Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 173

PodShare



 * Where to start, where to start?! I asked Zedembee about their connection to multiple subjects and was immediately shutdown, despite their insistence after uploading multiple copyright violations (one of which, afaict, hasn't been uploaded elsewhere on the internet, which begs the question where it came from) that they had full permission from the photographers and in the same conversation discuss what the subject themselves desire while still maintaining they don't have any connection. link The Wolkstein article has been a long term spam/coi/paid target as well and they have some rather...niche interests in promoting specific subjects here.
 * On top of that PodShare (and ignores the critical coverage of it where it is labeled as exploitative and greedy,) created by Zedembee is a highly promotional, heavily whitewashed article, interconnected with Elvina Beck, also created by Zedembee, the founder. It's dubious notability really makes me question how one would decide to write at such promotional length about something so...small. In any case, the user has declined to declare their connection, despite there being an obvious one, so I'm bringing it here. TAXIDICAE💰  20:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am the editor under discussion here. First of all, I would note this language at the top of this page: "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Praxidicae claims he/she was "immediately shutdown"; in fact, I feel I have given quite a bit of time to responding to his/her requests and ultimately declined to make a biographical statement of my identity, which appears to be the only way I can answer his/her repeated hostile questions (questions, I would note, that START from a position of bad faith).
 * The impartiality of the PodShare page has already been discussed on its Talk page, including the omission of negative coverage. See my responses there for full background, but note that the vast majority of negative coverage came from social media, which is not admissible in this encyclopedia. A note on negative coverage was, in fact, added, by me, in response to the suggestions of another editor that I ultimately found to be very reasonable.
 * Far from being suspicious, it is surely only natural to have an interest in both the founder of a company and the company itself. (Cf. Elon Musk and Space X or Tesla, for example.) So, yes, I created both pages. Note that both pages contain only fully-sourced facts (see the long list of references for each page). Praxidicae's position appears to be that the tone does not suit his or her own personal opinion of the company or its founder. This is not itself a position of neutrality. If Praxidicae feels facts are missing (which he or she implies in his/her use of "whitewashed), then he or she is free to source and add them. But please note such missing ("whitewashed") facts are hypothetical.
 * Praxidicae comments that I have "some rather...niche interests". On the contrary, I have made 706 contributions to Wikipedia in the 18 months or so since I registered, on subjects that are remarkable only for being various. I believe I've edited everything but the kitchen sink. Those pages I've created from scratch are all correspondent with the interests declared on my User page. It's not actually Praxidicae's role on this website to judge whether my (or anyone else's) interests are suspiciously "niche"; on closer inspection, I'm sure his or her own editing timeline would reveal some pretty "niche" interests too. The tone is this remark speaks to Praxidicae's broader hostility and presumption.
 * Every single one of those 706 contributions has been from my own mind, of my own will, with my own effort to find sources, and without pay from the subject or from anyone on Earth for that matter. It is true that I posted two images incorrectly, misunderstanding the meaning of what it is to "represent" the copyright holder of the image. (I never once represented myself as that copyright holder, by the way.) I've learned a bunch in the past few days about the high standards on Wikipedia around posted images. All good, and (now) understood.
 * As I have written elsewhere, it is entirely possible to have the permission of the subject of a photograph and/or the photographer without having a connection with him or her that constitutes a Conflict Of Interest.
 * I really don't have more to say, and won't be responding to any more comments because I'm frankly exhausted by the ton of bricks a small handful of editors have felt compelled to drop on me lately. I maintain my integrity, and encourage all of you to remember that good faith is integral to a collaborative environment.
 * You must take whatever actions you see fit, after considering all I have said here. I will say in advance that I accept and respect your decision. Thanks for your time and all the best. Zedembee (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes, that is a seriously large, time-wasting wall of text. Please avoid such rambling in future and just get straight to the point. --- Possibly (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As I have written elsewhere, it is entirely possible to have the permission of the subject of a photograph and/or the photographer without having a connection with him or her that constitutes a Conflict Of Interest. It certainly is, however that combined with the fact that you also spoke at length on the subjects desire for another photo means that those two statements are not compatible. Further, your implication that I outed you is laughable. TAXIDICAE💰  21:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's already difficult to explain why Zedembee would be this interested in these subjects, but why they get so defensive over it that they report me for vandalism and after that's declined report me again is beyond me. In the report they accuse me of "disrespectful/creepy comments". All I've said is that Wolkstein "just happens to look like that" (to indicate a particular photo wasn't unrepresentative) and that "her face is a bit unusual", which it is. She has less facial symmetry than most people, which means the way I usually process and crop photos isn't optimal for her. It's a technical judgment, but for some reason they saw a personal attack in it. On Talk:Lauren Wolkstein Zedembee said that you people don't get to sit on the internet and decide whether a picture of a woman (or man for that matter) is "unflattering" or "best" which is odd because first of all, yes we do, and second, why does Zedembee get to sit on the internet and judge the picture of woman? And when asked when a photo they uploaded was taken (which I knew to be from 2012) which they had claimed to be "much more recent" than 2017, they suddenly refuse to answer and tell other editors to take a 24-hour break from the discussion.. while they continue adding to the discussion themselves. Finally, there's the odd comment Please consider that multiple people may have tried to replace that photo in recognition that it looks nothing like Lauren! What you call a conspiracy could equally be a consensus among people with more authority than you on what defines "lifelike" in a photo of the subject. when it was just explained that these were WP:SPAs. Why defend SPAs? Zedembee acts like an overprotective dad but I can't fathom why. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've moved the article to draft space, because of the preponderance of unreliable references. I believe that a review involving multiple editors will be to everyone's benefit. Deb (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is usually only two reasons why a person would react in a situation like that. The first one is: the lady is a close personal friend, and the editor doesn't like her slighted, which indicates a weak COI, or that some kind of relationship exists between them, perhaps fiduciary, perhaps financial, perhaps interpersonal loyalty, perhaps romance. In either situation, there is something not quite right.     scope_creep Talk  11:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you're right. In the end, it doesn't really matter which one of these it is, something is not quite right either way. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Caladrius Biosciences


Would people care to take a look at Caladrius Biosciences? I removed copyvio there on 2 April, then attempted to clean the page up a bit. Now we have a new SPA editor – who has not disclosed any connection to the company – adding ill-sourced promotional content to the page. I've reverted a couple of times but am not prepared to engage in an edit-war, so bringing it here. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I rolled them back and added a level 1 UPE warning to their talk page. The kind of precise corporate material they are adding (unsourced or only sourced to the company) is without a doubt PR work.--- Possibly (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is MoslePete. I am not sure how to respond to the COI question.  I have tried to update the page, which was completely out of date and mostly inaccurate.  I affirm that I am not being paid to do so.  I do not believe there is a COI, but here are the facts for you to decide: I own a small position the stock (less than $20,000), and I know the investor relations person at the company.  He said they would like to have the page expanded and updated but can't do it themselves due to COI. They can't ask their investment bankers and/or analysts to do it either, for the same reasons.  Since I know the company well, he asked me if I would do it, making clear that they cannot and would not pay me.  I agreed to do it as a favor to him.  I am a CFA and am well aware of professional, ethical requirements.  I added references after your earlier requests, and I have only added factual information, not opinions.  My purpose is to make the page more accurate and informative for anyone interested in Caladrius Biosciences.  Thank you.MoslePete (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , You have a financial interest in the company. You were asked by a representative of the company to edit the article.  This is unambiguously COI. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's textbook COI, I'm afraid. And asking you to edit because they have a COI was a dirty trick and you should tell them so. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Owning stock in a company is not the same as getting paid. The company would like to have accurate information on the page. The current version is completely out of date and mostly incorrect, and someone from the company previously asked Wikipedia to edit and update it. That was denied because the request came from the company. Only someone who knows the company can accurately edit the page, and the only people likely to know it well would be either employees, shareholders or those with a business relationship. The criterion for COI is direct or indirect compensation, and I emphatically deny either. There is no information in my attempted edits that is either opinion or promotional. It is all factual, and I give supporting references. By the standards that are being applied, thwre is no way to get a functional page on Caladrius, so it might was well be deleted altogether. I am new to Wikipedia editing and don't fully understand it. So please clarify who makes these decisions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs)
 * , conflicts of interest don't have to involve payment. Owning stock is considered a financial conflict of interest since you directly benefit from the company looking good (though there is debate as to how much stock one needs to own before we consider it an FCOI). The more important bit here, however, is that you were asked to make changes by a representative of the company. When you are editing on behalf of someone with a conflict of interest, you are subject to the same rules that the person with the COI is - you can't launder a COI by having a proxy edit for you (despite what innumerable sketchy paid-editing companies would have you believe). Declare your COI, request edits on the talk page, and we'll all be good here. SubjectiveNotability  a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't asked to "make changes," the IR person suggested that I take a look and update the page, certainly not dictating content. I repeat that the content is factual, accurate and not opinionated. I tried to go to my user page for a COI, but Wikipedia said that there is no such page. It said if in doubt, please "verify that MoslePete exists." How am I supposed to do that? It is not clear to me how to do a COI statement, and I have already explained the situation. It appears that even with a COI disclosure, I will still need to request edits on the talk page. Who decides, and will I need to do that every time? That makes the entire procedure very cumbersome. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "Make changes" vs "update the page" is a distinction without a difference. You can create your user page yourself, just type in the edit box that comes up when you try to visit it. You can read about how to disclose COI at Conflict_of_interest. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

MoslePete. I want to disclose a connection with the subject Caladrius Biosciences. I am a retired ecurities analyst, a CFA and part-time portfolio consultant. I own less than $20,000 of Caladrius stock (CLBS). Since I know the company well, the IR person asked me to look at the Wikipedia entry, which is completely out-of-date and mostly inaccurate. He said that neither the company nor its investment bankers or analysts could do an update due to COI, and he said that the company couldn't pay me directly or indirectly. I would like to ensure accurate, factual information for anyone interested in Caladrius, and you will see in the archived history that what I have provided is purely factual and not promotional. If any material appears to violate the guidelines, maybe it could be removed. Can someone tell me if this COI disclusure meets the requirements to resolve the issue? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslePete (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini


Appears to have a COI with the subject matter, user has only edited that one article (and a draft that's also linked with the subject of the article) and has ignored warnings of a potential COI. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 05:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sparsh Mital citations


I noticed a pattern today, of several accounts editing on computer science topics and citing their edits exclusively to works by Sparsh Mittal. These accounts activity span the last few years. Newwikieditor678 got some talk page warnings about citation spamming in march 2015, it looks like the other accounts all started up after that. Some are very recently active. Sometimes the cite is filled out with author, other times only a bare link is used. Given how often this name pops up in a Wikipedia search, I expect that there are more such accounts to be found. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing meatpuppetry, with the possibility of a couple of these being the same person...Mittal having his grad students cite him in Wikipedia, perhaps? Gotta love academics "helping" by getting themselves cited everywhere. Recommend nuking the lot, though it's going to be a painful search. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at all the edit summaries, which are stylistically very similar. Additionally, this diff by Newwikieditor678 certainly sounds like the author of the paper they are discussing.--- Possibly (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Tim Sarkes


Hello. I've noticed that there is a user called "Tim2345678" (formerly PDavidson1) who claims to be the manager of Pete Davidson. He said that his name is "Tim", and after searching up the name of Pete Davidson ' s manager, I saw that he's named Tim Sarkes.  Zai  (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: He just requested to have his account deleted, see and   Zai  (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I redacted the part where you connect a user to a real name. You have to be careful about our outing policy, even where it seems obvious. Basically, everyone is entitled to privacy and you cannot post someone's real name unless they have themselves posted that name previously. --- Possibly (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sulaiman Al-Fahim

 * (last edit: Jan 2021)
 * (last edit: Feb 2021)
 * (last edit: Feb 2021)

Long-term COI problems on this page. Not only have high-quality RS been whitewashed from the page but the most ludicrous form of puffery kept being added to the page. The first two accounts are sufficiently recent in their activities that checkuser analyses can be done on them to check whether this is part of a broader network of socks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , big warning at the top of the page: you have to notify folks. I've notified the two recently-active accounts. Everyone appears to be for checkuser purposes, but there does seem to be concerted puffery afoot. I've ECP'd the article for a year and given COI warnings to the two active accounts. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ebeyiye


This editor has made over 100 edits, and every one has been to add a link to an article authored by "Will Guzmán". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Appears to be definite COI. The links all go to the domain blackpast.org, which states that Will Guzmán is a copyeditor for the site, and also states his Twitter handle is @ebeyiye. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling nice, pblocked them from mainspace. If they think one of these links is actually relevant to an article, they can make a constructive edit request. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Covidreporter


User Covidreporter seems to be using Wikipedia to try to publish negative-sounding articles about a legal dispute over a COVID app. The articles are not making it past the draft stage, but their use of WP is clearly promotional, and the COI is obvious. They did not respond to the COI template on their talk page. I'd say they are WP:NOTHERE.--- Possibly (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , hammer applied. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Some history of COI editing at related article Robert Roberts (cardiologist) as well. MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dan Schulman


I suspect there is something fishy going on here. Seems 'someone' is trying to scrub the articles subjects wife from his article. First the IP 81.178.153.165 made a sneaky edit by removing cited content and added a Citation Needed tag here. 20 minutes later 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco removed the content. Another IP added back the content. Dataness_is_next_to_godliness account was then created and removed content again, hiding it among a few similar edits, seen here. Can someone look into this? P.S. I do not know how to notify the editors, I tried the code and it did not work, sorry. Botanical99 (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , I've notified those editors for you. There is indeed something a little strange here. I think 49ers is unrelated to any funny business, it looks like they were just making a good-faith effort to clean up the article. The IP added a citation to a court case, which Dataness later removed. That's the strange part - Dataness went through and removed a bunch of citations to unicourt.com. They're not wrong - court documents are almost never acceptable sources in BLPs - but it's a weird choice of cleanup for a brand-new editor. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I believe I was trying to clean up the naked URL reference on there. Let me know how I can help out.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * nothing in particular to do here - you just accidentally walked into the middle of some other editors doing something strange. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Brynn Thayer


Admits to working for the subject and attempting to put a new picture in the article to which they may or may not have copyright or permissions. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Their only edits were to try to change the photo, from this to this. But they should be disclosing. --- Possibly (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Girish and The Chronicles


Username suggests a conflict of interest. I went to the user's Talk page to discuss this with him but found that there were already CoI notices on there from 2014, 2019 and 2020. Edits to the possibly autobiographical article are substantial and article has been tagged as as having a possible CoI since 2019. Editor has not responded to the CoI notices. Tacyarg (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , partial block applied, article probably needs cleanup. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Guggenheim Partners


Well, this is a first: the IP editor "24.186.167.121" instructed me, "Sir, please stop editing our page!" after I removed some blatant COI puffery from the Guggenheim Partners article. I think the article deserves more eyes, as it seems clear that COI accounts have been systematically editing the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope it becomes a part of the paid editor's guidebook to always say ""Sir, please stop editing our page!", as the attention it brings it is very helpful in the long-run. --- Possibly (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Mark Twitchell


There is an editor of the Mark Twitchell article who repeatedly asserts in the first sentence of the article that Mr. Twitchell, most often cited in media for having murdered a man in 2011, is a "filmmaker and artist". I left "filmmaker", though I'm not sure whether "aspiring filmmaker" wouldn't be more accurate, since Mr. Twitchell's IMDb page shows that he started three but did not complete any films, and most news articles I've seen refer to him as an aspiring filmmaker if his work is mentioned. I removed the word "artist", however, since this claim was not cited or substantiated. Verissa77 added it back, and continued to add it back when I edited it out again. Looking back at the page's Revision History, I can see that I and other editors, including EclecticEnnui, Cullen328, Tayroc122 and several more, have attempted to amend this since Verissa77 first added it, and have repeatedly requested a citation from Verissa77 for this claim, which they have not provided. In 2019, Tayroc122 pointed out Verissa77's repeat edits in the Editor Assistance page, and expressed concern that autobiography may be an issue here, or that Verissa77 is a close associate of Mr. Twitchell's, since Verissa77 only contributes to the Mark Twitchell page. The page's Revision History shows that on 17 October 2020, Verissa77 re-added "Filmmaker" into the first sentence after user Jackreacher69 edited it out, and wrote in their Edit Summary, "This was his profession, whether haters like it or not. FUJ" -- which indicates that Tayroc122's concerns may have been valid.

Given the nature of his crimes, I think it's important to be mindful of how Mr. Twitchell is described in this article, and I think describing him as an "artist", especially without substantiating or citing that claim, starts to look like subjective assessment rather than verifiable fact, and is therefore inappropriate. Considering the duration of time that this editor has repeatedly made this unsubstantiated edit despite other editors' repeated requests for citation and amendment, I'm wondering whether a COI tag may be called for at the head of the page, and I'd welcome other editors' insight or input. Cisternet (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Verissa77 from editing Mark Twitchell., please inform Verissa77 as required according to the instructions on this page. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Done! Cisternet (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Social earnings ratio


Looks like citations are of low quality - very difficult to verify any of the claims made here from sources other than those directly quoting those involved in the project. It's not clear why this work is notable.2A00:23C7:A30C:CF00:212D:D5D8:9868:D823 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User:God Metric's edits comprise one edit creating the social earnings ratio article in February 2016 and four further edits relating to the article in March 2016, so they are clearly a single purpose account. If social earnings ratio is not a notable topic, that is a matter for WP:AFD, not here. TSventon (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

World Eskimo Indian Olympics
Ravenstrick has admitted to being a board member of the WEIO organization. Evidently, they believe this article is not an encyclopedia entry but rather part of their social media strategy. Their contributions to Wikimedia projects amount to removing a properly-licensed logo from the article and replacing it with one which isn't properly licensed and was previously deleted from Commons as a copyvio, under the rationale that the former logo is "outdated". This rationale fails our purposes of visual identification. They have demonstrated a lack of willingness to interface with the community and seek advice on how to do this right. Last I checked, we operate on consensus and not "my way or the highway". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He also added WEIO's telephone number, advertiser style, in one of his edit summaries. Don't know what you want to do with this information, though. 49.144.201.250 (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Bembo Bold

 * (created May 2021)
 * (deleted 2009)

Strongly looks like an autobiography. Bembo Bold is only interested in Owen Williams, created both of the above articles and continues to edit Owen Williams (artists) despite COI warnings. I put Owen Williams (artist) up for AfD as the only real notability derives from Owen Williams' long-running dispute with the Yukon Arts Centre. --- Possibly (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The named accounts have been confirmed as matching; just waiting for tags. --- Possibly (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Jay S. Hennick


Just admitted while discussing copyrights, that this is his boss and the company his boss runs. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff where he admits he is working on his boss' page.--- Possibly (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * added Legenderpy, who seems related.--- Possibly (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

EuroChem


The user edits only pages related to Andrey Melnichenko, his company EuroChem, his yacht A, his foundation and his wife. They recently removed the whole "HSE Issues" section on EuroChem. They edit the same pages on WP:es, WP:de, WP:fr (where they always add "positive" content about the company and remove some of the "negative" one, even if it’s correctly sourced), on WP:ru and on WP:sr.

Okhjon (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This is false and untrue, I am not paid directly or indirectly for any edits, and I do not have any financial stake in either entity. The fact that I may have a personal interest in certain topics doesn't mean that any of my edits are biased or promoted. On the contrary, all my edits are factually accurate and well referenced, and are all neutral (not positive or negative). The parts removed had been clearly either vandalism, lacked credible references or appeared to be promoted by those who must have been paid to post negative content about the subjects of the articles (as a black PR). The nature of your comments and reversals create an impression that you may have an interest in providing negative information about the subjects of the articles. All my edits comply with Wikipedia standards and are well referenced, and you should not remove them because you have any personal bias. I am an honest journalist by profession who writes objectively on the topics of my personal interest and your edits should not go to the extent of harassment and abuse.

Sasha-int (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Eran Elhaik


Likely conflict of interest and brigade editing by conspiracy theorists. IcknieldRidgeway (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I recently came across this article, and unfortunately the page frequently seems to the edited by supporters of the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which widely accepted to be a fringe theory or full blown pseudoscience. Many of the main editors on the page have been banned before for antisemitic editing and seem to have strong anti-zionist political agendas. This is obvious on the talk page for the article and in many of the edit summaries for the page. I flagged the page for NPOV but it's still a mess with frequent editing from these users.

On further inspection, I noticed that user RocksRsand has been exclusively editing pages related to Eran Elhaik for many years, often with specific detail. In 2014, user Shrike politely asked if he was related to Eran Elhaik and no response was forthcoming. The edits have continued. It seems likely to be that RocksRsand has a conflict of interest with Eran Elhaik


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eran_Elhaik
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RocksRsand
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RocksRsand#Possible_Conflict_of_Interest

James Valitchka


Kamala Tiwari seems upset that there are some maintenance tags on the article. She seems to believe it is bullying. And also has concluded that I am a racist. (see conversation on her talk page) I think it is fairly obvious she has a COI here for whatever reason but she denies it. Kate Fong is an obvious sock or meat puppet of Kamala Tiwari. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done a fairly large trim of the article, removing a stack of content that has been unsourced for 8 years and is non-verifiable/puffery. There is a question of notability, I considered taking it to AfD, but would be interested in what others think. Melcous (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's weird that the Toronto Sun backs the claim that he won the "Barack Obama Influencer Award" but I can't find any additional information on what that actually is. Like, is it awarded by Obama, or just named after him? That seems like something that should be easy to find out, but I didn't have any luck. I think overall he probably is just notable enough for an article, but there have been serious, repeated problems with puffery that make it hard to sort out what is real here. Side note: both of the accounts have now been blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * After digging further into his much-touted accomplishments, I have changed my mind. This guy is not notable. The awards are from a home school program. His supposed novel he wrote when he was eight was printed by a vanity press. This whole thing smells like his mom is behind it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

MuscleTech


This is a case of a COI editor sharing an account as can be seen by this edit VViking Talk Edits 13:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like there was an attempt to conceal shared use as well. No matter, the account was blocked for username violation anyway. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

JianHao Tan


After the BLP article "JianHao Tan" was created, I noticed that there are two what seems to be single purpose accounts, Epwxx and Kayleytankaiqi123, editing the page. Their activities on the article are suspiciously of WP:COI nature, trying to include promotional/advertorial/puffery content. These content have been largely removed or rephrased by other editors, including myself. (Disclosure: a bulk of the current content is written by me, mostly in response to the COI edits, and following up on my earlier page review actions.)

The username Kayleytankaiqi123 is a simple variation of a real name of someone who appears to be connected to Titan Digital Media (TDM), the company owned by the subject of the BLP. As to whether the account owner is the person, mentioned prior, connected to TDM, I shall not make a conjecture. Their edits and file upload (File:Jianhao Tan 3 Sept 2019.jpg) lead me to believe that the owner of the account is at the very least connected to Titan Digital Media. Epwxx had also uploaded a similar file earlier, claiming that the file was owned by them without a proper copyright notice or OTRS ticket (see deletion notice on Commons). The file in this instance was cropped, not of a quality as high as the above, and had no relevant metadata to lend an appearance of ownership of the file.

I also received an off-wiki email from Titan Digital Media asking for offline discussion over the content, which I have duly rejected and insisted that any discussions relating to the content should be kept on Wikipedia. Although there is no direct evidence that the person who emailed is one of the two SPAs, it demonstrates a level of awareness by the company of the article, and an intent to control the narrative of the subject on this platform.

I am not out to have the accounts restricted from editing on Wikipedia in general, but I appreciate that COI editors respect the process established when comes to COI editing. Both accounts have been warned about COI editing for at least a full 24 hours and they had continue to edit the BLP since. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Noted that continued to add promotional trivia about subject matter (referring to the Five Cs of Singapore) even after being alerted to this COI. See diff here--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The ammendments that have been made by Kayleytankaiqi123 and Epwxx are those headed by the commercial team at Titan Digital Media, and in full transparency there is no intention to control the narrative of the subject on this platform nor to conduct any fraudulent activity on this page. The intention is to correct and modify content based on secondary sources available of Jianhao Tan.


 * For future notices, aside from blatant removal of our content stating factual recognition and links to specified 2nd/3rd party sources, would appreciate FULL transparency on why factual information we have added has been removed. We offered an external discussion off wikipedia with the intention to obtain better guidance on navigating around the guidance under this platform, but guidance was not supported.


 * On the photo change, kindly share with us what forms of recognition is needed and the next steps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epwxx (talk • contribs)
 * you are engaging in what a) undisclosed paid editing, b) using multiple accounts in a deceptive way and c)what sounds like promotional editing. All this sounds like good reasons for your account to be blocked, but you can take certain actions to prevent this:
 * place the proper paid editing declaration on your user page(s)
 * stop using multiple accounts in a deceptive way
 * use the article talk page to request edits rather than directly editing the page, per WP:COI.
 * Can you do these things? I am wondering if one of our administrators,, thinks.--- Possibly (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What is needed to be done for COI editing had been pointed out in the messages that were left on your user talk pages. For COI edits, they are scrutinised closer to ensure that they are not promotional/advertorial/puffery in nature. (For an essay on puffery: WP:PUFFERY) Not all facts are important and be included on Wikipedia, and sometimes removed. See Handling trivia as well. Removal or reversion of the content you had included were and are usually accompanied by edit summaries, though sometimes short, which explain why the information have been removed. For COI edits in general, not only yours, they are usually biased favourably towards the subject of the article (sometimes unfavourably if the edits are made in bad faith, but that's for another time), and COI editors fail to see that as they are too involved with the subject (which is the reason why I don't edit on the article about the organisation I am a member of, unless it is for general maintenance purposes). The tug of war between what is being added and removed does lead to what we call here as edit warring, which is discouraged. Thus, it is highly encouraged for a conversation to happen on Talk page of the article and refrain from editing in the article itself, see WP:BRD and as what had laid out above. If there is really an issue with the content or items of note to be included, it will be acted on by non-COI editors, like me or . The process is slower than editing directly, but it is better than to have ill-feelings generated through fighting over what is to be included directly on the article.
 * Apologies for any unintended insinuations made above. If you do not mind, let's make an arrangement on guiding you on navigating on Wikipedia as you had requested.– robertsky (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I have not received any further correspondence off-wiki since the last time this COI was discussed. Courtesy ping to . – robertsky (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also for release of photos into wikicommons, you can send an email with a release based on the email template at c:Commons:Email_templates. Instructions on how to do so is on that page as well. – robertsky (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am wondering if one of our administrators, GeneralNotability, thinks - yes, I do indeed think from time to time :)., , Possibly is correct. I expect confirmation from you both that you will follow what Possibly said (I will also accept one account saying that the other will not be used any further). Additionally, I expect you to confirm that only one person is operating each account, as shared accounts are not permitted. These are not negotiable terms, and failure to comply will result in a block. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Alan J. Cooper
The Alan J. Cooper article has been subject to persistent probable COI editing since 2019, in an attempt to remove information relating to allegations of misconduct while Cooper was employed at the University of Adelaide which he was subsequently dismissed for, as well as to promote Cooper's work. Examples of such edits include. There was a long edit war in March 2020 between Andersjames0921 and other editors surrounding the issue, which has now been redacted. On the talk page Talk:Alan_J._Cooper, (apparently a throwaway account) stated that Andersjames0921  "is very close to the subject of this article". In the last few days brand new account has been edit warring to include edits originally made by Andersjames0921, they have specifically denied having a COI or having any relation to Andersjames0921 on my talk page but I am not convinced. In edit summaries they have accused me of "suppressing information", regarding removing statements to Cooper's self-published website stating that he settled out of court with Adelaide University in 2020, which I am uncomfortable including because they have no other corroboration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a small edit, clarifying that the term "serious misconduct" is the University's, not Wikipedia's. Other than that, without any RS confirmation of the claims about having settled the litigation, I agree they don't belong in there. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi'd for a month to protect from apparent sockpuppets adding unsourced content; perhaps in that time an actual source will report the content the socks have been trying to add. , ping me if it starts back up after the protection expires. —valereee (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Dave Bautista


placed an at Dave Bautista and declared I'm requesting this edit as a representative of Dave Bautista per this. On further investigation I found  confirms WP:COI and a strong case of WP:PAID. Since a declaration was made I added on their userpage after informing them and advised not to edit Dave Bautista and related pages here per Wikipedia community policies. But the editor remains in denial at first of being associated with Dave Bautista. Also, they tried to remove the disclosed information per later. I would like experienced admins and editors to keep a watch and resolve the issue and guide them. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this process. I acknowledged from the beginning of my edit request that I work with Dave Bautista. In addition to that, I am his oldest childhood friend and am simply trying to correct an error in his birthplace. I'm not sure how doing that could raise any conflict of interest, but I would like to certify here that I am not being paid directly or indirectly to try to correct this error. The reference that it's associated with is also a inactive fan site. Please just let me know what the best process would be to make the correction. In addition, I originally was trying to also correct his height as he is 6'4". When he was in the WWE, they used to say 6'6" as the page properly represents, it's just not his real height. The WWE takes some liberties with height and weight, as they also did with the spelling of his name. Please advise. Thank you. Respectfully, Jmmeisner (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is not necessary for you to be paid to make this specific edit. If you are a talent manager for him, then you are a paid editor and must make the declaration. Please confine yourself to making edit requests on the article talk page. We need a reliable source for his height. If the WWE exaggerates heights, then it is best to just remove his height, so I will do that. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I had actually changed the paid template over to the normal COI userbox, since I can see plenty of room for a talent manager/friend to want to provide correct information without actually being paid for that. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert back on his userpage. I feel that they're trying to do right by Wikipedia in disclosing their COI immediately and not asking for any crazy puffery edits to be made, and we were a little BITEy with them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , but what if we find you irksome? Seriously, though: request changes on the Talk page. Wikipedia is one place you'll certainly find people keen to help Mr. Bautista. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I redacted some of 's original post. It's pretty much the definition of what the outing policy says not to do: do not post outside websites confirming someone's place of employement etc.--- Possibly (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. You'd be surprised how happiness this will bring. I appreciate your kindness and patience. I've just never done this before. Jmmeisner (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Craig Chaquico

 * has edited almost exclusively on articles surrounding Chaquico.
 * edited multiple articles of bands and musicians represented by the same legacy music agency that represents Chaquico. Online sleuthing indicates this handle is used on other websites by a person who worked for that legacy music agency during the time period they were editing.
 * disclosed paid editing on behalf of Chaquico.
 * disclosed paid editing on behalf of Chaquico.

Dec 2015 Disclosed paid editing on behalf of Chaquico by PilotRock61: here

April 2017 Mr Chaquico files a lawsuit to prevent other former members of Jefferson Starship from using the band’s name and started complaining on FB and apparently having his representatives campaign to get online sites to use the term “legally retired”, among other preferred language and content. (no links, feels like an invasion of privacy)

May 2017 Cheryl Fullerton adds “legally retired” into JS: here

Sept 2017 Cheryl Fullerton adds “legally retired” into Craig Chaquico: here

June 2019 Cajetsetter adds “legally retired” into JS: here

Similar change to another website noted as having been requested by representatives of Chaquico:


 * Nov 2019 Wayback Machine version of Jefferson Starship at classicbands.com: here
 * April 2020 version now contains the phrases “legally retired” and “(special thanks to Craig Chaquico's representatives for correcting the accuracy of this bio)” here
 * April 2020 version now contains the phrases “legally retired” and “(special thanks to Craig Chaquico's representatives for correcting the accuracy of this bio)” here

Cheryl Fullerton denies a connection, but it seems pretty clear she was at minimum canvassed here. Craig Chaquico certainly seems to be canvassing paid and possibly unpaid editors to get his preferred language into the articles. I am proposing Cheryl Fullerton be treated as having a COI and asked to make edit requests on articles surrounding Craig Chaquico rather than editing directly. I'm not so concerned about the other two, who have ceased editing, but I've included/am notifying them because they're part of the evidence here. —valereee (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done some work on the Chaquico article, mainly to clean up Cheryl's work, and I've written to Cheryl in the past. It's been a while, but she seemed to be learning the rules and heeding advice. I concluded at the time that she was a fan or maybe a relative. There's been too much cheerleading, esp. for someone who is a relatively minor figure, though this is not to slight Chaquico's ability in any way. As long as she sticks to the facts, avoids cheerleading and verbal inflation, and uses reliable sources I don't see that there is a problem. A couple things. He's a celebrity with some charities, like many celebrities, and it's wrong to red-link those, because they probably won't become notable charities. Another thing I dislike, which came up before, and comes up in many music articles, is the "instruments" section. Although some guitarists do have affection for certain guitars, these sections often get technical and have no relevance to people other than guitarists. I can see why some readers want to know that information, having played guitar myself, but I would like to see such sections eliminated. The bigger concern is that many musicians have "signature models" named after them. These involve agreements with companies to have special models made in their name. It's an honor, but it's also a way to sell guitars. We're not here to elevate sales, people, or agendas. Combine that with mentioning the other guitar brands, and these sections easily become promotional. Another reason is that some guitarists have a large collection of guitars, amps, and pedals during a career. It's not important to know every guitar of every guitarist. For most readers, this information is meaningless. Wikipedia is here for all readers—the public interest rather than special interests. I don't know what "legally retired" means or why it has to be mentioned. We usually don't mention when people retire. Encyclopedias exist in an eternal present.


 * I've tried to work with Cheryl and others on cleaning up Jefferson Starship and resolve a long-standing dispute with walls of text on the talk page, but I ended up dropping out of the discussion through sheer exhaustion. I've taken quite a number of music-related articles to GA, sometimes in collaboration with other editors (waves to ) and occasionally resolving disputes on them, and I have never seen somebody without a conflict of interest generate as much discussion as has happened here. As Vmavanti says, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if Cheryl has a direct association with Chaquico or is a huge fan of his work, as long as she can stick to the relevant policies and guidelines and avoid getting into lengthy arguments with people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie333, per her talk and the JS talk, as long as she can stick to the relevant policies and guidelines and avoid getting into lengthy arguments with people seems to be a major issue. —valereee (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll note that Cheryl Fullerton has once again edited Chaquico to insert her preferred emphasis on the fact Chaquico was not just a member of JS but was an "original, founding" member, language that she's very insistent upon and which coincidentally is the same wording in Craig Chaquico's bio on his website. Hm. —valereee (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a little thorny. According to AllMusic, the first album credited to Jefferson Starship was Red Octopus, and Chaquico does play on that album, though the words "Jefferson Starship" did appear on the Blows Against the Empire album by Paul Kanter. If we had to dig more into "what constitutes an original member", I would have think about that.
 * We shouldn't be using allmusic for anything, really. As you can see above, they changed their own bio in response to pressure from Chaquico's representatives. If we use Allmusic as a reliable source here, it means all Chaquico has to do is keep pressuring them to use his preferred language, and then Cheryl Fullerton can bring them in as a source. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Above where? You need to be more specific than "pressure from Chaquico's representatives". Are you suggesting something legal or illegal? If legal representatives suggested a factual change, then it's not a problem.
 * To be clear, I'm not saying Craig Chaquico isn't an original member of Jefferson Starship! He is one of the band's original members and played on all their albums. But why is that information so critical and important that it goes in the lead, and why do we even need to use that language just because it's Chaquico's preferred language? We tell the story of the band's history. Do we really need to call out that x, y, and z members were "original founding" members on the leads for all their pages? Do we need to do that on all band member bios? I think it's undue and puffery and kind of silly. Do we need to go insert into Grace Slick's lead that she was also an original, founding member of JA and JS? No. It's silly. —valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with musicians and articles about musicians? It's actually common for music articles to describe founding members of band, to do so in the lede, using the language "founding member" ("original founding member" is redundant).. I don't think it has anything to do with Chaquico's desire, though he probably wants to make clear that he was a member of that band, if only because that band had a bigger impact than his solo career. Readers like to know founding members because bands change. They come and go. Musicians are peripatetic. They quit, join other bands, go solo, leave the business, grow up. Take a look at the Fleetwood Mac soap opera, and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. It's not puffery. Grace Slick's notability and reputation rest on her membership in Jefferson Airplane/Starship, so I don't know why you would find it silly to mention that in the lede. It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the music business.
 * Oh, totally. I am completely unfamiliar with the music business. What I'm familiar with is WP bios, and to me "original founding" member sounds like "grammy-nominated chartbusting hit-making blah blah blah." For me, in the lead, they were a member of the band. Then in the section, in neutral terms, we describe the facts: they got nominated for a grammy. Song X was a Billboard #Y. They and other people XYZ started the band. Whatever. But to describe them in the lede as "an original founding member" just sounds like it came off their website bio. Which in this case, it did.  —valereee (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree. There are some exceptions where "founding member" makes sense in a band - most obviously when the band is still going with only some of the members who started it. The first example that springs to mind is the Red Hot Chili Peppers, which contains two founding members, a drummer who's been with them for the majority of their career, and a guitarist who was with them in their most creatively and commercial successful periods. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that I know Jefferson Starship has a long history of legal battles. I don't want to get dragged into that. If I think that is going on (others will have to help with that subject), then we can throw a yellow flag at Cheryl and I will probably take the article off my watch list and stop editing it. There's enough conflict already. Let's keep things simple and honest. Wikipedia ought not to be a battleground for anyone's agenda. There are plenty of other venues for that.
 * Oh, I think the "legally retired" language, which started to be inserted during the most recent lawsuit, is definitely related to the lawsuit. The other language (insisting JS didn't "evolve" from JA, insisting on "original founding" member, the rest of the puffery and peacockery is just ego, I think. The lawsuit's settled now, so I'm surprised Chaquico is still insisting on the "legally retired" language everywhere. I'd appreciate it if you did not take it off your watch unless we can agree to treat Cheryl Fullerton as a COI editor. —valereee (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's true, I have no problem with removing "legally retired", given that it's not a policy of Wikipedia to keep an eye on whether a person is retired or not. Newspapers don't even do that.
 * The "legally retired" Chaquico wants to be inserted everywhere was the band name. Chaquico appears to have been trying to rewrite 30-year-old history in service of his lawsuit. There's evidence similar to the above for "evolved" and other language Chaquico prefers being added by CF and the other two editors; I found the above pretty compelling,but I can add more. —valereee (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to the alteration to the Classic Bands biography, there was also a change made directly to the AllMusic Biography of Jefferson Starship, specifically to remove the word "evolved" from the opening sentence of the entry, as it relates to Jefferson Airplane. Similar wording also appeared on the Jefferson Starship Wikipedia article. Cheryl Fullerton originally removed the phrase "evolved out of Jefferson Airplane" from the Jefferson Starship article on September 4, 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Starship&diff=798943421&oldid=798941863). Cajetsetter made the same change removing the phrase "evolved" to the JS article on June 19, 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Starship&diff=902470929&oldid=895553471).  I discussed this on Cajetsetter's talkpage on June 24, 2019, where I specified the term "evolved" was sourced on the AllMusic Jefferson Starship Biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cajetsetter&diff=903190304&oldid=681356864). On September 16, 2019, Cajetsetter edited the JS article again to remove the phrase "evolved" but leaving the AllMusic JS Biography as a source (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Starship&diff=916051066&oldid=910020295).  That source had been changed. Comparison of the first sentence of the archived AllMusic Biography of JS from May 15, 2019 (https://web.archive.org/web/20190515030345/https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-starship-mn0000840050/biography) with the first two sentences in the next available Wayback Machine entry on April 26, 2020 (https://web.archive.org/web/20200426230855/https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-starship-mn0000840050/biography) show that the reference to "evolved" is removed.  On March 17, 2020, Cheryl Fullerton again edits the JS article to remove the opening sentence wording containing the phrase “evolved” and adds the altered AllMusic Jefferson Starship bio as a source with the explanation “Inserted current and accurate source.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Starship&diff=945924707&oldid=944826113). AbleGus (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also a post on Craig Chaquico's Facebook page related to this topic, one that also indicates efforts the change website content. It was from October 12, 2019 and titled "No Spin Saturday Fact #!: Jefferson Starship did not Evolve/Spin Off from Jefferson Airplane. These were Different Bands."  The entry notes a plan to "create fun weekly posts intended to correct the record that is out there about Craig's history with Jefferson Starship, Starship or about Craig Chaquico himself ..." There is also the statement, "Note: In case you're wondering we're also dedicated to working behind the scenes to officially make corrections on the Internet and elsewhere at the same time. So, let's get started!"  I have a screenshot, but do not want to post it for privacy reasons. I can private message it to anyone who wants to review it. AbleGus (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So long story short: Chaquico is sending representative around the web to remove that JS "evolved" from JA, as well as to insert that JS was "legally retired".  —valereee (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal
Moving to support Ritchie's proposal below. I propose Wikipedia consider the editor Cheryl Fullerton to have a COI w/re: Craig Chaquico and ask her to confine herself to editing indirectly at any article that references Mr. Chaquico by making edit requests. Vmavanti (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Vmavanti (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer —valereee (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You need proof, right? Proof that she has a conflict of interest. So far what you've argued is speculative and circumstantial.
 * Her editing pattern is the editing pattern of thousands of COI editors. She's making edits identical to two previous editors who did have a proven conflict of interest; I believe policy says we can treat such editors as the same person even if they aren't actual socks. Chaquico has encouraged fans to help correct online "inaccuracies". She's making edits to change wording to that identical to those on his website. Chaquico has sent in paid representatives before this, on two occasions we know of. It's absolutely clear at minimum she is acting in accordance to his stated preferences. What kind of proof are you looking for? —valereee (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't go along with "Those two people were guilty, and since she sounds like them, she must be guilty, too." That's no way to approach any subject. It's guilt by association. You want to group her, where I try to judge every situation individually.
 * Again, what kind of proof are you looking for? You're saying your work on the article was mainly to clean up her work. Mine, too. I think we've been trying to do the same thing here. You also may want to look at our policy at WP:MEAT, which specifically says when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets
 * Asking this editor to make edit requests rather than edit directly isn't a nuclear option. It's not banning them or even blocking them. It's not disallowing them from making changes. It's just saying, "Hey, you seem to have difficulty being neutral here. Maybe ask someone else to agree with your suggestions." —valereee (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Asking this editor to make edit requests rather than edit directly isn't a nuclear option. It's not banning them or even blocking them. It's not disallowing them from making changes. It's just saying, "Hey, you seem to have difficulty being neutral here. Maybe ask someone else to agree with your suggestions." —valereee (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I think all that is going to do is fill up talk pages with disagreements. I'm going to have to go further and propose that Cheryl Fullerton is topic banned from Craig Chaquico, broadly construed. I realise this shuts out Cheryl's main topic of interest, and I have tried very hard not to come down like a ton of bricks, but I think enough is enough. (PS: Does a topic ban proposal need to be at ANI?) Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban, though I'm sorry to have to say so. I just am not seeing CF as being able to edit neutrally surrounding Craig Chaquico, and based on her interactions with other editors at various talks, I think Ritchie is quite likely correct that allowing her to make edit requests would just be kicking the can down the road for someone else to have to deal with. Enough is enough. This has been a time sink for too many editors for four years now. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've moved this proposal to ANI - while we can discuss issues here, I think actual ban proposals need to be given a wider audience to make sure they are fair. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Kim Michele Richardson


JER Mitchell claims to Kim Michele Richardson on their user page. This user is currently removing large portions of text from the aforementioned articles claiming "libel" and "trolling". - F ASTILY   22:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems more complicated that it appears at first glance. The claim on the user page was not put there by, but by , the editor who has been adding the text that is being removed with the claims of libel and trolling. Can someone with more experience in this kind of thing please look into it? Melcous (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's definitely some COI or paid editing going on here. YODADICAE👽  15:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

LowTierGod


After attempting to have the LowTierGod article deleted multiple times. Shortscircuit has resorted to relentlessly manipulating his own article to remove true, factual and damning information about himself, and adding information that only the subject would know about. including a photo that they added not found anywhere else on the internet he added himself. It is clear this subject has a conflict of interest, but admins have given him access to edit this protected article

Argonoct (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixing templates. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please make sure to notify the person you are reporting! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that multiple other editors have disagreed with you adding some of the information you're trying to add, and Shortscircuit has not uploaded any files, I'm not buying this one. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * GeneralNotability I dont edit on wikipedia lol, I made this account to correct the record and put in factual information, but my submissions weren't up to par with what Wikipedia demands. and to point out this obvious conflict of interest from this user about this notable streamer I pay attention to. They created their account when this article was posted to demolish it. Even the author of the article first suspected this user was the subject himself.Argonoct (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop speculating and accusing me of having a conflict of interest. And please stop accusing me of being a particular individual. I have never said I am any particular person. I have never disclosed my personal identify. So please stop accusing me of who I am.

Regarding the issue of people adding "damning information" (in your own words) to the LowTierGod article - this has already been talked about in detail many times on the article talk page. They were addressed by multiple admins and removed by admins with very good reason too. You can read about it there. There were even 2 people blocked by admins from Wikipedia because of that, as far as I know. So please stop accusing me of who I am with such speculation. Shortscircuit (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Shortscircuit It obviously is you lol, you created your account when this wiki was posted and is the only wiki you edit. you manipulated the system to get all the information you didnt like removed after you couldn't remove the whole wiki. how did you get a hold of that profile picture that LTG never posted online?Argonoct (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You are yet again accusing me of more false accusations. Please stop it. Again, the things you are trying to add have already been talked about many times in that article talk page. I believe I do not need to defend myself to you any more. Shortscircuit (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Shortscircuit My only argument is that you have a conflict of interest editing this page, since you either are the subject or are close to them, and should not be able to edit this page. GeneralNotability Hopefully admins will agree  Argonoct (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given 's actions, I suspect they're connected to the subject in some way (which is not to say that they are necessarily the subject) - sorry, Shortscircuit, but when someone comes in using phrases like "false and malicious statements" and "article was created for the purpose of disparaging the subject," that's a pretty strong COI indicator. Nevertheless, I am also quite concerned with 's actions here, including apparently trying to use COI/N to push their side in a content dispute where several other editors have already told them no. To the article talk page with both of you. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * GeneralNotability I'm not trying to push any narrative, I submitted edit requests while providing sources apparently not credible enough for Wiki and that's all. I don't intend on editing this page nor have I attempted to in several weeks. someone just needed to point this conflict of interest out from this userArgonoct (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not connected to the subject. I do regret that I used such strong language that was inappropriate and unwarranted when discussing the article, like calling a person a "troll". What I do not regret though is trying to remove the content that was inappropriate. The edit history of this article (and even the discussions about it on various pages) is so long and extremely messy. The state of the article previously... was a total mess and it was filled with violations of policy. I am not the only person that thinks this way either. For this, I would like to especially draw attention to the section "Troll Ops" under the talk page for the article. This was posted by another editor. What this editor said there is very true. I may seem to say things strongly at times, but I do not want Wikipedia to be used at all for harassment and stalking (I am not pointing fingers at any one person here). This is not the only article I am concerned about when it comes to that kind of thing. A few weeks ago I had posted to one of the admins expressing my concern for this kind of thing happening in other places on Wikipedia. You can see it here in one of my replies on his talk page, dated 06:56, 14 April 2021. Shortscircuit (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Your actions make it clear you are connected to the subject, You created your account the day the article was published in order to demolish it, which you attempted twice. when that didn't work, you manipulated the system to dismantle the information you didn't like. and began posting things that only the subject himself would have, such as the profile picture not seen anywhere on the internet before. Even now you are concerned about "Trolling" for what is factual information about the subject, probably you. GeneralNotability the evidence is clear, please block Shortscircuit from editing his own page.Argonoct (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, stop accusing me of false accusations saying things like "its obviously you the evidence is clear" and "stop editing your own page". I never disclosed my personal identity or information before. I am not connected to the subject and I am not the subject. Your apparent obsession with pushing this content and your "damning information" suggests you have not actually read this article's talk page. I would politely ask that you go and read the article's talk page where this kind of topic has already been discussed in detail multiple times, and multiple admins had already explained the reasons. Like I said before, I do not need to defend myself to you any more. Shortscircuit (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * GeneralNotability, as I wrote in my previous reply I hope that when you have time you would look at the Troll Ops section in the article talk page. This especially was posted by another Wikipedia editor, not by me. There is also this admin talk page section reply timed 06:56, 14 April 2021. These I hope would shed more light into where I am coming from. This is not the only article I am concerned about when it comes to this kind of thing happening on Wikipedia. Shortscircuit (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am one of the administrators mentioned above, and I can state with complete confidence that this article will not be transformed into a hit piece against WP:BLP policy. It was crammed full of policy violating content when it first came to my attention. Yes, is a new editor focused on this article, but that editor has displayed a much better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than any other new editor active on LowTierGod. I hope that they will move on to editing other topics here on Wikipedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Cullen328 so you are just going to ignore the fact this user created their account the day this article was published and immediately attempted to have it removed twice without any discussion? Of course he's going to have a "good understanding" and make more of an effort editing this page because ITS ABOUT HIM, that's a very poor argument. Many people have pointed out this user's conflict of interest including the author themselves, but nothing has been done about it and you continue to defend them. Seems odd that an admin would defend someone with a blatant conflict of interest. GeneralNotability Please look into this and possibly this other admin's insubordinationArgonoct (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cullen328 GeneralNotability Still waiting for a replyArgonoct (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have no solid evidence other than your own strong feelings. The editor's contributions have been positive. Try also to be positive. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cullen328 I do have proof lol, its all documented. The article was accepted on April 5th according to the Author's Talk Page. Shortscircuit Created their account on April 9thy and immediately tried to delete the article twice the same Day. Go look at the revision history yourselfArgonoct (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Simon Villeneuve


User Simon Villeneuve did some paid editing work for Robert J. Vezina, starting in February 2021. However it was not until May 2021 that a disclosure popped up on the talk page. I asked on their talk page if they had edited any other articles for pay and not disclosed. They refused to answer, and a few hours later they placed a tag to the effect of "I was paid for this work" on the article on the Canadian senator Renée Dupuis. Here's the major addition to Renee Dupuis back in February. I might have missed the paid editing disclosures that accompanied the February editing... if so perhaps Simon Villeneuve could point them out? SV does not seem to understand the disclosure and talk page request method that we usually go by. --- Possibly (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll expose the history of my work. First, I created both articles on Dupuis and Vezina in my stub space on French Wikipedia. After that, I publish them in main. I consider that I've respected all the guidelines and policy of this project doing so, displaying my COI on the talk pages there (here and here). After that, Dupuis and Vezina gived me a translated version in English of the French article about them and asked me to put them on English Wikipedia. After doing so, I thought that the French disclosure was enough. When someone putted the COI template on Vezina, I read the doc and I apposed the correct template on the talk page. I thought again that this was enough, but saw that it wasn't. Since the problems about Vezina seems about notability, and that I was focused only on this, I didn't thought about Dupuis. When Possibly asked me if there was other paid editing articles, I was frustrated by his unpleasant comments on the RfD page about Vezina, still thinking that Dupuis haven't any notability problem and thinking that this user was exaggerated. When another user explain me the same thing, I have putted the template on the talk page of Dupuis. Now that I see this message on my talk page, I think I understand that the main problem is that I've edited myself the concerned pages (on French Wikipedia, you only have to declare your COI). So what must be done to put back my editions on Dupuis ? Copy-past my 17 ko version on the talk page ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The French Wikipedia is separately run from the English Wikipedia, so clear disclosure is required here. Please read the COI policy. The general expectation is that you will not edit pages in article space that you have been paid to edit, but rather that you will make talk page requests. Are there any other articles on English Wikipedia that you have been paid to edit?--- Possibly (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Kenneth C. Griffin


Trader John 21 says they have no connection whatsoever to Kenneth C. Griffin, which is weird because they have been only editing pages connected to Griffin, here on en.wiki, on simple.wikipedia, on the Spanish, Russian, German and French Wikipedias, and quite a few edits to wikidata. See global contribs here. I discovered their edits when they submitted a now deleted page to AFC for the Griffin Applied Economics Incubator. Then, for example, there is more promotion of the Griffin incubator added to simple.wikipedia, along with awards. Sure, it could be a healthy niche interest in Kenneth C. Griffin, but statistically is seems unlikely. The user swears up and down that they have no COI, but their behaviour mirrors what we often see in paid or COI editors. More eyes appreciated. --- Possibly (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Trader john1 just made an edit that reduced the Griffin article by 62KB, so I am pretty sure there is an issue here.--- Possibly (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much in agreement here. It seems this editor has a goal to whitewash Griffin's articles and it seems highly unlikely that they are doing it out of the goodness of their own heart. Regards So  Why  10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Trader john1 has admitted that the account is being used by two people: him and his wife. He's also edit warring on the 62KB edit. This is pretty WP:DUCK.--- Possibly (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I did edited. possibly seems to be the one connected to Mr. Griffin. Why are they taking my edits personal?Trader john1 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * was blocked for COI concerns and for having multiple users editing from one account.--- Possibly (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Eyes on requested
Moved from Talk:COIN. --- Possibly (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For the last few weeks I have been trying to assist a determined Paid CoI who registered two days before a net 5,300 byte change (with a sizeable deletion of sourced prose) to an article based on a business, Manor Property Group.

At my request, a CoI declaration was made, confirming that the business had contracted Chelgate Local, a subsidiary of Chelgate to "to ensure the factual accuracy of its Wikipedia entry", "review the current entry, fact check and correct any factual errors", and "to add new content to create a comprehensive entry and include more up to date information on the organisation and its projects."

After considerable Talk discussion, this new editor has submitted a revised proposed change at Talk:Manor Property Group under two new subheadings. As I am the only contributor to Talk, I am requesting comments to form a consensus, and also to avoid any suggestions of WP:OWNership on my part. Until seeing this CoI contribution, I had only edited a caption, and this is my first experience of a paid contributor.

One aspect includes the development of a free App for Android and iOS; I have no experience of such software hence unable to conclude if this constitutes WP:SPAM?

Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, the edits I saw suggested under the "draft" section on that page were very promotional and I would decline them. Second, the COI editor could be using the WP:REQUESTEDIT template, which will summon lots of other users to look at the edit. Third, pay heed to WP:PAYTALK which basically says that one can waste a lot of valuable volunteer editing time talking to editors who are paid by the hour. If an editor is making easy to execute neutral edit requests, great. If they are making complex promotional requests that require unpacking to be made neutral, nothing is preventing you from clicking the watchlist button to work on another page, or getting up to make a cup of tea and checking back in three months. We are volunteers after all. --- Possibly (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, there was consensus by neutral editors that the latest edit request was not justified, so have I added the proper template and closed it.--- Possibly (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ThanQ for your input. I am aware of PAYTALK and quoted it, 26 April 2021 in this diff. I also mentioned COIN 20 April. I was targeted for determined (unwarranted)  attack recently by a new user, so didn't want to seem harsh in this instance. .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Run n Fly are connected with Khorkuto serial


I was observing since some days. And i have noticed one thing, when Run n Fly completed the article, Alivia Sarkar aded the wikipedia link in her instagram bio withing 5 minute. So after my observations i am sure Run n Fly have some connection with Alivia Sarkar. Apart from this Run n Fly is edition much about Khorkuto cast. So there is some connection with Run n Fly with Khorkuto Serial as well as Alivia Sarkar. Bengal Boy (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Moved from WP:ANI. Fences &amp;  Windows  12:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I declare that I have no WP:COI or is a subject of WP:UPE .Its a mere coincidence only. I have no idea of the actress adding it in her profile. I am expanding/creating articles as a part of WMF that has been encouraging coverage of Indian women, including Bengalis through WikiGap Kolkata. See the article in The Indian Express
 * I am also going to create/expand articles of actresss if they passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG as a part of WikiGap Kolkata and WikiProject Women in Red. Regarding Khorkuto, its in my watchlist and  I am a regular viewer of the show on TV and perform edits from a fan point of view and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I created articles of some well known Khorkuto cast only who are notable per Wikipedia standards per WP:ENT and WP:GNG only as a part of WikiGap Kolkata. I do not encourage paid editing and do not work for someone because its against the ethics of Wikipedia project itself. It was really a surprise to see myself listed at WP:COIN and WP:ANI. Run n Fly (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * now let me tell you how and why I thought of creating Alivia Sarkar. I was uploading movie posters as per WP:NFCI for films listed in List of Indian Bengali films of 2021 and found Tonic (film) and Ei Ami Renu did not had ones that time. So I uploaded posters. Then, I found that all cast of Ei Ami Renu had a wiki article except Alivia Sarkar. So after some Google search I found her to be notable per WP:ENT and went ahead to create the page. I hope it clears all the doubts. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * About Alivia Sarkar, How can it be conincidence? Because no one goes to Wikipedia every day and searches for their own name.  And usually when people search on Google and find their name in Wikipedia, they visit Wikipedia.  But how does coincidence happen within 5 minutes of creating the page? Now let me talk about khorkuto, u watch many show except khorkuto like movies, webseries, tv shows. But you didn't create a article about another person. You chose Khorkuti. Bengal Boy (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And one thing you said that you are a regular viewers of the show that is why you started editing. But at the very first day you knew that what is the rule, what is gng, what is wp:nactor. And who is admin. And also knew that Ambarish Bhattacharya has deleted previously. And at the very first day you stared creating article like a pro. I definitely appreciate your work. But I must say you had an account previously that is why you know every single rules and you know how to edit that is why you did a fantastic job in the very the day of your editing from this account. Bengal Boy (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , No because everything cannot be notable in Wikipedia per WP:N guidelines and I follow the show Khorkuto. Its a personal choice and no point in discussing why here in public at Wikipedia. No, I do not watch so many shows. I have neither ever created any movie, TV show, or web-series pages. I only correct things or upload posters, logos per WP:NFCI. You can verify from User:Run n Fly I have mentioned everything I created the biographical pages. I will definitely try to create others, but there are high chances of being deleted as they lack WP:RS. Also, many other cast in Khorkuto do not have any article because they fails WP:ENT and lacks WP:RS. Thank you.
 * If I had WP:COI or WP:UPE I would have avoided editing those pages or added . See I know the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. This is encyclopedia and not a place for WP:PROMOTION . I follow Ten Simple Rules for creating the pages.
 * Also stop your WP:KNEEJERK behavior by adding back maintenance tags from pages I created without convincing reasons. I have explained everything in details. What can I do if someone adds Wikipedia link in her social media account. In that way you yourself would also be subject of WP:COI if someone does the same for you created pages for e.g politicians pages you created. Please try to understand. If you still add back the tag I will inform about you behavior at WP:ANI
 * for help and intervention. Run n Fly (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * you can also become a fantastic editor by following WP:YFA and keeping this guide List of policies and guidelines while resolving issues. Run n Fly (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bengal Boy, please let others comment - you've made your points. However, first please let us know what your evidence is for this central claim: "i have noticed one thing, when Run n Fly completed the article, Alivia Sarkar aded the wikipedia link in her instagram bio withing 5 minute". How do you know that was when she updated her bio? Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i was observing Run n Fly because Run n Fly was creating article about Khorkuto show. So I saw Run N Fly was editing about Alivia Sarkar then when Run n Fly removed the tag Under Construction after 5 minute i checked her instagram and i saw Alivia added the wiki link in her instagram bio. I don't have evidence because I didn't capture any screenshot and I didn't make any screen video. So I have no evidence. Bengal Boy (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , This is a strange allegation. Its looks like a fabricated allegation. Does Instagram notifies when anyone updates profile? As per this its not possible. is now justifying his/her actions by false stories. This is really bad. Run n Fly (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Bengal Boy. Please don't edit war over the COI tag on Alivia Sarkar - it is a cleanup tag and not a badge of (suspected) shame. It is unclear what cleanup is needed as it is a bland stub article.
 * Run n Fly, they didn't say they got an alert, just that they saw the link in her bio immediately after you created the article. I don't think it's a smoking gun of a COI myself, but please both of you let others comment. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This sounds much more like an inter-editor dispute rather than an actual COI issue.--- Possibly (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , please stop editing comments that have already been replied to. --- Possibly (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not the creator of Khorkuto. See the logs here. should get their facts right. Run n Fly (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i am not giving any allegation. I have just said my point view, What I investigated Nothing else. And as you said I am not going to do edit war. And as you said let other to comment here. So I am not going to comment. I'm letting other to comment.  Bengal Boy (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This, as an allegation, is rather unusual, and should not be taken seriously. A coincidence like this is not sufficient evidence. This link-in-bio thing is not sufficient evidence. Even if is affiliated, this is not sufficient Semanticz0 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , please stop editing comments that have already been replied to. --- Possibly (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not the creator of Khorkuto. See the logs here. should get their facts right. Run n Fly (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i am not giving any allegation. I have just said my point view, What I investigated Nothing else. And as you said I am not going to do edit war. And as you said let other to comment here. So I am not going to comment. I'm letting other to comment.  Bengal Boy (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This, as an allegation, is rather unusual, and should not be taken seriously. A coincidence like this is not sufficient evidence. This link-in-bio thing is not sufficient evidence. Even if is affiliated, this is not sufficient Semanticz0 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Massive UPE spam sock farm: Sockpuppet investigations/Marek.kapicak

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Marek.kapicak

54 accounts found, about 20 articles remaining after deletion and quarantine. I'm sure there's more, but they must have evaded the checkuser data window. MER-C 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What kind of help would be helpful? Can drafts and articles by the sock accounts be G5'd?--- Possibly (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's already done. What's remaining is to look through the 25 or so articles that couldn't be immediately removed, which I will paste below. MER-C 17:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * N Gustavo V. Barbosa-Cánovas (2 edits): (+11867)(+1310) checked
 * N Hostinger (4 edits): (+1430)(+1257)(+1022)(+436) checked
 * N Aspiration, Inc. (4 edits): (+5544)(+1244)(+1007)(+747)
 * Michael Charles (4 edits): (+1699)(+705)(+257)(+154) Checked. A bit spammy but OK.
 * N Scott Atlas (4 edits): (+6518)(+4996)(+1059)(+617) Checked, COI edits overwritten by many new edits.
 * N Iymen Chehade (3 edits): (+5824)(+1690)(+432)
 * M Jonathan Lee (3 edits): (+2201)(+1044)(+762)
 * N Robert Charles Hider (1 edit): (+16896)
 * Motorsport Network (5 edits): (+5679)(+3595)(+1869)(+1352)(+473)
 * N Alan David Hoffmann (3 edits): (+3777)(+1058)(+583)
 * N Keith Byron Kirk (2 edits): (+6805)(+651)
 * N Ashleigh Ross (2 edits): (+3858)(+512)
 * N Boris Zernikow (2 edits): (+8024)(+907)
 * N Kai Falkenberg (2 edits): (+4503)(+695)
 * N Norman Lowrey (4 edits): (+4349)(+4334)(+2194)(+653)
 * N Senani Hemantha Dodampahala (2 edits): (+1804)(+163) AfD
 * N Jaynie Anderson (3 edits): (+12498)(+291)(+179) trimmed, meets NPROF for named chair.
 * N Daniele Macuglia (2 edits): (+1860)(+1297)
 * N Ana Miljacki (3 edits): (+4801)(+1408)(+1085)
 * N Chrysostomos Mantzavinos (4 edits): (+3932)(+2606)(+1316)(+393) proposed deletion
 * N Winfried Rief (1 edit): (+12648)
 * N Codewars (2 edits): (+4060)(+472) Prod, appears to fail NCORP.
 * Mavenir (1 edit): (+624) reverted
 * Funkmaster Flex (1 edit): (+253) reverted
 * Stepan Lucyszyn (3 edits): (+5608)(+4485)(+449)
 * N Bill Homewood (2 edits): (+13249)(+696) Checked, meets NPROF (held a named chair)
 * Bandzoogle (3 edits): (+1209)(+1048)(+445) reverted
 * I looked at Iymen Chehade and am inclined to send it to AFD but wonder what others think. It's borderline. --- Possibly (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Satyadeo Prasad Singh


The user has the same name as the article above and even has a userpage similar to the article itself. Has stated that they "know about this person very much" and instructed others to not edit the article.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 05:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The COI here is pretty obvious, and these pages look like they belong on Myspace in the 1990s. There's only a single source, so as a start I nominated them for CSD G11. Is there any encyclopedic content there? I am hard pressed to find it.
 * After that, it seems plain that this user is WP:NOTHERE and needs at least a pblock from editing Satyadeo Prasad Singh, if it still exists in 12 hours.--- Possibly (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: the user was blocked, the article rolled back to a neutral version and the userspace draft deleted. --- Possibly (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sarabod99 and MoMA promotion


User Sarabod99 is apparently an employee of MoMA' and has been adding MoMA projects and links to articles for several years. The recent addition of external links in batches (like this and this and this and this and this and this, which added a the MoMA youtube, MoMA Coursera course, MoMA magazine and MoMA calendar) isn't cool. No response on talk page; I rolled back one set of links and had it reverted by Sarabod99. They have continued to add links despite reverts and talk page messages. All that's needed here is a proper talk page disclosure, and a commitment to be a lot more sparing and judicious when adding MoMA info. Pinging as they would likely be able to help. --- Possibly (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , They may be busy. There's an edit-a-thon today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Black_Lunch_Table/MoMA_blackness_architecture_2021 Vexations (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's more likely that they don't know how to use their talk page, which they have never edited in six years. --- Possibly (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , we could ping some of the other participants who do know how to use a talk page, and ask them to approach her and mention that she ought to respond, though perhaps not today. We sometimes block people to get their attention, but doing so during an event they organize would be disruptive. Vexations (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not urgent... I'm sure the external links and disclosure will get sorted out in under a week. --- Possibly (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I sent an email over. Theredproject (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sockfarm attacking Kuwaiti BLPs and orgs

 * Overview
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Studygal015


 * Users


 * Articles

This (likely UPE) sockfarm was focused on adding negative coverage (sometimes BLP violations) about certain Kuwaiti people and organizations. MarioGom (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that I didn't go in-depth on all of their edits. Apparently their edits to some of the subjects are positive POV. So each article and contribution should be reviewed in context. MarioGom (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Cleanaway


I'm highly suspicious that this is an undisclosed paid editor. The username appears to be a shortened form of "Cleanaway Content". Example edits such as this one and this one are highly suspect. They even state openly in an edit summary that the edit was undertaken based on Cleanaway's investor advice. The account has been editing since 2018 and has only ever edited Cleanaway. Reviewing the edit history it would appear as though Cleanaway have employed somebody to monitor their article here. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

P-blocked from Cleanaway to see if we can get their attention. No objection to anyone unblocking them once they've agreed to disclose and stop directly editing, but the username may also be problematic. —valereee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It being late night in Australia and the weekend, it may be a few days before we find out if that had the desired effect. Fingers crossed. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The username is enough to compel me to list it at WP:UAA as a WP:CORPNAME role account. Appears to be attached to some kind of PR/marketing role. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And now blocked for the username. Cleanaway looks a lot different now than it did after their most recent edit, so we should be on the lookout for the editor noticing and returning. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User has been renamed to . They've requested an unblock and been given guidance regarding WP:PAID disclosure. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting, they confirm they are indeed employed by Cleanaway to edit the Cleanaway article. However, they did promise to only make edit requests from now on. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I updated the username from Cwycontent to Pce1984. Cwycontent did not exist... --- Possibly (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding User:Mags1984, who based on edit history looks like a disgruntled employee. They also share the suffix 1984 with User:Pce1984. I just had to ask for this edit by them to be RevDel'd, which has been done. Admins can I think still see it though if I remember rightly. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's an interesting edit, showing the two accounts editing the page within a few hours of each other. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, jumping in to clarify that I have no account other than this one (pce1984). I do not know who Mags1984 is but now I am regretting using the year I chose during the rename. I admit I did make the edit only as a consequence of Mags1984 adding in the information and it was really coincidental that it was a few hours apart. Pce1984 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC) (Re-signing because I didn't realise I wasn't logged in, sorry!) 202.185.172.177 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We do have a policy here to assume good faith and your explanation of a coincidence seems plausible. (Still think they were a disgruntled employee, mind you, but I'm guessing they won't be back.) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

David Gilmour (businessman)


Hello,

I am David Gilmour writing in concern of legally false information on the page about myself.

I edited the page to reflect the correct information but it was reverted right away

What information from me do you need to revert these changes as to not have misinformation spread about myself.

David Harrison Gilmour O.F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Business Research and Development (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello David, please, read Contact us/Article subjects. You may request changes in the talk page at Talk:David Gilmour (businessman) or at Help desk. You may also email to info-en-q(at)wikimedia.org. MarioGom (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

M. Balfas
User claims to be the article subject's "favourite child" and "the pride of his life", and keeps ignoring requests to adhere to NPOV and to cite sources for his additions to the article - which include repeated accusations against the article subject's last wife, allegedly a "jewish" "home wrecker" who "chased and trapped" the article subject, causing him to abandon the user's mother even though she was his "true love". Most recently this is also veering into WP:NLT territory. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * that account is adding a lot of unsourced BLP violations. I reported them to AIV, maybe that will do it.--- Possibly (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ANI may have been a better place but no matter, I have blocked indef as NOTHERE, noting also the potential BLP violations with regards to the wife, Wendy, and the possible legal threat. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Malcomxl5.--- Possibly (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

COI found
Hello, i have found an editor who is doing coi work. At first the editor moved the Dibyojyoti Dutta to Annwesha Hazra (see here ). Then he/she tried to create the page in different name and user:CommanderWaterford declined the draft (see here []). Then the editor tried the article in different name(see here ) and when I saw the subject was written like a CV/Advert then I tagged the article with CV and ADVERT and after checking the history of the user's talk page i added a tag COI and the user removed the tag. So I must say he/she has COI in this article Annwesha Hazra. Bengal Boy (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Mynameisparitoshmandal just deleted this post, which I am restoring now. That might say something. Why do people think that will work?--- Possibly (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bengal Boy: When finding potential COI, I would suggest first tagging the article as Advert (if applicable) and warning the user with uw-coi. That's usually a better starting point except for blatant spam or blocked sockpuppeteers. MarioGom (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I admit that I have an interest in Annwesha Hazra because I was paid and am still being paid to make a wiki page for her. And I have also declared that in the talk page of Annwesha Hazra. (see here ) Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * i had tagged as Advert, but the editor Mynameisparitoshmandal removed the tag. And when 2nd time I added the tag Mynameisparitoshmandal again removed the tag. That's is why I thought that he/she have some connection with Annwesha Hazra and I have reported it here. And now the editor himself/herself is telling that he/she is paid for this subject. As I don't support paid edit So I would request admin to take action. Bengal Boy (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You might not be not supporting paid edits, but as I am paid to edit, I cannot deny them. I have disclosed everything, to the most extent that I can. (see here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no furhter problem with that. Please, do read carefully all relevant guides related to paid editing. You can start here: WP:PAY. There's a few things you did here, such as adding a pp template (diff), removing maintenance templates (diff), removing comments by other editors (diff) or by-passing the Articles for Creation process for a previously declined draft, that taken together with your paid status can easily get you blocked. So you really need to back off, read WP:PAY and act more carefully. MarioGom (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * well, thank you for alerting me, actually I am a new wiki user and don't know how to lock pages, so I thought that thepp template would do the trick. And please remove the page deletion from Annwesha Hazra. I really don't think it is in advertising language. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pages are not protected at will. Administrators will only protect pages that, for example, are under very persistent vandalism, which did not happen here at all. I cannot remove the deletion discussion, and you cannot do it either. There is a deletion discussion to determine if the article should be deleted or not: Articles for deletion/Annwesha Hazra. Please, do not try to remove it, and do not try to remove other editors' comments there. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First you all said that I have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and the page should be deleted. Then when I admitted it you are saying that I am promoting her. I really don't understand which way I should go.Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I put it up for AfD as the timesofindia.com "ETimes" sources are just paid garbage. I'm going to see if we can get those blacklisted perhaps, as they're blatant paid sources. Mynameisparitoshmandal, were you also involved in getting those published?--- Possibly (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First you all said that I have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and the page should be deleted. Then when I admitted it you are saying that I am promoting her. I really don't understand which way I should go. And who on Earth told you that Times of India publishes rubish. It is one of the best newspapers in India. And why don't you go and check other bengali Wikipedia pages!!!!! They have lots of Times of India citations. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest (again) that you read carefully both WP:PAY and Articles for deletion. You are welcome to ask questions if you have any doubt about any of the relevant policies. You're currently not helping your case, at all. MarioGom (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I read WP:PAY, and as it says I have already disclosed long ago. What should I do now?Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Disclosure is the first step. Next is respecting other editors. The article should have gone through the Articles for creation process (as you initially did) instead of being published directly to main space. There's not much you can do at this point other than waiting patiently for the deletion discussion to be resolved. MarioGom (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * per WP:DRAFTIFY I tried to move Annwesha Hazra to draft, as it should go through AFC now. However, there's a draft preventing the move. The other articles edited by User:Mynameisparitoshmandal need to be checked. --- Possibly (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Times of India, per WP:TOI - "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government." An article that can only be cited to the Times of India should probably be deleted. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey but their are loads of articles on Wikipedia that has citation from Times of India, then do you mean to say that all of them would be deleted?????If not then why would my page be deleted. This is really unfair, you as an Wikipedia administrator, can't do this. Thanks and RegardsMynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Don't blame me, blame the people who decided at the RfC linked. Consensus does not always work in your favour. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you know what, I have already told a lot of things to them. One just deleted it from the talk page. (see this . And you cannot also blame me, I just created a page. One of them said that it looks like an advertisement. Now can you tell me, in Annwesha Hazra, which word in that page looks like I am advertising Annwesha. I declared that I am paid to edit about her, and now they are saying that no one in Wikipedia cannot be paid to edit. Then how can be there an option 'I am paid to edit', while creating a new page. And knowing all these things, you as an administrator, should not have supported users like (user), (user). Instead what you did was remove the television section from my article. . Now please don't say that you are not guilty. As an administrator, you could have locked the discussion and could easily have taken off the delete tag from Annwesha Hazra. One user is asking me to cite from Times of India, while you are saying that it is not right. (see this [])This is just not done. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've found three recent drafts for the same topic under different names, and listed them at the top of this post. There are two other accounts responsible for the drafts. Started an SPI.--- Possibly (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well she paid many people to create a page for her. But none of them were accepted. And that has nothing to do with my page. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * if the page you made gets deleted, will you be editing other topics on Wikipedia, or are you just here for Hazra?--- Possibly :(talk) 14:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * {re|Possibly}} Well, since I have created a Wikipedia account, I would also be editing other wiki pages, but I will give the pages more priority for which I am being paid. Annwesha paid me this time, so I made a page for her, and now Iam in so much trouble. When another person pays me, I would make a page for him / her. But, I would also create pages at my own will, without anyone's influence. Thank you. Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, Mynameisparitoshmandal got blocked for opening discussions at 3RR, AIV, AN and ANI... at the same time. There is an SPI that is still open.--- Possibly (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Postscript: pretty mach all the accounts (i.e. the complaining account TryingToDo/BengalBoy and the accounts they were complaining about) were found to be socks here. You have to wonder if it was some kind of paid editing rehearsal or run-through, to see our processes for countering UPE and COI.--- Possibly (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , now I can connect why I was targeted and WP:HARASS earlier at Run n Fly are connected with Khorkuto serial because I may have end up and their scope of WP:PAID work here. In fact all were being done with proper planning so they never get caught and genuine contributors like me may end up losing faith and credibility. Run n Fly (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

DasSoumik socks
This is related to the above Annwesha Hazra report, which turned up about a dozen socks in two different investigations. The reporter in that thread (above) was blocked and these are the articles made by their socks See Sockpuppet investigations/DasSoumik for more. These may need tagging and checking. --- Possibly (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * passes NFILM
 * passes NFILM
 * passes NFILM
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * passes NPOL
 * , I can help a little. See below. Run n Fly (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The above films are released and passes WP:NFILM and film reviews at various WP:RS are available. tags is sufficient. The above persons passes WP:NPOL and are elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) of West Bengal Legislative Assembly with adequate WP:RS. Nearly all of them are stubs and clean up requirement is negligible. No comments for remaining others. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! merged into list at top. --- Possibly (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Misty Das ultimately now redirects to Draft:Bhojo Gobindo Run n Fly (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Feel free to edit list at top. --- Possibly (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Rick Roeber


I strongly believe there has been undisclosed paid editing at the page Rick Roeber by the user. The most obvious way I know this is because of this edit summary: For over a decade now, this user has inserted content promoting Roeber into articles, including WP:REFSPAM of links to Roeber's website into the external links section of Barefoot running:  Most notably, this user's recent edits were to remove content regarding a child sex abuse allegation against Roeber which recently led to him being expelled from the Missouri House of Representatives:      Please look into this and block if necessary. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * is Hatersandbullies the same user on Rick Roeber? --- Possibly (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed that user previously, but I very much do not think they are the same, based on the negative content additions Hatersandbullies made to Cheri Toalson Reisch, another Republican, and the fact that Hatersandbullies' edits to Rick Roeber seem to be saying he wasn't a well-known runner and is, in their words, a "possible child abuser", as opposed to the promotion and whitewashing Barefootrick did. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Barefootrick has only made 7 edits in 14 years; at that rate it maybe a grin and bear it situation as they can be easily reverted. Or you could ask for a pBlock, seeing as the only thing they are doing here is apparently COI editing. The cited edit summary, "I don't want my age listed", does not imply paid editing, but autobiography. --- Possibly (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Barefootrick has not edited since warnings were given on their talk page in December 2020; their most recent edits were promptly reveretd. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)