Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 175

The Santa Fe New Mexican


User has repeatedly inserted promotional/advertising material about a local newspaper. Has not responded to talk page warnings. KidAd •  SPEAK  16:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I concur, there is a COI here, which I suspect is also UPE based on their user name. Netherzone (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, in their edits they include the text "The New Mexican is a complete operation; writing and reporting, selling advertising, designing and laying out every publication, printing and delivering and serving our customers with subscriptions..." KidAd  •  SPEAK  17:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes I'm 99% convinced it's an employee there. The promo needs to stop, and they should be using the "Edit Request" feature, and disclosing their COI on their user page & article talk. It seems that they haven't realized that they have a talk page. Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Irwin Redlener
--- Possibly &#9742; 20:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Irwin Redlener


Lesposito20, who has indicated in an edit summary that they're editing on Redlener's behalf, has repeatedly added unsourced claims and promotional prose and links to this article , and removed sourced information. Attempts to encourage them to propose changes rather than editing the article directly, and to disclose if (as seems likely) they're being paid to edit (twice at their talk page, once at the article talk page), have not been successful: they've continued to edit the article and haven't disclosed paid editor status or otherwise responded. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * they are making an effort to disclose properly. See the edit request below, which I've move to the article talk page. --- Possibly &#9742; 20:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Scotiabank Convention Center


I started the article Scotiabank Convention Centre in 2019, so it's on my watchlist. However, I took a year-long wikibreak recently, and I just noticed that in April 2020 there was a series of edits from User:Sccniagara. Their userpage states that this stands for the Scotiabank Convention Center. There is no declared conflict of interest or whether or not this was paid editing. I'm not sure what to do, if anything, exactly, in this situation, so I thought that making a thread here would be the best option. Clover moss (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See the top of this page: you have to notify any user that you mention here. The appropriate thing would also be to ask them directly if they have a COI.  --- Possibly &#9742; 22:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the top of the page and didn't see the notification thing (but I do now that I've opened the edit window - maybe I didn't see it originally because I started a new thread? Or I just have banner blindness?) But I'll notify them now. They haven't made any more edits since April 2020; would anything happen if they don't engage? Looking at the edits themselves they don't seem overly promotional or problematic, I was just unsure about COI because of the username. Clover moss  (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at the top for the third time and finally saw what you were talking about. I guess I really do have banner blindness. I kept rereading the notes section when I should have been looking at the massive red text. Clover moss  (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked for a softblock of their username as it violates policy; that might or might not happen as they have not editing in a long time. i trimmed the article of some promotional text. Thanks for reporting.  --- Possibly &#9742; 23:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trimming the promotional text. Clover moss  (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: User:Sccniagara has not edited since April 2020. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Omar Al Ashi



 * Weeks before EdwardMill joined, someone with the same name as the owner of Grandiose, created a sandbox draft for Omar Al Ashi and disclosed a COI. It is clear that Al-Ashi is a client of Grandiose as are several other articles they've added and links they've added. They also recreated Jatin Ahuja which was a target of many paid spam socks. It's clear to me that EdwardMill is either an employee of Grandiose or a freelancer hired to do their dirty work. It's also worth noting that Grandiose offers Wikipedia page creation to their clients as well, and yet, mysteriously, we have no disclosures on-wiki of such editing. Further, according to Grandiose's own press release on Cristian Marano, they are a client, which EdwardMill has conveniently created on Wikidata as is this guy who EM also created on Wikidata and lastly this, another Grandiose client, also created on wdThis is an elaborate paid editing spam campaign.  BEACHIDICAE🌊  14:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Praxidicae, I respect your opinion. But the page created for Grandiose had been drafted before it went to Articles for Deletion page. I've been working for many other wikipedia profiles and did the best I could do from my side. As for Grandiose and its clients, the founder didn't pitch anything to me. It's just yes something I do not want to comment on. However, not all of them are their clients. I got to know about them through one of their employees who didn't pay anything to me as you mentioned "This is an elaborate paid editing spam campaign". I doubt your words and wholly deny what you said in the sentence. Even if Grandiose's employee had pitched to me, the simple reason to put them on Wikidata is because they are a notable entity as you can see.

I would suggest that you please do not directly comment upon your decision on 2 articles that was published and think it of a mere decision made by the 'Wiki-notability guidelines'.

I hope you understand what me as an editor is simply trying to say.

Conclusion: 1. Yes, Grandiose Employee told them have some notable people that might be of your interest (NOTHING PROMOTIONAL) 2. I made my decision to put them on Wikipedia as a real entity (MY DECISION) 3. The pages got deleted, and I respect your comment (YOUR DECISION)

Thank you EdwardMill (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If I wanted I could've created hundreds of pages in the due time. But I am strictly against 'PAID WORK' and more interested towards creating and editing content that should be done. I am not associated with anyone! EdwardMill (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then how are the images of their clients your own work? And how is it that you managed to spam their clients - and only their clients crosswiki and yet have no relationship? BEACHIDICAE🌊  16:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The thing about grandiose offering wikipedia page creation that was in here Grandiose offers Wikipedia page creation seems to be gone... Kadermonkey (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * luckily, it is archived here. The fact that it changed following a COIN report speaks volumes. --- Possibly (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Luckily the internet is forever. I think this is sufficient evidence for a UPE block... BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This too. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * at the very least, gonna give them a final warning / only warning user warning... since even if it is not paid editing it is still repeated advertising... and not good faith at all... if you dont agree, just tell me and it goes... Kadermonkey (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IP 190.142.196.68 removed this section here twice, and recreated a promotional Draft:Grandiose Digital Media. The draft is nominated for speedy deletion. – NJD-DE (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * They are currently engaged in undisclosed paid editing, IP socking, proxy abuse, and harassment. Grandiose Digital Media should be globally banned by the WMF or community banned. MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the IPs are currently residential proxies (checked both right now). The exact service is particularly popular among some LTAs. Expect arbitrary and rapid country and ISP changes. MarioGom (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both the IPs that have been used to blank this discussion, just for a couple of weeks. I don't understand why EdwardMill is still at large. In fact, I'm going to indef them. But I agree the whole Grandiose problem needs larger action, if possible. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC).
 * I was involved in the deletion discussion for the original article. I immediately noticed that the user's bio was copied from an account that was previously banned for being a sockpuppet. With the conclusion this discussion reached, I'm sure that account is also from this company.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jonh_takuma Transfo47 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We also now have a user account:, which created this poorly-hidden copyvio draft (tagged G12) and this which is probably worth keeping an eye on. firefly  ( t · c ) 10:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just indef blocked Relopoki. -- Longhair\talk 10:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice Relopoki was created 4 minutes after I indef blocked EdwardMill. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC).

This is very unfair, none of these people are me! My account EdwardMill was blocked because of some people unrelated to me? How is this fair under Wiki-policy? I didn't create any pages about Grandiose! I wholly deny any spam, I am not a spam, I just create pages about people and companies WHO ARE NOTABLE. Why can you not accept pages and leave me be? EdwardMill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.31.238 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above IP is a residential proxy, possibly the same used by other IPs here. MarioGom (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? I can't see the page because I am not a Wikidata administrator, but this is blatant spam, and it seems a little odd that less than a day after having one of your articles labelled as paid for vanity spam, you edited your userpage to say that you combat spam. You also claim that you create pages for notable people, but you've only ever created three pages (two articles and one draft), two of which were deleted via AfD as spam, and one of which was G11'd, and is now being recreated by block-evading IP socks. All of what you just said is a lie. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that this COIN thread as been repeatedly blanked by various IPs:   Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Eric Kaler


WP:OUTING technically prohibits me from presenting the exact evidence of why I believe this editor has a conflict of interest (and, indeed, a paid editing relationship) with this subject but I trust that anyone else who spends a few seconds looking into this will come to the same conclusion. In any case, this editor has not responded to a User Talk message and continues to edit the article (and upload copyrighted images to Commons but that is being handled there). ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo Yes it seems like they should declare their paid editing status. Maybe they would have done that if you gave them more time to do so before coming here? You placed a paid template at 10AM, then this COIN discussion at 3PM. Their edits are really inconsequential. As far as I can see, they updated the photo, and changed one minor statistic. --- Possibly &#9742;
 * WP:PAID isn't optional and the template is pretty clear about what paid editors must do (and should not continue doing). ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but scroll to the top of this page and you will see that this noticeboard is not for minor items: it is for issues where discussion has failed. Anyway, the user has now declared as a paid editor on their user page after I placed a second PAID template on their user page, and their edits are entirely innocuous. --- Possibly &#9742; 20:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Himarsha Venkatsamy


I am writing this to disclose that I am the editor of Himarsha Venkatsamy's page. All information added to the page is accurate, does not violate any copyrights, is not self promoting, directly states facts and follows wikipedia's guidelines to the full extent. Should you need further information kindly contact. HimarshaV (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A note to editors: I reverted 's edits to the article because they did not conform to WP:V. I left a message on HimarshaV's talk page regarding potential COI, although I now see that they have declared their COI here. I suggest that they read WP:COI carefully and use the Edit Request Wizard/Paid to make an edit request. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * has been advised on COI and their username at Help desk. TSventon (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * has been blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE. I've also added the account, as both accounts have identified as being the same individual (and therefore sockpuppets): ,
 * --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Tobyjohnso


Tobyjohnso's first edit was to add a book by Toby Johnson to LGBT themes in speculative fiction. His next two were to add more Toby Johnson books to Two-spirit  and. One of the books was co-authored by Walter Lee Williams an article that Tobyjohnso has also edited saying "I was Walter WIlliams editor at Lethe Press and collaborator on two books. Dr Williams asked me to make corrections". His other edits are to Toby Johnson one of which carried the edit summary of "expanded details entered by Lethe Press publisher Steve Berman" which shows a clear conflict of interest. I put a COI notice on the editor's talk page but they ignored it and made more edits to Toby Johnson. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The username alone is enough to report to UAA on the grounds of WP:IMPERSONATE. If this editor is the real Toby Johnson, we need verification of his identity. Then we can deal with the WP:AB issues. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the diffs you cited are from 2007, 2007, 2007, 2016 and 2008. This is ancient history. The more recent edits are five additions of ISBN numbers and book titles. The recent non-controversial edits are allowed by our COI guideline. Yes, the user should disclose. Also, next time please try discussing it with them beforehand rather than coming straight here, per the note at the top of this page: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed". The edits the user made after your COI notice were to add a semicolon and change an ISBN number, so I am not much of an issue here other than disclosure.--- Possibly &#9742; 19:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The note at the top of the page speaks of editors "repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period" so I noted the editor's edits over time. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problematic edits after the initial one in 2008, which was to populate his author page. The rest are quite minor. The more effective method for engaging COI editors like this is to post a section like "advice" on their talk page, and suggest they disclose and keep to very minor edits. --- Possibly &#9742; 19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Siddharth Kumar Tewary


This user has been seeking to insert chunks of promotional text into the articles on Swastik Productions and its founder Siddharth Kumar Tewary. The WP:COI stipulations have been highlighted to the editor on two occasions but there has been no disclosure or other response, and the promotional editing continues. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro


I imagine that [|this] ("I think this guy deserves an encounter with the guillotine") and [|this] (he wrote: "the president currently ruining host country Brazil") are not acceptable behaviors for a user. He is unbelievably extolling his editorial bias, as if to say: "I'm here to attack Jair Bolsonaro". 2804:214:8286:F571:58B4:AEEB:BCA2:4B10 (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the "Wikipedia Top 25", but if you look at the top of the page, it says "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously." So scratch the second diff you give above. --- Possibly &#9742; 23:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the second is clearly a case of using humor as an excuse, as the first shows the editor's real intent.2804:214:8286:F571:3D69:7E3D:7A46:F1EC (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for 16 years. You're opening a complaint without even having registered an account. I certainly know how to behave around here, and you're reducing me to two edits out of nearly 20,000 with a slight influence of the well-documented impact of over a year in isolation. One of whom, as said above, is on a page both humorous and downright signed to note it's personal opinions (besides, you're not even the first to call me biased based on what I write on the Top 25 Report!). In short, no, I'm not on Wikipedia just to take shots at my country's government. igordebraga ≠ 23:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Age on Wiki or how many edits you've made, none of this is a valid argument. Publicy preaching someone's murder on Wiki is not acceptable. That's not the kind of editor Wikipedia needs. Any normal editor would get a perma ban for this.2804:214:8286:F571:3D69:7E3D:7A46:F1EC (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, this is not a COI issue. As there is no COI issue to discuss, please take it somewhere else.  --- Possibly &#9742; 00:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some comments may require revdel and a block may be due, but there's no COI issue here. MarioGom (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Markand Adhikari


Husband, wife and non notable companies. Both users seem to be part of some paid writing syndicate with the example provided in the talk page to a WP:COI warning, that the articles were created as part of some college project. Both users have their talk pages littered with deletion discussions and draft rejections showing the extent of their paid editing. Even the photographs look straight out of some portfolio work.  Jupitus Smart  17:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment : I'm a professional real estate consultant, FYI. I started editing Wikipedia in my college days as a matter of a project given to us and to contribute to the platform to enhance it. With the limited knowledge of the well-known people and companies based in India, I started creating the pages of those, I had known due to their professional achievements in the news. Do not associate me with a writing syndicate, I purely do it out of my own interest and trying my level best to provide the best content that is valuable on the internet and worthy enough to make it to Wikipedia. Thanks. Nirupammathur | 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment : Draft:Generic Aadhaar is a company I got to know about from the internet. One of their stakeholders is Mr. Ratan Tata, who I admire personally in my life (not only me, a lot of Indian's do) and I do not sustain any direct or indirect connection with him or any company associated with him. I created Generic Aadhaar out of my sheer dedication to contribute to the platform (Wikipedia). I'm still learning and trying, so I'm still able to create a few articles and made a lot of mistakes, but I'm still trying. Thanks. Nirupammathur | 18:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why the "Skills" section of your LinkedIn profile have "Wikipedia" in it? I also notice that the about section of your LinkedIn profile reads "I’m also a Wikipedia Author and a skilled Marketer & Advertiser helping Brands and Individuals to grow their presence online and offline" and you also work for a company that provide digital marketing services which likely indicate your involvement in undisclosed paid editing. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment : As I've already mentioned I'm a full-time Real Estate Consultant. I do give consultancy on print media advertisement and social media growth techniques occasionally, which was the reason I mentioned 'Marketer and Advertiser'. Wikipedia Author is just a general mention and in the skills because I was not able to find anything other than that. And if you would have given a clear and non-biased view on my profile, you could have seen that I left that Agency last year. And none of my main space articles or the individuals are associated in any way with that agency (and the agency is no more in working existence since Feburary 2021). Nirupammathur | 16:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In January 2019, you created Draft:Miraj Group and after you were asked to disclose your conflict of interest by user and  that I've been assigned a task by my college to do a Research and Analysis on the company named Miraj Group and then in August 2020 (after one and a half years) you recreated the same draft and in the edit summary,  that "I was making my college's economic assignment on local conglomerates in Rajasthan. Came across Miraj Group and got to know that they don't have any Wikipedia Page. As a contributor i thought i should make one for people to know about this company in Rajasthan" now surprisingly as per your LinkedIn profile you started working for Miraj Group in December 2018 a month before you created the first draft so how come you "came across" this company after you were assigned a task by your college? and why you lied to Worldbruce when you were asked to disclose your COI? you were actually working for this company at that time? also, this is the same company that later founded the digital marketing platform I mentioned above. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * how did you find this editor's linkedin profile and their employment history? Isn't that covered by WP:OUTING?  --- Possibly &#9742; 18:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just Google their username plus "real estate consultant" as they have mentioned above. I didn't disclose anything that would violate WP:OUTING. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it seem like there is obvious and blatant paid COI here, but just because someone uses their real name does not mean we get to post their personal details such as their employer, per WP:OUTING. You might want to get those items redacted/revdelled.  --- Possibly &#9742; 19:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for this ambagious editing, which eventually was paid till I disclosed and deleted the page Markand Adhikari. But I've genuinely created Draft: Generic Aadhaar as I've mentioned. I've understood my mistake and now onwards will continue to stick to Wikipedia's policy for genuine contribution to the organisation. And kindly stick to WP:OUTING and maintain the rules. Thank You. Nirupammathur | 16:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * what does eventually was paid till I disclosed mean? Were you paid for Draft:Markand Adhikari? --- Possibly &#9742; 07:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we will never know, because Nirupammathur was just blocked per this spi. Ping to update . --- Possibly &#9742; 07:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Kayode Ajulo


Whilst this is still in an AFD see here I thought it wise to bring this to ensure this situation is nipped in the bud. On July 4, the very promotional article on Kayode Ajulo was created see here. I left a UPE warning on their TP see here of which they denied see here but that is improbable, as they have the image on the article as their own work see the Image. To claim no wrong doing and possessing a file of your article's subject which I couldn’t find elsewhere on the Internet is improbable. Also bearing in mind that they are a sleeper account. They have been here four years with only 38 edits. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 like I have severally mentioned, I noticed he had no wiki profile as a result of being in the same field of practice. As a result of this and based on his notability, I decided to create a page from him. Apparently, the notability guideline that I based my work on is not same on all fours with that of Wiki. it's therefore sad and funny that you still think I was paid to do so. Whether the image used for the page exists on the internet or not is unknown me to as I didn't source it from the internet. Rather, I took it off a colleague's profile on WhatsApp (which was when I noticed that he wasn't on Wiki in the first place). as to whether I'm a sleeper account or not, not everyone is gifted with the time and understanding needed to edit Wiki. because you have been here for a little more than 4 years and have made such incredible edits in that time doesn't necessarily mean everyone should have. I had like to know if being a "sleeper account" is against the ethics of Wiki since you brought it up. At this point, I don't know what to say anymore as I have said all there is with regards to me editing this page. Either way, keep up the good work. armanoid''' (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please let the community decide if or not a COI is present. Celestina007 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not call armanoid a sleeper account. It made what appear to be 20 good faith edits between 2019 and 2020 to a variety of topics. is more than welcome to reply here as well-- in fact they are explicitly meant to reply, as they have done above, to explain themselves. I tend t take their statements above about them being a lawyer at face value. Marking an image as "own work" does not necessarily mean they created it; that tag is very, very frequently incorrectly marked.  can you explain how you are connected to Kayode Ajulo in a few sentences? The simpler the better. He's your colleague at work?--- Possibly &#9742; 07:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * hi Possibly I have no direct or indirect connection to Kayode Ajulo. he is a known lawyer in Nigeria and I am a legal intern in Nigeria. The only connection between us is that we are in the same field of practice I.e. LAW. which was why I decided to create a page for him seeing that the reason for which the last page was deleted was because of the dearth in references and the style it was written.armanoid 14:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He is not a known lawyer in Nigeria, all the references used in the article are non notable, the article itself is extremely promotional, Technically speaking, no policy is against “sleeper accounts” or 4 year old editors with under 50 edits editing, but it is however a trait of COI editing, most especially when the sleeper account creates a borderline G11 promotional article for a non notable lawyer of which their explanation on how they got the image on the file is improbable. Celestina007 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, it is clear not a "sleeper account", i.e. an account created years ago and reactivated for nefarious reasons. It is someone who has appeared to edit sporadically, in good faith across a number of years. At this point you're casting aspersions without any solid evidence. In the absence of any evidence at all of COI, It's time to take the user's explanation at face value and AGF.  --- Possibly &#9742; 17:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just cleaned up the article. A large part of the sources provided did not support the content of the article, especially the praises and promotional language. I'm finding difficult to believe that this could be the work of a good-faith editor. However, in the spirit of AGF, I think I will assume good faith and place a welcomenpov on this user's talk page. JBchrch   talk  15:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I literally laughed when I saw an editor defending this account. Anyways time would tell if or not the article was created in good faith. In the mean time I have no time to banter with anyone I have more none vapid trifling matters to attend to. If a COI isn’t present then please I do not see any reason this thread still open. It should closed. That I’d tell those supporting this COI promotional gibberish “I told you so” is an eventuality. I have unwatched the AFD, Wikipedia indeed does get the editors they deserve. My accuracy when nabbing UPE is near perfect, that a non anti spam editor is arguing with me in my field of expertise is just funny. Please someone close this already. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Celestina007, stick to the facts and skip the personal attacks. --- Possibly &#9742; 22:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I found the image in question -- it's publicly accessible on Facebook and put a speedy deletion tag on it over at Commons.Citing (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad Al Gergawi

 * (active in 2021)
 * (active in 2021)
 * (active in 2021)
 * (active in 2021)
 * (active in 2021)

These are single-purpose accounts who all have in common that they add poorly sourced CV-style puffery to the Mohammad Al Gergawi page. I strongly suspect that the last two are involved in sockpuppetry. When I asked AbdM to declare a COI, they disappeared, only for Michelboon to pop up shortly thereafter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * AbdM1972 is a likely UPE.   scope_creep Talk  14:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The conversation I am having with them at Commons about the images they uploaded makes that quite clear. Some of the highlights include yes we have the copy right,For Commons:OTRS, it is requesting to send an email, we will do that and I got these images from the source.
 * In order to take the images they uploaded, they would need very close access to the subject and other high-profile individuals. They seemed to stop claiming that they took the pictures though. Must have realized that it is unlikely they took them, as there are various different cameras, different software used and in some instances, the EXIF data also credits other people.
 * Someone with this mass of non-Google found images on hand must have gotten them from the subject of the article directly, or from the subject's employer's media office. Actually one image even credits the Crown Prince Court's Media Section... – NJD-DE (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be details in the article or was that dont come from the references.   scope_creep Talk  18:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was urged on my Commons talk page by AbdM1972 to retract my post here, which I declined. I believe noting the fact that image metadata is not lining up with the uploader's story and the user speaking in "we"/"our" is valuable information. If any admin on enwiki or Commons agrees with the user that my actions were an act of harassment, breach of privacy or defamation, then I won't object to deletion of my post here and oversighting the Commons deletion request. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor also looks like a COI account. The editor has added a bunch of self-sourced content to a couple of UAE pages while also spamming useless citations to non-UAE pages (to make it appear as if they are not a single-purpose account?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know his problem with new contributors to Wiki! He should be guiding newcomers instead of deletion and banning and spamming their talks with his escalations. Do you know why all the accounts he mentioned above are not back? Not because they are some COI accounts or whatever he calls them, it is, basically because he is not helping anyone; instead, he assigns himself the Wikipedia police. And FYI it is called Wikipedia Harassment. I did no wrong edits and am free to edit whatever page I feel convenient for me. It is not his job or right to limit my edits or choices unless they are incorrect. Is he anti-Arab? What's wrong if I choose to edit about UAE or any Arab country or culture? I have always known this place as diverse and inclusive. All the pages he is claiming I am spamming are pages I am interested in and will always choose to contribute to regardless of his opinion. If he has any advice or a way to improve, I am happy to cooperate. If not, then he should stay away from my pages. He should be very cautious when calling someone something, especially when he has absolutely no proof. I advise him to check the other pages he is claiming that I am spamming or stuffing, and he would see for himself that citations were needed as the website recommends fixing them. Some of those pages are included in the "need of updating pages" Wiki generates. He needs to stop his harassment and instead help others improve their efforts to provide helpful contributions. And again, he should stop harassing me, or this happens because of my gender? I don’t understand?Jaa Noble (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Micheldekemmeter1 refuses to engage with Paid Contributor warnings


Despite achieving level 4 warning for paid editing, has continued to make edits withot declaring either that they are a paid editor or that they are not.

Their user name suggests that they are the eponymnous Michel de Kemmeter. de Kemmeter is one of the founders of the Club of Brussels, thus, broadly construed, derivees a benefit or reward from the potential existence of an article in Wikipedia.

I have tried to steer the editor towards making a formal declaration, but they are ignoring me, except for my own talk page.

It is not a concern that they are editing in Draft: space. What is a concern is that they seem to choose simply to ignore formal advice to make a declaration.

If I am mistaken in my analysis of their edits and putative reward, so be it. That is what consensus is about. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 11:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear. Sorry I am trying to find out how to deal with this - its quite coimplicated for me. How can I comply ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldekemmeter1 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please begin by reading thoroughly the messages left by Timtrent on your talk page and feel free to message me on my talk page if you have any questions. I'm sure Timtrent is also ready to help you. In the meantime, please do not edit Wikipedia further until you have understood how the policies on conflict of interest work. JBchrch   talk  12:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot JBchrch  I will next week ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheldekemmeter1 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Micheldekemmeter1 since you have had my input already, might I suggest you avail yourself of 's kind offer. It is always beneficial to gain more than a single perspective on something as important as this.
 * Please do not mistake it for being a small matter. Paid editing in whatever form, however broadly construed, is highly restricted on Wikipedia. Thsi is a matter to deal with before you make any other edits, except edits asking for advice. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Airthings Masters


Airthings is a company that sponsered the recent chess tournament Airthings Masters. On July 8, User:Airthings (who previously had not made any edits) made a number of edits, some of them (here, here and here) to the above two articles on the tournament and the tour it is part of. One of the edits boldfaced the name "Airthings", the other two redlinked it. I immediately wrote to the user on their talk page, pointing out that the user name raises the question whether the user is connected to Airthings and asking whether they are aware of the conflict of interest policy. This was two days ago; the user has not replied since. Joriki (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Username reported. --- Possibly &#9742; 19:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Editor GeorgeKotsolios


The editor in question bears all the hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. I don't know how much I'm allowed to say but the editor is undoubtedly a PR person for these companies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes a little Googling confirms the account is not using Wikipedia the way it should. Let's try WP:AIV for a promotion-only account, and see what happens.  --- Possibly &#9742; 19:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

User:מתיאל
He is an undisclosed paid editor in english wiki. He is doing it extensively in the hebrew wikipedia with full disclosure. You can see here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.230.245 (talk • contribs)
 * IP, there is no such user on en-wiki. Could you link directly to the en-wiki user page you are concerned about.  --- Possibly &#9742; 19:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * here And here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.144.19 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly. מתיאל always do this in the hebrew wiki: he ignore the questions, dodge, and subsequently after many interrogations he admits and comply with the rules, you can see all this in his hebrew discussion page, which he archived oftenly because he afraid people willsee, here and his user page with disclosure

Bridge International Academies


This article has numerous edits from accounts whose only edits have been to it or to articles related to the organization. I would appreciate it if experienced editors would take a look to see if the article appears promotional. Thriley (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrea Pieroni
Highly inappropriate editing by a user who either is, or is impersonating, the subject of the article. I've cleaned it up once, was reverted. More eyes please. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up, tagged article and warned user. JBchrch   talk  13:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Arnob09Das


Creator of numerous promotional-looking drafts. Has not responded to PAID notices on user talk page. --- Possibly &#9742; 18:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Before I saw this report I was already investigating the account. The editor's editing varies from somewhat promotional to blatant spam. Here are a couple of excerpts from one of the most blatantly promotional pages: "You can contact his page and book the training sessions. Personal Coaching Mustafa is offering personal practice training sessions" ... "Mustafa has polished his skills in the following niches in which you can get personally trained by him" ...  etc etc... The most blatantly promotional of the pages have been deleted. There have also been copyright infringements in a number of the drafts, and there may be more still outstanding. Some of the drafts are re-creations of previously deleted pages made by other spam accounts, in at least a couple of cases with identical or virtually identical wording. There is more than enough reason to indefintiely block the account, and I shall do so. JBW (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Steve Hanke


This user had only 5 edits. All of these edits are in the Steve Hanke page and most of these edits are to remove/revert any information added to the criticism section against the person being addressed in this article. I suspect this user is having a conflict of interest, potentially an undisclosed relationship with the subject. Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is every reason to suspect a conflict. The editor has now deleted their account, but in case their is another WP:COI attempt to remove this content, it is worth noting for the record that the controversy in question is significant as it relates to the notoriety of Hanke in the first place and received widespread media WP:RS media coverage, including major papers like the New York Times. The issue should remain in the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Audrey Mullender


The user has repeatedly over the past several days removed sourced negative information from the article while using the first person in their edit summaries, strongly suggesting they are the subject of the article. They've been told to discuss on the talk page and received several warning on their user talk page, but have so far not engaged in any discussion. &#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also opened a thread at WP:BLPN. It's worth noting that the allegations were made by Hilda Kean, a former Dean of the college that Audrey was principal of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at the sources more, it very much seems like the article could have more balanced coverage. Either way though, this editor shouldn't be making the changes.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are lots of problems with this editor, who has now deleted their account. They only edited this single page and there is very strong evidence of a conflict. It is not clear that this person meets WP:Noteworthy or WP:BLP standards at all, but if they do, it’s only because of the controversy the editor kept trying to remove. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fellow3 did not delete their account. Per Delete account, you can only change usernames if you want to abandon a username. --- Possibly &#9742; 08:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Stareditor45 and Star Jalsha shows


The user since his/her first edit is only engaged in editing Star Jalsha soap operas. The editing pattern username looks like they are closely related to the TV channel and may be a WP:UPE. Also, I think a checkuser can confirm if they are sockpuppets of any previous masters. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * for any kind of help. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Run n Fly - If you suspect that more than one account is being controlled by the same person and against Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry, you should file a report here.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Rubana Huq


Navidulhuq has solely edited Rubana Huq and the editor's name is the same as one of the article subject's children's name. I placed a COI tag on the article and warned them that they needed to disclose. They ignored me and removed the tag. I restored it and warned them again. Then they went to Teahouse and asked about removing the tag. David notMD specifically told them not to remove the tag as they themselves had the COI. In their next edit, Navidulhuq removed the tag again. They still refuse to disclose their connection. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Navidulhuq's username matches the name of one of Rubana Huq's children mentioned in the article. Their edits do not introduce much POV, in fact, although they have some errors, they are somewhat helpful. The main issue seems to be that they are not communicating and not being transparent about their COI. And of course, preferably they should use the talk page to request edits. --- Possibly &#9742; 18:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, created now deleted autobiographical user page. Now requesting name change on global renamers. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Declined the username request for the duration of this discussion. Cabayi (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like they just made another account (Tycoon1sky) to sidestep accountability with the Navidulhuq one. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * SPI opened. --- Possibly &#9742; 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Navidulhuq and Tycoon1sky have been blocked for socking. It's to bad, because all they needed to do was to follow our super easy COI guideline. --- Possibly &#9742; 18:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bobby Lees


WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by a promotional account. All subjects related. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a single one of these are notable. If I could delete them I would.   scope_creep Talk  18:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO John Swab's work (directing several independent movies with large casts of very well-known actors) would make him notable enough to be kept. There should be enough info out there on him in mainstream publications to clean up his article. -  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Likewise, The Bobby Lees pass WP:MUSIC. This is not a walled garden, though perhaps some individual articles do not pass muster. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Muazkh


By his own admission, the editor is the son of Zubair Ali Zai.

In 2013 (eight years ago), he was cautioned by to be mindful of his connection to the subject and to thus not edit the page. He completely ignored this. He exclusively edited his fathers page.

On 16 July 2021, I reminded him again. I added another reminder on his talk page regarding COI editing (via Twinkle), that includes, "avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors; propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);"

Despite this, he has gone on to revert an edit of mine - continuing to edit the page despite his COI- writing an edit summary in a foreign language (which I don't fully understand) saying something along lines of the idea that the divine wrath will be on me for my edits or I will be held accountable for them in front of God. This seems to be a clear case of NOTHERE.


 * (Incidentally the edit he is reverting of mine is in line with reliable sources that state those who do not follow a Sunni school yet identify themselves as Sunnis are termed "Ghayr Muqallid" (Non-follower). I would not actually mind someone contesting me on this edit as it is up for debate how non-followers of the schools should be mentioned in the religious biography infoboxes, though certainly I believe one consistent style should be maintained. My issue is that he reverted my edit after being warned regarding COI edits.)

Personally, I have not checked the rest of the users edits on the page to evaluate whether they follow policy, especially NPOV.

In summary: ParthikS8 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor is the son of the subject of the article, and stylises himself as someone who "manages only his dad's page here on wikipedia"
 * He was warned against COI editing many years ago and has ignored this warning.
 * He has been warned more recently and has ignored this warning.
 * Engaging in edits in-line with what Wikipedia is against.


 * Muazkh's user page explicitly says ""Muaz Bin Zubair" is youngest son of Sheikh Zubair Alizai Rahimahullah. He manages only his dad's page here on wikipedia". Sounds like a job for pBlock.  --- Possibly &#9742; 06:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a blast from the past, but I did spend some time checking the article history and the user's talk page to refresh my memory. I'm sad to say that the behavior about which I advised him in 2013 appears unchanged. My sentiments are the same as Possibly's; Muazkh doesn't seem to learn. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Eric S. Schmitt

 * (2016)
 * (2018)
 * (2020)
 * (2020) (blocked for being a Cocap31 sockpuppet) User:Power~enwiki started the investigation, User:Oswah confirmed the sockpuppetry, and User:GeneralNotability implemented a block.
 * (active in 2021)
 * (active in 2021)

All these editors look strongly like a COI accounts that work on behalf of Schmitt. Two of them are confirmed socks. I'm pretty sure the 2021 editor is also one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Jithinrajiv


This user has been warned about conflict of interest on two prior occasions: by myself in 2014 and by  in 2017. There has been no response to these but the user has periodically continued attempting to place articles on Jithin Rajiv's ventures: Brainsapp and now Brainsprep, without disclosure or following processes such as AfC. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As evidence from their talk page, Jithinrajiv is repeatedly creating and recreating articles on commercial ventures that are deleted for A7, G11, and other reasons.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've filed a report at WP:AIV. I think it's obvious that this user's only interest is promotion of their own businesses. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And, blocked. Nothing more to do here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory


Thestudentspirit has repeatedly edited the  Journal of Ethnographic Theory page, including reverting other editors (myself included; diffs:, , , ), despite having a conflict of interest. That is, I believe they are affiliated with the journal. They have also previously been warned against COI editing for HAU.

In the current talk-page discussion about whether our article should mention an unflattering ~2018 event, Thestudentspirit has relied on seemingly unpublished information ( "...This arrangement abolished in December 2017..."; "1) there are Oslo police official documents liberating da Col from all allegations"). Thestudentspirit is also essentially a HAU WP:SPA—all of their edits since 2018 have been about HAU or to the HAU page. — Wingedserif (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read the contribs for Thestudentspirit, they have been doggedly pursuing only this subject for about three years. Talk:HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory is a particularly good example of why they might be way too invested in this topic to be neutral. I left a couple additional notes to ask them to explain themselves, since they haven't really been directly asked in the past, as afar as I could see. If you view the history on their user page, it seems likely they may have a COI with one of the main subjects in the article. --- Possibly &#9742; 22:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Added Morph1989, which has blanked the controversial section twice and has similarly focused only on HAU. Miracusaurs (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi  I am Thestudentspirit (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit, an account that has been active on dozens of wikipedia pages for 12 years now. I am not sure why I have been summoned here, as the issue is not about COI but a BLP issue, which can be easily corrected by following the BLP guidelines: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." As can be seen from their twitter exchange, the person who tagged me here is a student or follower of Hans Steinmüller, a professor of the LSE, who has very clear COI issues as he was the person organizing a campaign against HAU, information like the other information available online, which is where i have drawn all my information from for my talk page disucussion. has not addressed the more overriding BLP issues and insists on using sources which rely on anonymous sources on a matter unrelated to the functioning of the journal in question. I may flag BLP issues and edit accordingly. Again this is a BLP issue: "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."

The fact that I have been helping edit the HAU page for the 2 years, speaks to the issue of persistent vandalism by an avowed group of rivals with a COI.

Further "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns." On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. "It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect." Thestudentspirit (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit


 * ... I have no affiliation or relationship with Hans Steinmüller. — Wingedserif (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, continues to dance around their COI rather, than declare it clearly.  --- Possibly &#9742; 16:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I edit the article as well and I'd like to declare my COI in regards to delicious root vegetables that reach maturity in just 28 days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Please ask if they have an relationship to David Graeber or his "spirit", and if they are showing their dedication to this famous intellectual by pursuing their personal vendettas after his passing? All I can say is i knew David Graeber, so in theory since I knew or admired Graeber, I may not pursue the issues and controversies he was involved in and generated? I have been cleaning up the HAU wikipage for 2 years so as to not make it a hothouse of gossip and host of anonymous and provably false accusations generated purposively by Graeber as can be seen from the various investigation into the matter. ""Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself." There has been a small stream of editors directed from the twitter hautalk hashtag and its leaders to inscribe into the HAU wiki pages, their cause celebre. See the header in this page "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." that includes the raddish man  who is spuriously trying to insert metoo talking points into the journal page, because someone at some point used the same terms in once sentence. This is unjustifiable and trump-like "so i hear that this happened, people are saying that this happened, or that it was connected with this", without giving a single source of evidence, except the person repeating that spurious association based on anonymous and provably false sources. This is quite illogical as you can see, and I am more than justified in following BLP guidelines.Thestudentspirit (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit
 * Significantly more than mentioned in the same sentence. Things have changed since then. We are now in the era of the #Metoo movement... The accusations against GDC are not explicitly sexual in nature. But, as noted by the former employees of HAU, the #MeToo movement has given licence to ‘survivors and victims … more generally’... The publication of a Shortcuts Section in HAU just months after the GDC scandal emerged, which framed the debate as ‘#MeToo: #MeToo is little more than mob rule vs #MeToo is a legitimate form of social justice’ further tied the HAU scandal to broader discussions about power and precarity in contemporary anthropology... #MeToo and #hautalk have made waves and begun to bear fruit in the form of more robust policies They are directly linked in a journal article. The source is the journal article, which is a reliable secondary source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the editor from editing that article, indefinitely. If editors are satisfied with their answers, and if the editor stops edit warring, they can request an unblock. I'll go ahead and do the same for Morph1989. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton. I had stopped discussing on the talk page and ignored the article for a while in the past because of the huge walls of text and IDHT/DONTLIKEIT behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Likewise, thank you. I was not sure how to continue the discussion, with the attempts at outing / cast aspersions. — Wingedserif (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org
Could an admin check the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org mailbox? You have mail. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately, paid-en is limited to checkusers (apparently for historical reasons), so we mere admins can't do much to help. SubjectiveNotability  a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 19:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Parish


Pandypandy created this article and seems to be trying to whitewash it now that it's no longer serving the purpose of promoting the interests of the subject. 90.246.192.73 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pandypandy has declared themselves to be Parish here.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you continue edit-warring over the material in the article you're going to end up blocked. Please review our conflict of interest rules and make specific edit requests on the talk page. To be absolutely clear: we report what reliable sources have said. If anybody is engaging in defamation, it would be the sources we are citing. If you have newer reliable sources that disagree with the information you are trying to remove, make sure to cite those in your edit requests. SubjectiveNotability  a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 19:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Rupert Law, 9th Baron Ellenborough


It looks like the editor has a very close familial connection with the subject of the article as per. I would suggest all of the editor's work on the Ellenborough Barons be reviewed as there are quite a few edits. There is also currently an AfD for this page which is where I stumbled upon the CoI. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Iser Looking glass 563621 is obviously the family Wikipedia archivist, seeing as their 100 edits over six years have only been to family pages. Here's a 9KB overhaul of to a single page. It's not terrible editing, but I prefer to trust that an editor is impartial rather than have to go through and read their contribs. For that reason I think this kind of long-term undisclosed COI account should be page-blocked from editing family subjects. There's less to check over, and less to doubt about the POV. We simply do not have the resources to keep track of a family editor who is directly editing pages for which they have a COI. --- Possibly &#9742; 01:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that not all the edits seem too dubious on the surface but his comments in the AfD discussion demonstrate some quite extreme WP:BIAS in my opinion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. What I meant was that it's better for the encyclopedia if we just don't have to deal with SPA family history editors, in my experience. Major time sink. --- Possibly &#9742; 05:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I disclosed my conflict of interest when I started writing the Law family pages in the interests of transparency. However, I simply don't think I am conflicted as all my edits have been referenced and draw upon third party sources of information which are independently verifiable. In my view, those sources justify both content and notability (as well-researched English biographical histories). Thank you Possibly for acknowledging my work has not been terrible editing. I apologise if people feel I have shown "quite extreme WP:BIAS" in defending my AFD but it I don't think it should be deleted. If I am to be banned from further editing it will be a big disappointment as I am still learning and have spent much time doing so. I would welcome any help from anyone.Looking glass 563621 (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked socks




Suspect articles


A UPE farm containing about 60 accounts was just blocked at SPI today. For the full list of accounts and behavioural details, see the SPI link above. The articles they've edited could use review for neutrality, notability, etc. One of the accounts (which is now stale) was previously reported here for paid editing on Groundfloor (company). Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the users to the above list. I'm not going to notify them of this discussion, seeing as they are all blocked socks and cannot reply.  --- Possibly &#9742; 22:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Batch number two has arrived, looks like they don't like the tags. Blablubbs (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

BSAFE


After being made aware of WP:COI and WP:PAID, Security in mind has posted a COI disclosure on their user page. So far, so good. However, they have also continued editing about their employer's products, and recently made a variation of the 'it's strongly discouraged not prohibited' argument that is so familiar to this noticeboard. Since then, new user MrSaul76 has appeared to revert back to Security in mind's preferred versions. More eyes and opinions would be very welcome. MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * has repeatedly removed relevant details from the the pages listed above. This is an active product line to which the removed information is extremely relevant. His edits are intended to deface the product or its reputation for malicious intent. His modifications obviously are not intended and do not to make the pages more informative or useful to users. As a avid Wikipedia user and a cryptographer by trade, i request he be blocked from making any more edits on the pages listed above as he insists on removing vital information that i and others use frequently in our jobs.MrSaul76 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC) contribs)
 * , are you the same account as ? --- Possibly &#9742; 19:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , no i am not. MrSaul76 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Rules are rules. strongly discouraged is not prohibited. How can you have valuable and exact content on WP without subject matter experts from the companies that work on those products? Isn't it normal to want to improve WP content? As long as the info posted is factual and not biased, why would employees not write about products they know more about? More than you do? Cryptography is a cool topic. People who know about it are passionate about it. All I can say to MrSaul76 is a big thank you for standing with me and ensuring that the info on WP remains relevant. What would be WP without paid contributors (as you say so, even though I'm not paid to waste hours editing WP) and subject matter experts which, by WP rules, are branded with a COI un-removable tattoo? please leave my edits alone. The day you see me writing something that is biased then you can call a shenanigan on me again... - Security in mind (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A conflict of interest is not a bad thing; we all have many conflicts of interest. But they're incredibly difficult to manage if the person with the conflict insists of close contact and involvement with the subject(s) with which he or she has the conflict. Sometimes it's malicious (and not really a conflict of interest but an outright campaign of dishonesty) but most often it's innocent. Regardless, it's still a significant problem and one that can - and should - be easily avoided simply by not substantively engaging with that subject(s).
 * We manage just fine, incidentally, without employees editing their employers' articles. Please don't do that. You're welcome to make requests and suggestions in the relevant Talk pages but editing those articles directly is a problem. ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Rham Records

 * Created the article, didn't edit for awhile.
 * Made a total of four edits, all on Rahm Records
 * Numerous edits to Rahm, many reverts
 * Numerous IPv6 which at least four geolocate to Crowborough, East Sussex, United Kingdom
 * Numerous IPv6 which at least four geolocate to Crowborough, East Sussex, United Kingdom

I am not sure if this is a WP:COI, wp:OWN, wp:EW, or something else. asked/suggested that I take this here. I had left a long message on Deepfriedokra's talk page with more info here: (user talk:Deepfriedokra).

There has been an apparent long drawn-out wp:edit war between Barryls69, Alaurance, and the IPs with Vivibelle. I undid some edits with IPv6 editors as "unsourced". As the IPs kept reverting/restoring unsourced content, I made a PP request and a range block was added to the IP RFPP: Rham Records. Shortly afterwards, Barryls69 reverted and restored the same unsourced information w/o an ES. I undid Barryls69's edit as unsourced and templated Barryls69. Barryls69 reverted my revert w/o an ES. That is where the article stands at this time.


 * Most of the edits were made by the IPv6, Vivibelle, and Barryls69. I left a welcome on Vivibelle and suggested he not exceed 3RR. Vivibelle has not edited since that I can see.
 * For some reason, Barryls69 has their signature name piped: visible in this diff: (page was moved by its creator Barryls69, to Rham Records). Probably just experimenting as user doesn't appear to have signed their name elsewhere.

Adakiko (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: A Guy Called Gerald is an artist and Voodoo Ray is a single. Both seem to show up a lot.


 * Rham! Records from Merseyside ceased operations in 1992. In 2019, Barryls69 incorporated a new company called Rham Records Limited and has been passing it off as the original Rham! Records in order to illegally exploit recordings by A Guy Called Gerald - this is why he keeps removing the text 'defunct 1992', and the '!' from Rham!
 * I am A Guy Called Gerald's business manager. Legal action has been commenced against Barryls69 and his new company in respect of his unauthorised exploitation of A Guy Called Gerald recordings. He has been warned by A Guy Called Gerald's lawyers to cease and desist from altering information in the public domain. Vivibelle (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * it's not advisable to mention legal action on Wikipedia, as you can end up blocked per WP:NLT. I'm not sure if what you say meets the copyright exception of NLT, but saying that you are involved in some kind of legal action regarding their editing on WIkipedia is probably going to get you blocked. --- Possibly &#9742; 19:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Rham! Was recently moved to Rham Records . Given the above, this would appear to be an wp:article hijack Adakiko (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Given Vivibelle's comment above, I added a COI notice to Vivibelle and Barryls69's talk pages just now. Adakiko (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Barryls69 reverted an edit by Vivibelle then ten minutes later retored Vivibelle's edit  Adakiko (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Article fully protected for a while, a wholly unacceptable level of edit-warring., , , , please be warned: any more edit-warring, whether with IPs or with each other, may lead to a block, regardless of whether or not the WP:3RR bright line is breached. Please use the talk-page of the article to discuss your differences. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this record label notable enough to have its wiki article? It's a company, so the standard is somewhat high (WP:SIRS). From what I could find, the notability of Rham is not distinct from the notability of A Guy Called Gerard: references to Rham can only be found in connection with this artist and his works. There are multiple recent sources (from May 2021 onwards) covering the dispute between A Guy Called Gerard and Rham but this type of coverage does not meet the criteria of WP:SIRS and demonstrates, once again, that its notability is exclusively tied to A Guy Called Gerard. I've also looked through the various versions of the article and it was never sourced in a way that would demonstrate its notability.  JBchrch   talk  20:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Anna Zayachkivska


The user has been making edits on the article about herself since December 2017. She was warned by User:GRuban in December 2020. Nevertheless, she continues to make edits on the article and deletes referenced content which she deems inappropriate. I think we should take action against this user.V. E. (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Their edits look OK to me. They are very infrequent, and are mostly to correct URLS for he websites, and in one case to correct her name. The edit that removed sourced content removed information about a marriage, which I think most editors are willing to remove on request per WP:BLP. They should not be using two accounts, but the usual explanation for an infrequent editor like this is that they lost the password to one account.  --- Possibly &#9742; 22:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have to delete properly sourced information if it concerns BLP? Besides she added a link of her website, where she sells paintings, to the references section. She claimed that she is a painter but when I searched on Google News  and , I could find no sources about it. I am not sure whether her occupation as a "painter" is mentioned by reliable, secondary sources.--V. E. (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you ask her about this? That is usually the first route. The relevant policy for removing material that couple be considered as victimizing is WP:BLP. I'm not sure if the marriage is relevant to her notability as a beauty queen; some would say it is gossip or trivia and remove it at the request of the subject. Others might not. Figuring out why she is editing the page is a good question to ask her and helps to resolve disputes, and to educate her on how Wikipedia works. I did take out the commercial-looking link that she had added. I don't speak Russian or whatever language the sources are in, so I can't help much on the content. Perhaps someone else can.--- Possibly &#9742; 23:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * She is not an actor or an artist. The article was very poorly written.   scope_creep Talk  08:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest editing by editor Jiblo94


The editor has been an editor here for three years and have (as of now 18 edits) before creating the aforementioned article which I have moved to Draftspace they have been inactive since 2019. So today I stumbled on the aforementioned article and saw it had been flagged with the “BLP sources” by and rightfully so, I consider Nigerian sources my forte and can do a whole source analysis of the sources and it would turn back almost 0 reliable sources, forgive the digression, however the editor  comes back, (Since 2019) let me say again that they have only 18 edits in the 3 years they have been here, which is suspicious, and today out of the blues they created the aforementioned promotional on a non notable musician. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Warned for COI. JBchrch   talk  20:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Article was speedy deleted as a WP:G11. JBchrch   talk  17:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Aina Dumlao


I noticed that the author of the article had, while in one of the sources they have provided, the same photo is attributed to the subject. The photo was in the infobox the author included, and removed after I had raised the possibility of COI on the editor's talk page. The editor claims that they are not the subject in the talk page, but did not confirm or deny whether they are connected to the subject. The editor has repeated removed COI template on the article. Almost all edits by the editor are marked as minor. To me, the actions thus far seem to indicate that the editor has some form of COI to the subject. – robertsky (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Left a comment.   scope_creep Talk  10:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sock incident, all finished.   scope_creep Talk  19:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

BreakTudo Awards


An AfD for this article was opened by me here. As in the first time an AfD was opened, the discussion was populated by new accounts (many of them are surely meat/sock puppets) voting "keep". This also happened as the BreakTudo (company that created the award) was put for deletion. These accounts come mostly from Brazil and as I'm a "deleter" at the pt.WP I'm familiar with the case. There, several articles linked with this company and this award are created and recreated over and over by proven socks. Due to this, I ask some experienced sysops from here to, please, keep an eye on this AfD. Regards. SirEd Dimmi!!! 05:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand why you think it is a problem but I don't think this is forum for this kind of request. If there is any problems at the Afd, administration is probably already looking at it and would have aware of it, from the previous Afd. In any awards with 25 categories it would normally be considered junk on Wikipedia but with 94million participants, its likely notable. That is a lot of folk. Looking at the Afd, there is only 1 new editor came in to comment, with another SPA, so at the moment, its not overwhelmed. I know from experience about folk wandering in, it puts downer on you, but there is not much you can do.   scope_creep Talk  10:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's harder to delete this article here, because most of the editors don't speak Portuguese and therefore they can be easily deceived for sources that seem to be reliable, but are not. This why they create articles in several WPs but don't have an article at the pt.WP. You don't know the amount of work these socks and meat have caused (and keep causing) to us at pt.WP. We had to open several SPI, block several articles from recreation, etc. These accounts all come from Brazil and I assure you this award is not notable, and it is a huge case of using the WP as a SOAPBOX. All these accounts are sock/meat with no knowledge of the WP policy (you can see that by their comments at the AfD). User:Pedropaulohd, for example, who voted keep at this AfD is the same who created this article on pt.WP. An article that doesn't follow our notability criteria, created only to promote this BreakTudo Awards. Meaning that this editor have a huge POV in this case. By my experience on the pt.WP, I assure you this is a major case of sock/meat and undisclosed paid editing. SirEd  Dimmi!!! 12:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean with that article.   scope_creep Talk  16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you considered WP:SPI for this one? You might also post a short, neutrally worded note to WikiProject Brazil with a link to the AfD, to get more editors with language expertise to look at it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Prime Healthcare Services

 * (formerly PrimeHealthEditor)
 * (formerly PrimeHealthEditor)
 * (formerly PrimeHealthEditor)

User:PrimeHealthEditor altered the article by rearranging the sections and markedly expanding one section. While the edits were factual, the effect was to push way down the negative information about the organization. It also included information that was unnecessary. I notified the person of the COI issue. Apparently the person thinks the best way around this is to use a personal account. This appears to be a paid editor. See PrimHealthEditor's talk page for the discussion we've had. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_Healthcare_Services&oldid=1034960879 for the edit that pushed down the data. Prime Healthcare has had issues with apparently paid editors in the past. User:Kgkeane519 is another example that's never been resolved. That person edited the same page as well as other Prime Healthcare related pages and the page for Prem Reddy, who started Prime Rsjaffe (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * for accounts like that, where their username represents the whole company, report them to WP:AIV and they will be blocked. I have done so and a kind admin has blocked them.   --- Possibly &#9742; 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Only if they're vandalising. Otherwise report them to Usernames for administrator attention. -- Longhair\talk 05:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's what I meant. --- Possibly &#9742; 07:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As part of the cleanup after User:PrimeHealthEditor was blocked, User:Kgkeane519 became active again and rolled back some changes. Reading KgKeane519's user page will give a good background. The user never did directly address the question but did state "As stated previously, I have received compensation from Prime Healthcare in the past for communications related materials." How should we address this? Rsjaffe (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor Kgkeane519 has a paid editing notice from 29 April 2018 that never answered. They have now dumped a block of promotional text on the article. I've a 2nd paid template. Hopefully they will answer that one.   scope_creep Talk  21:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * is clearly a single purpose account, and very likely a sock or meat puppet of . They shouldn't be editing the Prime Healthcare Services article directly as their conflict of interest has been previously established and somewhat declared. -- Longhair\talk 21:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure: KGKeane519 is a retired print reporter and editor who, over a 33-year career in newspapers, covered various fields and industries, including technology, health care and regional politics. While in retirement I have received consulting fees from a number of clients, including for a time Prime Healthcare. I am no longer affiliated in any way with Prime; my interest in page updates has to do with my familiarity with this particular company and ensuring Wikipedia provides a fair and balanced history. Prime is far more than its controversies, though readers wouldn't know it based on the current edits. Controversies remain relevant and well-documented as posted. All posts updated by KGKeane519 are referenced with third-party media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgkeane519 (talk • contribs)


 * Kgkeane519 has declared their COI at their userpage and I've asked them to request edits to both the Prime Healthcare Services and Shasta Regional Medical Center articles rather than edit them directly. -- Longhair\talk 21:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think an SPI needs opened here.   scope_creep Talk  22:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

RossArctic
Wondering if we have a conflict of interest here?: --MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to WP:OUT the user? Please don't do that. --- Possibly &#9742; 19:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 17 edits that look like a decent copyedit. The World Economic forum, well its massive.  scope_creep Talk  19:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The content of these edits is mostly critical and linking to sources whenever third party content has been paraphrased. Some edits refer to sentences that were stylistically odd. Could you otherwise kindly explain the grounds for your request? --RossArctic (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed the worst at the time. I was redirected here from Usernames that need administrative attention. I thought the name was promoting a company, they found nothing, so I came here with that link. As long as the editor do everything right (as he explained), I have nothing to complain about.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Leasha music and User:SportsNewz Odisha
Those names are representing a name of a company and cause disruption on the project.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * this is not the place to report usernames. Go to WP:UAA instead. --- Possibly &#9742; 19:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I was send here by the WP:UAA. Never mind. The editor is blocked either way.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

An Extensive History Of COI editing
Following my oath to both and  and the community at large to tackle COI editing with less confrontation and double the efficiency this report would be the second this month I’m initiating in order to curb unethical editing practices. The first led to this. The editor Nkemonwudiwe has been an editor here for 11 years and has 238 edits, I would gladly give examples of very suspicious edits but I believe their talk page explains the extensive history of COI editing. Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * please describe what the precise COI problem is. The article listed above is deleted. Nkemonwudiwe's talk page makes it look like they have multiple COI issues; I wonder by they have been allowed to continue editing? In one unblock notice they specifically say "My client" but have not bothered to disclose as a paid editor. Is that what you mean? --- Possibly &#9742; 22:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you also brought this to ANI about three weeks ago. Link for reference. --- Possibly &#9742; 22:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, honestly Possibly, it beats me, this goes beyond one article per se but a history of making dubious edits. I brought it to ANI, but I figured COIN would probably be a better venue for COI related issues. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant what is the exact COI issue you are concerned about? They have only made eight edits this year, with one being to remove a COI template. The article listed above was deleted three years ago. --- Possibly &#9742; 22:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m predominantly referencing the entirety of their existence as an editor, the aforementioned article stuck because if I vaguely remember the wording it was promotional in nature. Furthermore there was this recent one very promotional in nature, had I known I would have taken screen shots. In any case if the problem is the articles in question are now deleted and makes a COIN moot I think I understand your point. I however deemed it fit to flag the account for possible less than ethical practices. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Blacknclick Paid work

 * (and this)
 * (and this)
 * (and this)
 * (and this)
 * (and this)
 * (and this)

User:Blacknclick has recently created a paid article, Rocket Science (production company) without disclosing that they are getting paid. Job was posted on Upwork.

Upwork Job Link: Wiki Page Creation - Rocket Science Freelancer profile:

Please review all of their work and let them know this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks. 86.9.191.119 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Archived Upwork ad. The connection between the upwork ad and the resulting article seems quite damning. I moved the article to draft space (Draft:Rocket Science (production company)) per WP:DRAFTIFY so that it can be sent through AFC. --- Possibly &#9742; 08:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, the history of this is that worked as a disclosed paid editor on Draft:Rocket Science (company) until they gave up on July 16, when they removed the paid disclosure from their user page. At about exactly the same time, the Upwork ad went up. The shocking bit is that the Upwork client profile says he has put out one gig and paid $1,000 for that gig!!!! Somebody really overpaid  there-- it looks like about two hours editing max. Lol.  --- Possibly &#9742; 09:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've filed an SPI between the two accounts and more here. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All indeffed. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work. The following isn't exactly a COI issue, but I think this is a good place to get some eyes on it - I find it interesting that, and  were very active on Commons and have uploaded numerous featured/quality pictures there. I think the deception involved in their use of multiple accounts (besides the UPE, the accounts were used to votestack on enwiki FPC , and claimed to be different people - e.g. Mydreamsparrow called himself Augustus Binu on Commons, while Blacknclick called himself Pratyush Thomas) makes their uploads suspect. I'm reminded of this recent case in which a prolific featured picture creator on Commons was found to be stealing copyrighted photos. Basically, I find it hard to believe that such a skilled photographer would sock so incompetently. A close review of their uploads is probably warranted. Spicy (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've stricken this comment as Mydreamsparrow and Karim apparently are different people and the CU blocks have been lifted, which alleviates my concerns about the Commons uploads. Apologies to those involved. Spicy (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the fact that the two socks were both featured pictured uploaders: that is the unfortunate part of this story, seeing as they uploaded so many great images to Commons. I was a bit skeptical of the SPI at first because the they use different cameras: Canon and Nikon. But CU confirms them as being the same user. Something does not make sense; I wonder if Mydreamsparrow was using the login credentials of Muhammad Mahdi Karim. See this also.   --- Possibly &#9742; 15:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FPC notified here: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Ugh, looks like I will have to figure out how FPCs were rigged. MER-C 18:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Muhammad Mahdi Karim and Mydreamsparrow have been unblocked at their request. There is still something unexplained about Blacknclick and the UPE article. --- Possibly &#9742; 21:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on the draft. They're will be another UPE in, in 4-5 months to tart it up for sure. That firm is heavily invested in PR.   scope_creep Talk  23:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that has both autopatrolled and new page reviewer rights. See the log for reference. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian Rosa


User Panghea clearly has a COI and is not disclosing. Forsooth1234 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User: Petersmillard
This user is almost exclusively editing circumcision related pages. He's has a history of removing content critical of circumcision and adding text supportive of the practice. For example:, ,. He's written articles for commercial circumcision devices that were positively glowing. I don't want to post what I've found about him outside of Wikipedia, per WP:OUTING, but other public information exists to support my claim that he's materially benefiting from circumcision advocacy, despite the COI statement on his talk page.

Given that he nearly only edits to write NPOV positive statements on circumcision, that should be a enough of a red flag. Given his situation, he's better making comments on the talk pages of articles or editing articles outside of circumcision.Stix1776 (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am a PhD epidemiologist and I have published in many scientific areas over the past 30 years. However, circumcision has been my main research focus for the past 10 years. I am an expert in this field. If Wikipedia excludes experts in their field, it will cease to be a well-informed platform. It would be hard to write about nuclear physics if one were not a nuclear physicist, but somehow everything thinks they are an expert in medical matters. I have never received any funding for my work, did not/do not serve as an employee or consultant, and have no financial interest in any marketed products or products in development. I have no competing interests, defined as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles. No competing interests, financial or non-financial, professional, or personal, exist. No competing interests exist in relationship to an organization or another person. 74.75.197.221 (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC).
 * Ooops. I wasn't logged in. Petersmillard (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply. We love experts and they are welcome to contribute within guidelines. The issue here seems to be that you have removed entirely removed text that is critical of the value of circumcision, and replaced it with positive views. That makes it look like you are promoting a certain point of view, rather than being neutral. Could you address that? This diff is a good example of what I mean. --- Possibly &#9742; 05:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good edit: replacing a weasel-worded statement sourced to a low-quality, decade-old journal with something recent from the WHO is exactly the kind of edit Wikipedia likes (from experts or not!) Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling the Journal of Public Health in Africa "low-quality" seems a bit racist. Anyhow, I don't know how you call this "weasel-worded", as it's the literal intent of the article's authors. Honestly I'd love to find the diff that takes a neutral and nuanced tone with the sources, but I'm not seeing it.Stix1776 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And calling an evaluation of a low-quality journal "racist", is fucking stupid. (Hint: it's not MEDLINE-indexed, a red flag). Editorial verbiage like "There are some who question ..." is weasel wording, plain and simple. Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment, I need an editor with privileges to read the public information about this editor, which I'm unable to post here. In the meantime, looking at the user's history makes clear that, at minimum, he's engaging in WP:ADVOCACY. Stix1776 (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also am concerned about their COI. Especially when they cited themself in the Unicirc article. Being a single purpose account is definitely a red flag. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * yes they are contributing on a single subject matter (circumcision), but have edited 14 different articles related to the subject. That's a positive. The many edits to Unicirc look a little promotional though. --- Possibly &#9742; 05:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Another concerning incident that occured is when they removed my comments and another user's comments on the | Circumcision and HIV talk page. This act was very disruptive, and sadly lead to a user unwatching the page. Prcc27 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment : is no one going to check this outside information that I can't post due to WP:OUTING? I'm in no rush, but I hope it's not ignored. Stix1776 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there going to be any kind of closure with this discussion? It would be nice to have some kind of resolution, so that we can move on from this issue. Prcc27 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Prix Versailles

 * (redirected to Prix Versailles)
 * (redirected to Prix Versailles)
 * (redirected to Prix Versailles)
 * (redirected to Prix Versailles)
 * (redirected to Prix Versailles)
 * (redirected to Prix Versailles)
 * (redirected to Prix Versailles)
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles
 * template:Prix Versailles

Idoumou33, MARdF and Pantell only edit Prix Versailles and related pages (purple economy "was invented by Jérôme Gouadain, who later put it into theory via the association Diversum and then in the Prix Versailles"). They also edit other Wikipedia projects with the same focus, which suggests conflict of interest and possible paid editing. I believe Prix Versailles is notable, but am unsure about Cultural footprint, Purple economy and the International Appeal of 7 June 2020. I have added COI notices to the user pages, but as they only edit periodically I do not expect an immediate response. TSventon (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree: this is quite obviously a walled garden of promotional pages designed to inflate the Prix Versailles. I trimmed about twenty uses of prix-versailles.com from the main page, and tagged the others for UPE. The main page contained so much primary-sourced detail that I would be extremely surprised if the editors behind it did not have a COI. I have half a mind to AFD it all, as it is such an obvious promotional oeuvre. However I am not sure an AfD would succeed, as they have generated some coverage over the years. Anyway, The COI promotion is very clear. --- Possibly &#9742; 06:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the extremely obvious walled garden and the long-term promotion, I redirected all the "Prix Versailles 20**" pages to Prix Versailles. It's difficult to find any RS sourcing about the prize itself as most mentions talk about the winners. The main page with mention of some winners seems appropriate; the "Prix Versailles 20**" pages listed 50 or more "winners" per page and were on the verge of using WP as a web host. They can put that stuff on their web site. --- Possibly &#9742; 06:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Possibly, I have nominated four related categories for deletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 21. Do you know if there are similar noticeboards in other wikipedias? These editors have all edited related articles in fr Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon. I am an occasional contributor. In my research, I particularly study the links between culture and sustainable development, put forward by UNESCO. The Prix Versailles is an extension of UNESCO's advocacy. I do not understand the deletion of the Prix Versailles 2020 etc. pages. We can always add sources, but the latter for example contains about twenty external sources on the awarding of the prize. --MARdF (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MARdF, thank you for your response. Please could you confirm whether you have a connection to Prix Versailles or the other subjects you have edited which could cause a conflict of interest and whether you have been paid to edit? "Prix Versailles 20**" articles have been redirected rather than deleted: Help:Redirect explains how to access previous versions.
 * Possibly do you think it would make sense to unredirect the "Prix Versailles 20**" articles for now and start a discussion on the Prix Versailles talk page on what level of detail is appropriate? TSventon (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks TSventon for the explanation. The interest is only intellectual (no remuneration of course). My goal is to improve the pages when I can. I try to be as neutral and encyclopedic as possible. MARdF (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * would you mind answering the question-- are either of you connected to the Prix Versailles in some way, i.e. do you know them, work with them or are friends with someone at the organization? If you have no connection it is easy enough to say "I have no connection at all to the Prix Versailles". At the moment the edit history for MARdF and Idoumou33 shows a long-standing devotion to updating PV articles, and it matches with COI editing patterns that we see here often.   --- Possibly &#9742; 17:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, as I told to TSventon, I am passionate about the Prix Versailles because it is a great and unique adventure in the world of architecture, but there is no conflict of interest. Everything I write down is sourced. One can easily find a large number of sources. To Possibly, I have no connection at all to the Prix Versailles or the people who work there. Idoumou33 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is a little hard to believe that the three accounts are not connected and engaged in promotion of the Prix Versailles. For example, here is Idoumu33, MARDF AND Pantell all working together on the Prix Versailles page on the French Wikipedia. And again they work together here, here and here. For three indpendent wiki accounts to come together across different language wikis on the same subject, it obviously requires coordination., could you explain that?  --- Possibly &#9742; 19:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Possibly, yes we know us eachother, from the same association, and have talked about this. I can reply also for MARdF and Pantell: we have no connection to the Prix Versailles. We have been following the activities of the Prix Versailles for several years. As far as we can see, this is a non-partisan and multilateral approach. Our contributions are based on public sources. Idoumou33 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * can you say more about your "association" and why you have three people working together to promote the Prix Versailles? We are not talking about the sources here, but rather conflict of interest and what we call sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting. It is extremely rare that a group of three editors from the same organization would come together to edit a single subject, without that being problematic. The accounts appear to be separate individuals, but you are now saying that you all work for the same organization. It is confusing, and I see no declarations on your user page(s). --- Possibly &#9742; 19:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, to quote from WP:MEATPUPPETRY, "*A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: "For the purpose of dispute resolution 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." --- Possibly &#9742; 19:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We belong to the same association but we do not work together. We are not responsible for promoting anything. In addition, my contributions to Wikipedia are occasional. At my level, I have never considered Wikipedia as "a job". It is rather a pleasure. I didn't know that I had to declare these links, so I did it on my page. For the rest I'm not an expert. Idoumou33 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's in your best interest to be more transparent about the vague organization that employs three editors who are editing this subject. That could mean a lot of things. It might be the Versailles chamber of commerce. It might be a communications company doing PR work pro bono. Neither of those are desirable without proper disclosure. In short, you have not given us enough information to be sure there is no COI. On the contrary, you're three people pushing the same topic across multiple wikis, and all working (presumably) for the same organization. If we have to assume something, it's that you're collectively engaged in using Wikipedia as a promotional tool.  --- Possibly &#9742; 21:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, when I say association, it's like coliving ("foyer"), nothing professional. We have no connection either with the municipality of Versailles or similar institutions. As volunteers, our objective is not to promote, except that the Prix Versailles is probably the most important programme involving UNESCO which highlights the architecture of everyday life and the link between culture and sustainability. I think this is very relevant for the Wikipedian community, Wikipedia being undoubtedly today the best demonstration of taking into account the cultural dimension as an issue of sustainability. We wanted to contribute on these subjects because they clearly have, in our eyes, an encyclopedic scope, in view of the notoriety, the international spectrum and the values of diversity which are put forward. Idoumou33 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi all. I'm from fr-wp and I'v been pinged by on Sockpuppet investigations/MARdF. I would like to add that on fr-wp, user talk pages are designed the exact same way: fr:Utilisateur:Pantell, fr:Utilisateur:Idoumou33, fr:Utilisateur:MARdF, which seems odd to me for three seperate persons. I also found a fourth account fr:special:contributions/Icheus, very likely to be linked to the three others (edited fr:Économie mauve and created fr:Empreinte culturelle along with the three other accounts + same userpage design).
 * Furthemore, in 2010, MARdF created fr:Association diversum, which has been deleted. [Diversum association is the creator of the Prix Versailles... One of the users said above "yes we know us eachother, from the same association", and then "No, when I say association, it's like coliving ("foyer"), nothing professional." I have a hard time to assume good faith here and will submit a separate sockpupett investigation on fr-wp.
 * Regards, Jules* (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jules* thank you for your investigation. You could also look at the account fr:special:contributions/Cervantes04, which has been editing about topics related to PV on es and pt Wikipedias since 2018. TSventon (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

French checkuser found the French wiki accounts MARdF, Pantell, Idoumou33 and Cervantes04 to be the same, and blocked them all. Thanks Jules* for helping us out! --- Possibly &#9742; 18:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MARdF, Pantell, Idoumou33 have also been blocked here on en-wiki after SPI/checkuser. --- Possibly &#9742; 19:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now submitted a checkuser request at meta:Steward requests/Checkuser/2021-07 [link updated 27 July 2021]. TSventon (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Update: in addition to MARdF, Idoumou33, and Pantell (the en-wiki and fr-wiki accounts), stewards also confirmed that Gaudiem, Mihály64, Cervantes04, FloricaMihalba, Satynath, Aspic80, and AigeusMare are the same account. Guadiem et al have no contribs on en-wiki.  --- Possibly &#9742; 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am using Google Translate to speak to you. What has been said before is true. We are a group of friends who reside or have resided in the same household. We contribute little and we focus on the PV. Some have followed it from the start and even before, since the PV fits into a broader issue of promoting cultural diversity and its link with sustainable development. We intervened in a number of languages depending on our nationalities and our respective skills. But in any case we are not remunerated. This is a process of general interest. Sorry this has caused confusion. We were not familiar with the operating rules and we almost limited ourselves to the content. We regret it. We see PV as a new form of the Olympics, hence the enthusiasm. Of course, we let you judge Cervantes04 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder why this account is not blocked yet. Cervantes04 was confirmed by stewards as being the same as the other blocked accounts. Cervantes04 is blocked on French Wikipedia. The story about ten different friends living in the same house and all being Wikipedia editors is amusing. --- Possibly &#9742; 07:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Could be a Commune, a reincarnation of the Paris Commune devoted to Prix Versailles. However even if true, this would still be considered a WP:SHAREd account (a " single user for Wikipedia's purposes") as "they edit with the same objectives". Constructively, a global lock should be requested at meta (they were CU confirmed there, but the accounts weren't globally locked, yet).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A global lock was requested at meta. --- Possibly &#9742; 08:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I was pinged on the Paulina Morán talkpage, an article I worked on improving when it was up for deletion. At the time, there seemed to be enough press on her to pass GNG, but I now realize the source-articles may have been carefully placed PR by the Prix Versailles ring. The "prize" had me fooled, as I assumed there was in fact a relationship with UNESCO, but it seems that the awards are just "presented" at a UNESCO facility. If Paulina Moran is part of a group-deletion of the COI/UPE-sock-walled gardener's articles, I do not object to it being deleted. In fact they should all go. BTW, I don't buy the "group of friends" story, it seems like I've heard that before. Netherzone (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Categories now nominated for deletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 2. TSventon (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cross-Wikipedia
Links I am informing other Wikipedia of this investigation and adding this section for any questions and comments. TSventon (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * en discussion
 * en sock puppet investigation
 * fr discussion
 * fr sock puppet investigation
 * meta sock puppet investigation
 * For de-WP, a SPA was used . I can't see any notability of this "prize" which was obviously inflated as a purely promotional tool. There's no reception or mentioning of this "prize" in well known or influential architectural magazines, only reprodued PR in some magazines.--Chianti (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Chianti I am informing the other Wikipedias so they can deal with non notable and promotional material. A related de article is de:Lila Wirtschaft. The pattern across 16 Wikipedias was the use of the 15 SPAs listed in the meta investigation plus one more, Icheus. TSventon (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: de:Prix Versailles and de:Lila Wirtschaft nominated for deletion today. TSventon (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Please post further comments and questions at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam. TSventon (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)