you said you are the one making the film. Which means you are employed and a paid editor. You don't have to be compensated directly for editing Wikipedia to be considered a paid editor. Please take a moment to read Conflict of interest and Paid editing. Thank you.  C F A   💬  16:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems to be just the most recent of a long line of North Italian based IP addresses who have been editing this film article (and various articles relating to the Raikes family). The pattern seems to have started back in 2021 when user Acrosstheriver21 (who said they were a producer on this film) was blocked for PROMO and NLT. A sockpuppet, user Donald Lovewall, was then blocked later that year.
 * IP addresses from 2021-24 that fit that editing pattern include:
 * 93.70.99.136
 * 109.115.89.118
 * 151.71.25.102
 * 85.42.95.70 (blocked for 3 months for NLT)
 * 151.71.32.84 (talk page has discussions of COI and disruptive editing)
 * 151.95.5.178 (talk page discussions on COI, NPA and block evasion)
 * 151.95.47.239
 * 151.71.121.254
 * 151.95.68.68
 * 151.82.106.211 (blocked in June 2024)
 * 151.49.138.48
 * 151.49.130.116.
 * There are various comments on the talk pages where the user claims, as this one has, to be involved in the production.
 * So isn’t all this IP activity probably just 3 years of block evasion from a user who has already had 2 accounts blocked?
 * Article had protection added back in 2021 for a few months due to persistent disruptive editing, which may be a good idea again. Axad12 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks like persistent block evasion.  C F A   💬  21:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And it continues ...
 * Now under 17.200.138.140 (again in northern Italy). Edit warring over the inclusion of Justin Raikes as a producer.
 * That edit covers both of the COI areas of interest of these IP addresses (i.e. this film and people called Raikes). Axad12 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, 16 previous occasions when this user has been directed to the guidelines on COI/PROMO: 7 times:, 3 times: , once: , once: , and 4 times in the last day or so (twice at CFA's talkpage, twice at his own talkpage). Axad12 (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The block evading IP address has now changed tack to add the name 'Justin Ardalan' rather than 'Justin Raikes', but that would appear to be the same person based on this AfD notice in relation to 'Justin Ardalan-Raikes'. Page protection now requested. Axad12 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Paul McDonald (musician)


Editor is working for McDonald. They have said My edits are from his manager directly for updating and As a company who represents this person who wants it updated, that is not a conflict of interest. Talk page discussion in June did not resolve this, as editor has edited the article again today. Tacyarg (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty blatant COI/PROMO.
 * What is it about the term 'conflict of interest' that makes it so common that users say (as you've noted above) something like "I'm the subject's manager/PR rep/father/etc, I have no conflict of interest"?
 * Do they just have some alternative definition of the term? Axad12 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I imagine many people perceive they have no conflict when they edit in their own interest. There's a story about Maryland Senator Joe Staszak who, when asked about the conflict of interests posed by sponsoring a bill that would harm his business competitors and benefit him, replied, "How does this conflict with my interests?" -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am trying to correct, incorrect information. In a "blog media world" we are copying and pasting information all over the place. For instance, he was on American Idol in 2011 and not living in Nashville. His page starts by saying - Paul McDonald (born William Paul McDonald) is an American singer-songwriter from Huntsville, Alabama, who as of 2011 resides in Nashville. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McDonald_(musician)#:~:text=from%20the%20show.-,American%20Idol,finalist%20based%20on%20public%20voting. The information on his own page is contradicting itself. He did not move to Nashville until 2015. He was living in LA and married for years before 2015. If your conflict of interest comment is being enforced over factual information, how can this information be fixed? I'm just wanting to correct information that is not factual. Forgottenstory (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to have a look at WP:COI, then declare a conflict of interest in relation to this individual on your user page, then request the changes that you wish to make on the subject talk page, providing verifiable sources (that conform to WP:RS) so that other editors can confirm that the proposed edit is factual and then they will make the changes to the article.
 * Wikipedia relies on verifiable second-hand sources, so (for example) it won't be good enough to say that the individual told you x, y or z himself.
 * Hopefully this helps. Axad12 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Bungalow Finder


Hello, I am a business owner of two brokerage companies; Bungalow Finder and Condo Point in Canada, mainly dealing in GTA, Oakville, Mississauga etc. The companies act as a real estate listings service in the areas to facilitate people in finding and listing their condos as well as bungalows easily. I wanted to declare that this is my business and I want to list information about it on Wikipedia through proper channels. Tariqjanjua100 (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In the first instance, I'd suggest having a look at the following links:
 * WP:NORG (policy on whether a company is sufficiently notable to have a page on Wikipedia)
 * WP:COI (policy on conflict of interest)
 * WP:PAID (policy on disclosure of paid contributions)
 * WP:BOSS (essay on creating a Wikipedia article about your company)
 * Hopefully this helps. Axad12 (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, based on the current nature of the draft for Bungalow Finder, you should probably take a look at WP:PROMO, particularly the section on "Wikipedia is not a means of promotion". Some of the language in your draft is way over the line in that regard. Axad12 (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Silver fox (animal)


New user is spamming links to blackfoxes.co.uk to various articles about foxes. COI notice given, but they say it doesn't apply to them. A spam warning was given, and their response is to threaten to get their 'followers' to mass-add the links instead. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:FDBB:D885:56F4:B3F5 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)