Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 178

Qatalog and other paid edits


Although, a useful contributor to Somali topics, they are doing peculiar edits from some time (and go extra mile to defend the spam). I have evidence to proof my stance that they have done paid edits on above linked pages. I think they have to read WP:COI/WP:PAID to familiarize themselves that they can't do such edits directly and have to use talk page.

Examples of them defending their edits (suggests strong COI), Articles for deletion/Cyrus Ahanchian, Articles for deletion/Shopaccino, Talk:Non-fungible_token, and a corporate page Qatalog. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:F843:A120:6535:58CA (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have done many edits on Somali topics, I am just trying to branch out and cover new areas to expand my Wikipedia experience, that is all, what is peculiar about this? I am not doing paid edits. This user is accusing me of 'defending' my edits. I put a lot of voluntary work into my edits of Wikipedia and if my work is reverted or nominated for deletion I like to understand why, so that I may improve, this is why I question unexplained deletion or reversion of my work. I always learn a lot by questioning rather than just accepting when no proper explanation has been given.  If it turns out that I am in the right, then I won't stand for my work being deleted by other editors who have not given me good reason either. I do not have a conflict of interest. The editor is also obviously stalking me on Wikipedia. It may be they who is doing paid edits and I have inadvertently stepped on their toes, so they now have it in for me. They have gone through my contribution history to find this list of pages I have recently edited. I object to my contributions being stalked in such a manner. Please see WP:HOUND.      Amirah   talk  12:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Rhys William, spam again. You have to disclose when you do paid edits. I won't remind you next time. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:40CE:A129:14E2:35D9 (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is harassment and is against Wikipedia policy. I believe that is why you are not using a logged in account to do it. You have given me no reason why you flagged the draft page as paid editing. You have no reason. You don't even have the courtesy to explain why you believe the article to be spam. I am editing Wikipedia in new areas which I have not edited before and I am trying to learn. Instead of assisting me you are just repeatedly accusing me of 'paid editing' with no valid grounds for your accusations. This is harassment. You are following me around through my contribution history and doing this with every new page I publish. As I said, I have been trying to learn and you are simply trying to crush my progress and destroy my contributions to Wikipedia.  Amirah   talk  11:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can anyone who reads this give me advice as to what I can do to stop this harassment? Amirah   talk  11:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There have been other issues with possible WP:COI, see this deleted thread from their talk page earlier this year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That does come across as very suspicious; "I will speak to him myself about it" implies either a certain degree of familiarity or an excessive level of confidence that a stranger is able to have a conversation with him. To me, the former seems considerably more likely.
 * The article for Qatalog reads like something straight out of their product promotion guide (link above corrected; it is currently in draft space), while the rest come across as slightly more objective - although the mere existence of a page can be promotional. I am also curious at the diverse range of topics covered, particularly given the obscurity of each of these individuals. Amirah, can you give us some insights into how you came across each of these topics and why you decided to branch out and write articles on them?
 * Finally, I will note that WP:HOUNDING only applies to inappropriate uses of a users contribution log; reviewing it as part of a COI investigation is not inappropriate, so long as they do not raise a frivolous complaint - and while it is possible that this complaint is incorrect, it is clearly not frivolous. In general, I would be a little more careful throwing around such accusations in the future; I've noticed you do it semi-frequently, and when used inappropriately it could be a WP:CIVIL violation. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question about why I have decided to branch out and cover other subject areas, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Both for readers and editors there is no reason why a person shouldn't try to broaden their scope and broaden their mind by covering diverse topics. Also, when I have looked at requests for admin, I am under the impression that in order to progress an editor should edit articles on a variety of different subject areas. To try to say that a person should be restricted to editing just one subject area, just because they have previously done so, is not correct. I came across these topics through search engines using keywords and checking news sources. I have been trying to expand my experience of new page creation, and looking for topics to cover. I have spent quite a lot of time searching for potential topics for new articles only to find that they already have an article. I have deliberately chosen to edit a variety of topics, to gain more experience. Is there anything wrong with that? If I had thought that an article was promotional or did not achieve notability then I wouldn't have published it. This is why I have asked for explanations where articles have not been accepted, so that at least I can learn and move forward. Why do you find the Qatalog draft so promotional? The editor who nominated it for deletion explained why, and I removed the content which they complained about from the article. If you still find it promotional please tell me why.  There is not much point in editing if an editors work is deleted and they don't understand why, is there?
 * I was also under the impression that using a persons contribution history to follow them around Wikipedia was WP:HOUNDING. If I am wrong about that then I may be mistaken. I have not deliberately been uncivil to anyone. I try to be civil even when I feel that others are not being civil to me.
 * The link above where I said 'I will speak to him myself about it' is referring to something which occurred some time ago and something I explained at the time. It does not indicate a conflict of interest, as it does not indicate having had previous contact with the person. There was at the time and still is no conflict of interest.
 * There have been no talk page discussions about COI on any of the articles which are listed at the top of this discussion. I understand that editors are only supposed to open a discussion on this noticeboard when talk page discussions have been attempted and failed to resolve an issue. Amirah   talk  19:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining why you wished to branch out, but I wasn't actually asking about that; I find it entirely understandable that you wished to branch out. I was asking why you choose three obscure topics to do so, and what caused you to select each of those three rather than unspecified alternatives.
 * For the Qatalog draft, the aspects that come across as promotional to me are Using, Interface, Costing, and, to a lesser extent, in the "History and Funding" section. BilledMammal (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining this, I will edit the Qatalog draft accordingly to make it less promotional. About the topics, I chose quite obscure topics (as you put it) because, as I said above, I spent quite some time searching for less obscure topics to create articles on. I found the less obscure topics I checked to already have articles. I wished to create articles to round off my skills at editing Wikipedia. As there are already over 6,000,000 pages on English Wikipedia, it stands to reason that a lot of less obscure topics will already have articles.
 * Having said that, I did not think that these topics would be so obscure as to not achieve notability, as it turns out some of them have been. I have successfully published 23 articles on Wikipedia over the seven years I have been editing, and only 3 of them have been deleted. Out of those 3 one of them I deleted myself because the name was spelt wrongly and at that stage I didn't know how to do a page move.
 * I have also only recently began to create drafts. Up until recently I created all those articles directly in mainspace, but as I have been branching out into new subject areas, I felt that creating drafts and working on them would be a safer way of doing it. I also never used Articles for Creation before up until now, but as I had a couple of articles deleted (the Ahanchian article and the court case) I decided to start using AfC to try to get some feedback on areas that I may not have so much experience on. My earlier article topics had qualified for notability I suppose because I had just picked subjects which were notable rather than studying and understanding notability guidelines.


 * These deletion discussions have really taught me a lot about Wikipedia guidelines, particularly notability. It is only through questioning that I have learnt. The way that the Op has worded this discussion has made me feel intimidated about questioning why if my work is deleted. Especially as this noticeboard discussion was sprung on me without prior talk page discussions about COI. They have written at the top of this discussion 'Examples of them defending their edits' as if asking why another editor wants to delete an article I have published is a crime, and what's more, they haven't had any prior discussion with me to ask me why I questioned these deletions (if they found it odd that I did) before posting here. That is why I was so shocked to be notified of this discussion. At the point in time when the anonymous editor who started this post went through my contribution history there was no COI investigation and they had not made any attempt to discuss any concerns with me at all before posting here.
 * I would also like to add that just because other editors cannot understand someones choice of topics, doesn't show that they have a conflict of interest. It is common for people with autism to have 'special interests' in topics which others may find obscure or cannot understand why it interests them. It is also common that these special interests may be very intense for some time and may change from time to time. A person who has autism may go through a time when they have a loss of interest in something and are searching for new interests, which also may appear 'obscure' to the neurotypical mind. They cannot usually explain why they've lost interest in something, it has just gone. It is not something I should have to explain here, and it is not something which an editor should have to justify or have to feel that it casts doubt over their reasons for editing a subject area or possible COI. Autism is a relatively common condition and there are likely to be quite a number of people with similar tendencies who edit Wikipedia. We should not have to justify why our interests are different from yours or be pressured into disclosing a disability or feel mistrusted because you do not understand the way our minds work and find the topics which interest us to be 'obscure' to you. It's not usual for a person with autism to be able to explain why they find a particular subject or topic interesting, they just do. The reasons I have given above are also part of my reasoning for exploring new topic areas, some of which you may find 'obscure'. If you don't understand what I am talking about, then I suggest you Google 'Autism Special Interests' and you will find plenty of articles which will explain that. I also have diagnosed complex PTSD which is connected to my autism and lack of diagnosis when I was younger. If I find something disturbing I may just drop it and explore another area.  Could be something like the use of the word 'tortured' here  has triggered me, which made me feel like leaving a subject area to explore something more mundane. PTSD sufferers can find that if something happens which 'triggers' them in a particular area, their lives get narrower  and narrower, until they reach a point they don't even walk out their front doors.  Exploring new areas of interest may be a kind of therapy for having  lost interest in other areas, particularly mundane aspects of life such as cooking, film and TV, reading books etc. which are the subject areas most of my recent articles cover. The software articles, are not a new interest to me, as it is in my career history to develop software. It is just that I have not edited or created software articles on Wikipedia before. Practically the whole of my editing history has been on Somalia, other than my very first edit to Wikipedia and my very first article, which was which was under an abandoned profile name (my birth name account) which was on terrorism in Nigeria.  My reasons for starting to edit Wikipedia in the first place were because I  felt that many things were happening that were just not going down in the history books, every day when I turned on the TV or the radio, I would here accounts of whole villages being destroyed. This is why I didn't have to study notability guidelines, and was just automatically choosing topics were notable. I didn't even realise that guidelines existed on Wikipedia for several years after I first started editing. So at least when some of my edits have been challenged, I have learned about guidelines and policies which I was unaware of before. That is a good thing, and


 * I should not be made to feel like I have done something wrong because I have questioned it.    Amirah   talk  23:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Varsity Spirit


Article has been repeatedly edited by users to add PR-based wording and downplay references to notable controversies faced by the company. The user Klwerling94 also used the pronoun "we" in a talk page post warning me about my edits, which also threatened to "get Wikipedia involved to help mediate our fact-based content updates" (comments I am deeming to be a potential legal threat). ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A little googling shows that Klwerling94 has a high probability of being paid to edit the wikipedia. Trying to avoid WP:OUTING but there's a clear connection if you look for it. I've given her the paid editor first notice. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting how Klwerling94 also referred to the article as "our corporate page". Miracusaurs (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My own search shows the same connection for Klwerling to Varsity Spirit, while Blondsquad5678 strongly suggests a similar connection. I think we can reasonable conclude there is a paid conflict of interest and require them to request edits to be made, rather than directly implementing them, if it is appropriate for me to make such a suggestion. BilledMammal (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

John Yorke (producer)
This diff shows that the subject has requested for his page to be updated. I gave a COI notice and placed a tag on the article, but they have both been ignored and the editor has continued to add to the article. – DarkGlow • 19:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Emjron has disclosed on their user page and said that they will use the talk page to request edits going forward. --- Possibly &#9742; 23:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Panhandle Milling


Likely undisclosed COI and sock/meat-puppetry at play here. Much of DarkMilly's initial edits were adding mostly useless links (example) to build enough edits to create articles, which have since been moved to draft space. LedgeStuff subsequently appeared and continued editing those other pages, and also created Draft:PHM Brands, the overarching company for Panhandle Milling and Viobin. Despite a COI warning, LedgeStuff has not disclosed any COI.  Spencer T• C 02:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyon


There have been repeated recent attempts by several accounts to promote some primary research papers from the early 1980s that with 20-20 hindsight can be seen as related to anyons. These highly technical papers in mathematical physics are not helpful in explaining anyons nor were they helpful to actual anyon researchers who neither read nor cited these early technical papers.

These three SPAs have little interest in helping to describe anyons; their primary concern is to mention the names of certain authors as having done early work on anyons:
 * PierreAlexis1788 adds 9 mentions of the name "Goldin" with a single edit
 * Pierre Alexis1788 supports adding different Goldin-related material based on what he describes as an "article" (actually a 1990 letter to the editor of Physics Today), describing early work by Goldin et al. on mathematical physics related to anyons. The letter describes Goldin et al. as "significant" in the sense of being early work fractional statistics in two dimensions, but not in the sense that the work was cited by or used in the progress made by other researchers on anyons.
 * New IP proposes to add material on Goldin et al based on the same letter to the editor, which is again mis-identified as an "article."
 * QuantumQuench identifies as previous IP and describes the omission of Goldin et al. as "egregious, and if this omission is intentional could even be argued to be vandalism."

The pattern of these edits does not seem aimed at improving the article anyon. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And another new account has entered the talk page discussion--. "Doctagon" account was created at 11:24 (five minutes after the latest push by  to include 1981 Goldin et al. And Doctagon with a detailed first edit made at 11:53 argues that even more papers with Goldin as a coauthor should be included. In fact, according to Doctagon, a 1985 Goldin et al. paper is also not just too important to omit but "credit for non-abelian anyons is due primarily to this group." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Remedy sought: Topic ban from anyon for SPAs, whose coordination suggests at least canvassing and probably several accounts run by one person. Their sole interest is to demand inclusion of little-cited Goldin papers as important to a now-popular topic. The Gish gallop at Talk:Anyon establishes only that Goldin et al have (sometimes) been mentioned in discussions of anyon history--as have dozens of other more cited, more relevant, also-early papers that aren't in the anyon article. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Walter Soriano


I believe these three users are the same person/organization trying to publish biased content about Walter Soriano. I have put some findings on the talk page. I just want to correct the COI edits, but no one is agreeing with me. The site (the7eye) they are using is also a subject in the lawsuit Soriano filed. So it is like the defendants in the lawsuits are working together. Shouldn't their edits be reverted? Thank you SAMsohot (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The users mentioned above (Scottstedman, 183.182.122.247 and 103.1.30.166) have not edited since May 2021, so it seems like undoing any damage they may have done is the only issue here. --- Possibly &#9742; 23:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes! That is what should be done, but apparently no one agrees with me and I have been involved in an edit war now. As they are COI, shouldn't their edits be reversed? The page should go back to this edit: "20:40, 14 January 2021‎ Yobot talk contribs‎ m  15,894 bytes −14‎  References after punctuation per WP:REFPUNCT, WP:CITEFOOT, WP:PAIC + other fixes undo Tag: AWB." After this edit, there was COI and then me and the edit war.SAMsohot (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't delete COI contributions by default; COI edits that are valuable do not need to be reversed. Those that are self-serving, promotional or damaging in some other way can be reversed. --- Possibly &#9742; 00:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aren't COI supposed to proposed their changes on Talk Pages rather than directly edit? The edits they made are biased and unfactual. They have played with their words. Like saying at least 10 lawsuits and Slapp-suiter, etc., these statements are nowhere written on the references provided.SAMsohot (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's like I said. COI edits that are valuable do not need to be reversed. There is a mandatory policy requiring disclosure, but there is actually no policy to stop COI editors from editing pages directly or requiring them to use talk pages for requests. We only have a guideline that suggests they use talk pages for requests.  --- Possibly &#9742; 12:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So vandalising a page is accepted? Nice! SAMsohot (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said vandalism was OK? --- Possibly &#9742; 16:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what they have done. They have put false information. SAMsohot (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Rennita Shannon


I suspect that User:Jk6ge and User:2601:C0:C280:8100:1D8F:F43E:91A4:2B69 are COI editors and/or paid editors. Jk6ge is a relatively new editor who edited the page with the content violating WP:NPOV within a matter of hours after account creation, with the edits to Renitta Shannon being their only edits. User:2601:C0:C280:8100:1D8F:F43E:91A4:2B69 is an IP editor whose only edits are the violating edits to this page, and appears to be located in the state house district that Renitta Shannon represents. These edits were made mere weeks before Renitta Shannon’s announcement of her candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia today. Muhibm0307 (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also note that the Commons accounts named J6kge uploaded an image which is claimed to be directly from Shannon('s office or campaign), which is now used in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what I can do to prove that this was not a COI and that I was not paid to do so. I have sourced and cited all materials because there is a lot written about Shannon throughout the last few years. The photo was taken from her official website. I'm quite new to being a wiki contributor so I'm all for correcting any mistakes, but I need to know what exactly those are in a constructive manner, not accusatory. Jk6ge (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the image, it was deleted from Commons on 10 September and is obviously not currently used in the article. And as a note for Jk6ge, just taking images off of websites is not to be uploaded to Commons, unless they are specifically marked with a compatible and free license. --SVTCobra 22:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone and cleaned up the article - or more precisely, gutted it, as a large amount of content was sourced to primary sources, or were outright copy violations. I still don't believe the article is in compliance with NPOV, but it's better.
 * If an admin reads this, can they please revdel between and, inclusive, in order to hide the copyvio content? BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nalbarian

 * - COI, notably in reference to the Social Work section. GNG issues.
 * - GNG issues that may be because of COI
 * - GNG issues that may be because of COI
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio. History deletion required.
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Possible UPE.
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - COI, possibly in reference to her social work. GNG issues.
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - COI, based on inclusion of "own work" photograph and article tone.
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Possible COI.
 * - Heavy Copyvio, probably needs deletion.
 * - GNG issues that may be because of COI. Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Copyvio, see above for details
 * - Heavy Copyvio, probably needs deletion.
 * - GNG issues that may be because of COI. Includes information not available at references.

I've just blocked this user based on nonpublic evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Any help reviewing his ~100 created pages for affected articles that need cleanup or deletion would be appreciated. I don't think everything he wrote was for pay, but some of it definitely is. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From the bottom up:


 * Anil Rai Gupta - probably created as as a UPE, but has since been cleaned up and looks like it meets GNG.
 * Barkhala - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
 * Deharkuchi - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
 * Lahkar - surname list page. Included some uncited claims about caste status that I removed. Remaining information is also uncited, but as a surname disambiguation page no real issue exists with it. No evidence of COI.
 * Jetting (injection moulding defect) - should probably be redirected to Injection moulding, but no evidence of COI.
 * Sink marks (injection moulding defect) - already turned into a redirect
 * Pre-drying (injection moulding) - already turned into a redirect
 * Purna Kamdev - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
 * Himashree - first name disambiguation page. No issues, no evidence of COI.
 * Ashok Sarma - politician stub. Does not read as promotional, and they meet WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence of COI.
 * Bhaskar Papukan Gogoi - comes across as promotional, specifically the "social work" section, and the evidence they meet GNG is weak. Likely COI.
 * Kismat Village - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
 * Will continue, just posting now so that if anyone else is working on this they can start from the top and we don't duplicate work. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Akana (village) - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
 * Pajipar - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
 * Parowa (village) - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
 * Marowa - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
 * Deepamoni Saikia - article doesn't come across as promotional, but the simple existence of it may be; the citations don't come close to suggesting they meet WP:GNG. Plausible COI.
 * Anupam Nath - article doesn't come across as promotional, but the simple existence of it may be; they might meet WP:ANYBIO due to their TIME photography award, but I'm not confident they meet GNG. Possible COI.
 * Baralia River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Pagladiya River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Jatinga River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. Previously pinged for copyvio.
 * Dikhow River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Gabharu River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Haribhanga, Nalbari district - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI. Could be renamed to Haribhanga (village).
 * Kulsi River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Jiri River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Chowki picnic spot, Baksa district - since turned into a redirect. No evidence of COI. Original has no apparent copyvio.
 * Billeswar Devalaya - Hindu temple. I have serious questions about notability, but won't comment beyond that as I suspect there may be sources in Hindi. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Aie River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Champabati River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. Copyvio, with phrases like " in south west direction and entered into Bengtal Sanctuary taking Khungrung river at its right in Hantupara" being directly copied.
 * Embassy of India, Pyongyang - likely meets GNG, no evidence of COI. Possibly copyvio - table is copied directly from [here https://eoi.gov.in/pyongyang/?4098?000], and other text is copied directly from [here https://eoi.gov.in/pyongyang/?4179?00001]. However, I'm not certain of the copyright status of this content, given it was produced by the Indian government.
 * Royal Bhutan Consulate, Guwahati - turned into a redirect. Origional has a possible copyvio with the phrase "The Royal Bhutanese Consulate General in Guwahati, Assam is one of the diplomatic missions of the Kingdom of Bhutan to the the Republic of India with concurrent consular jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Nagaland. It was inaugurated on 2 February 2018." being too close to the sources wording: "The Royal Bhutanese Consulate General in Guwahati, Assam with concurrent consular jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Nagaland was inaugurated on 2 February 2018". As it has already been turned into a redirect, probably safer just to blank the original.
 * Archana Mahanta - reads slightly promotional, but given the individual is deceased, that the article was created after their death, and is heavily sourced to non-paid obituaries, I think that is just a consequence of the chosen sources, rather than evidence of a COI. Easily meets GNG. No apparent copyvio.
 * Adya Sharma - no apparent COI, meets GNG, but has copyvio, directly copying phrases like ["One of his remarkable achievements was staging Titanic in Kohinoor Theatre, one of the leading mobile theatre groups in Assam." https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/cultural-icon-passes-away/cid/1528681] from the Telegraph India.
 * Jenny Atkinson - Might just scrape GNG, but they would need an additional source to do so, a source I haven't been able to find. No particular evidence of UPE, but the uniqueness of it - the sole article the user created that is not related to India - makes me suspect there is a UPE. Might be worth sending to AfD to get their feel for it.
 * Jiadhal River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
 * Stopping for now, will continue later. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Jiadhal River - Seems ok.
 * Adya Sharma - Seems ok.
 * Archana Mahanta - Seems ok.
 * Embassy of India, Pyongyang OK
 * Champabati River OK
 * Aie River OK  scope_creep Talk  23:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dikrong River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Borgang River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Basudev Devalaya - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Not confident it meets GNG.
 * Nona River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Ganga Pukhuri - [copyvio http://nalbari.nic.in/ganga_pukhuri.html]. No apparent COI, but I am not confident it meets GNG.
 * Asha Bordoloi - Content does not appear promotional, but the individual might fail WP:BLP1E.
 * Thetha Gohain Than - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Not confident it meets GNG.
 * Archana Borthakur - Reads slightly promotional ("She is known for her social works ..." without the source making such a statement), and the evidence she meets GNG is slim; possible COI. No evidence of copyvio.
 * Kushal Konwar Sarma - Comes across as slightly promotional, but I believe that is due to copyvio from a source that comes across as promotional, rather than COI.
 * Ravi Kannan R - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Meets GNG.
 * [Bhaskar Jyoti Mahanta]] - No apparent COI, probably meets GNG, the "education" section is a copyvio.
 * Surjya Kanta Hazarika - No apparent copyvio, doesn't read in a promotional manner, so no apparent COI. However, very unlikely to meet GNG.
 * Shyamkanu Mahanta - Some minor copyvio, such as the line "Mahanta passed out in engineering and later did management course." being directly copied from the source. No apparent COI, probably meets GNG.
 * Mayur Bora - Likely COI. Signature and photograph are presented as "own work" (not a new editor error, they have previously correctly attributed images), while the article reads vaguely promotional. No apparent copyvio, and possibly meets GNG.
 * Manoj Gogoi - No apparent COI, but copyvio, with sentenced like "Gogoi decided to become a full-fledged environmentalist after a chance meeting with Kedar Gore, director of Corbett Foundation." directly copied from the source.
 * M Kamalathal - reads promotional, using words like "selfless" that are not used in the sources. However, they likely meet GNG; all in all possible COI, but it might not need to be acted upon. No apparent copyvio.
 * Bharalu River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Jhanji River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Pausing for now, will continue later. BilledMammal (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: next time use the article links template and list the concerned articles at the top. I've redirected one article, but to indicate that I would have had to edit your post. --- Possibly &#9742; 02:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to be clear, you mean this template: ? Thank you for the suggestion, I'll do that next time; I can see the benefit. For the moment, I have no objection to people editing my post to note that a certain action has been taken on a given page. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, exactly. There is also a template for userlinks. Thanks. --- Possibly &#9742; 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at the above reviews, I am wondering if Nalbarian's block was justified. It just seems like a person with a passion for local places and people in India. They may have made a few copyvios in the process and the articles may not have been interesting enough for other WP editors to collaborate and form fully vetted articles. But COI? Indefinite block? Seems a stretch to me. SVTCobra 01:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, it was based on compelling nonpublic evidence. Most of his likely-commissioned articles were deleted before the block. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Junmoni Devi Khaund - no apparent COI, but heavy copyvio, with most of the text being directly copied from [Assam Tribute], with the only differences being a change of tense.
 * Shubhankar Baruah - reads mildly promotional, and they appear to fail GNG, possible COI. Bigger issue is the copyvio; content is copied directly from the subjects radio profile
 * Dudhnoi River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Krishnai River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Mrigen Talukdar - cricket player for played in tier one domestic matches, meets WP:NCRICKET. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Suresh Ranjan Goduka - doesn't appear promotional, probably meets WP:GNG. No apparent COI, some copyvio in the lines "Goduka's forefathers migrated to Assam from the erstwhile Rajputana a century ago" and "Goduka gave up a documentary filmmaking career in New Delhi and he started writing poetry and other literary works. He went back Assam in 2004 to start Jeevan (Jeevan means Life in Assamese), a monthly Assamese magazine, which seeks to explore the diversity, beauty and infinite possibility of life"
 * Raijor Dal - minor political party, probably meets WP:NCORP (has a seat in Assam), no apparent copyvio. I am worried about the lack of sourcing for the lede, though.
 * Maitrayee Patar - some copyvio issues, such as the copying of this line "have been translated into other Indian and foreign languages like Italian, Nepali, Hindi, Tiwa and Malayalam." I'm also not sure they meet GNG, but I see no evidence of COI.
 * Ranganadi River - almost entirely unsourced, with the one source not fully supporting the sentence it claims to. Further, it is claimed that the source was accessed in 2010, but it was added to the article in 2020. However, meets WP:GEOLAND, and I see no evidence of COI.
 * Raijor Dol - redirect to Raijor Dal
 * Tipkai River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Tuni River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Sauvik Das - meets WP:NCRICKET. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Diju River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Maguri Motapung Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * List of lakes of Assam - probably meets WP:NLIST. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Silsako Lake - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, some copyvio such as copying almost without alteration this sentence: "The Beel runs through the heart of the Guwahati city surrounded by villages like Satgaon, Hengrabari, Mathgharia."
 * Gas-assisted injection molding - no apparent COI, some copyvio in the advantages section. Topic is likely sufficiently notable to deserve its own article separate from Injection moulding.
 * Kapla Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, copyvio in the aquafauna paragraph (from "is the habitat of a number of species of indigenous fishes like kawai, magur, singi, sol, puthi, khalihana, barali etc.")
 * Dora Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Micro injection molding - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Unsure if it meets GNG, might be worth taking to AfD.
 * Urpad Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Purging (manufacturing) - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Reads as a how to guide, and I have serious doubts about its notability. Probably fine to delete.
 * Almost done, will finish later and create a sub-list of which ones need some sort of attention, cutting out those I believe can be left as is. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Tanmaya Bhatnagar - Comes across a little promotional, but appears to meet WP:GNG. Copyvio issues, such as copying and pasting this fragment: "Her mother would sing, play the guitar and write poetry. This inspired the young Tanmaya in no small measure.".
 * Samaguri Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Insufficiently cited, but not a major issue.
 * Morikalang Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Buli Tsho - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Jimilang Tsho - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Ranjitsinh Disale - Comes across a little promotional, but appears to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO#1. No apparent copyvio.
 * Ranjitsinh - Surname disambigation page, no issues
 * Cube mold technology - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Some questions about notability.
 * Munin Barkotoki - No apparent COI, extensive copyvio. While the individual is probably notable, the article should be deleted as there is insufficient material to support it without copyvio.
 * Prabhat Sarma - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Probably notable.
 * Apurba Kumar Saikia - No apparent copyvio, possible COI; no clear notability, and includes information that is unavailable at the provided sources.
 * Kumud Das - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Possibly notable.
 * Mer Beel - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
 * Tukreswari Temple - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. References do not indicate notability.
 * Sanjeeta Bhattacharya - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Probably notable.
 * Ramcharan Bharali - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Probably notable.
 * Mohan Bhaira Memorial Award - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Probably not notable.
 * Anima Guha - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Likely to be notable due to the number of independent obituaries.
 * That's all of them. I'll produce a summary list of the ones that needs attention later. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've set a list of articles that either have copyright violations or possible COI's at the top of the page. I can go through and remove the copyvios, before linking the diffs that need to be hidden here, but unfortunately I won't have time to do that for a few weeks. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Posting to keep this alive; still planning to come back and clean out the copyvios. BilledMammal (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Civic Center (Shenzhen)



 * Per his Commons contributions, Cocoablini has identified himself as "Justin Lee."
 * On his own talk page he has repeatedly referenced images he has uploaded as being "owned by [his] Father"
 * On his user page he writes "I am also the son of a renowned architect and I am adding the design credits where it's due."
 * The user's first edit involved adding "John Ming Yee Lee" to the list of Edward Larrabee Barnes' partners
 * He has repeatedly edited Civic Center (Shenzhen) with edit summaries including "Spoke to architect."

In light of these facts, I think an ostensible COI connection to Barnes (and John Ming Yee Lee at the very least) is clear. Filetime (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Cocoablini, you really need to comment here--and in the meantime I suggest you leave those articles alone. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You may do what you want with the information. I added photos, and clarifications. It's not marketing. In the meantime, since we are citing policies about Wikipedia's amazing high standards and ethics, I refer to this in the COI wiki,
 * "When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline." Paging, Filetime Cocoablini (talk). 17:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think it unreasonable to connect voluntarily-disclosed information on en.wiki to voluntarily-disclosed information on Commons in this circumstance. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So, reading this COI passage,"COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. " That doesn't say it's illegal. Also,"If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts." What disruption? Which really is just arbitrary, non-policy nonsense. If adding content about relatives or someone you met is an absolute policy violation, like 50% of wikipedia violates it's own standards. Wikipedia violates it's own standards about ITSELF when it discusses the Talk:Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español-a competitor. So, don't lecture me about COI. Just pull the trigger, since it's a totally subjective call by moderators who are on power trips. I suggest you read https://www.clicdata.com/blog/when-did-wikipedia-become-evil/, or how wikipedia became evil. Synopisis? Arbitrary policies and moderator chaos. Cocoablini (talk). 23:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * you have not made clear on your user page which articles you have a conflict of interest with. Can you post that? That way we will know which articles you are connected to via family, friends or professionally. Thanks. --- Possibly &#9742; 00:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Civic Center (Shenzhen) could be construed as a COI, but I did not write the content. I edited an existing page and clarified it. I also added my photos. The Edward Larrabee Barnes contributions, I have mostly added content about Ed Barnes, whom I am not related to but have access to his son's information which I have added his input by proxy. What they call, "research" by most adults. Cocoablini (talk). 21:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Research is not allowed because it is unverifiable. I hope you understand why. Anybody could claim to have access to certain information. --SVTCobra 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I added plenty of citations and proof, including NYTimes and LATimes and Progressive Architecture and Architecture Magazine and Rizzoli. The citations of the partners and associates are also cited from US Government, and the above. The ask of the Barnes' son was to remove a building from the gallery, which was clearly the wrong building as I said in the check in. Or building that are not of importance to modernism. If people want a specific citation on a topic, that should have been in a notification. There was no discussion about this until a bad moderator (@Filetime)blew away my gallery additions with no warning and no discussions. And when I called him out on it, he used his moderator abilities to flag and abuse the system because...I called him out. Petty and destructive behavior. The best and brightest of Wikipedia I guess.Cocoablini (talk). 00:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * you are wasting a lot of valuable editor time here by not following our very simple COI guideline. It seems you have a COI relationship with some of the subjects you write about, but we still do not know what it is. You've been asked to place a note on your user page indicating which pages you have a COI with, but have not done it. We plainly do not want users here who conceal their COI with the articles they contribute to. Refusing to make clear which articles you have a COI with is disruptive.It's also a major time-waster of the good faith editors you are dealing with here. --- Possibly &#9742; 03:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How many free massages and gym memberships did you get for posting this? You clearly have not read the threads. Please go educate yourself on this matter and architecture please. I have as much time as possible to expose corruption and incompetance. Cocoablini (talk). 04:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from insults. The request is for you to post on your user page that you have a conflict of interest for certain articles. A conflict of interest does not mean that all your edits are invalid, only that they need to be more closely scrutinized. A judge in a court case might have a COI. Sometimes they recuse themselves, sometimes they don't. But it is entered into the court docket. It's not a perfect analogy, but if you take care of this one thing first, I will look into what you are talking about regarding image galleries, etc. --SVTCobra 04:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

All you need to do here is post a list of articles you are connected to on your user page, and then use talk page edit requests on those articles. Instead, you are insulting other editors and wasting time by filing retaliatory COIN reports as below. COI is pretty simple to deal with. If you can't manage that, you are perhaps WP:NOTHERE. --- Possibly &#9742; 11:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Edward Larrabee Barnes


Moderator @Filetime has removed content. After looking at his personal submissions, it appears moderator is a Rhode island preservationist and dislikes Architect because of the modernist addition to waterfront. I suggest this moderator not be allowed to oversee this page Cocoablini (talk). 01:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)cocoablini
 * NB: I modified this submission for use of templates. --SVTCobra 01:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this anything more than a retaliatory filing related to the thread higher up on this page above ?  --- Possibly &#9742; 03:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Jsmith0909


User:ElKevbo added a COI notice to their talk page in 2019, but the editor did not respond to it and continued editing. I added a second COI notice today, after which Jsmith0909 disclosed they are employed by Georgia College & State University. Jsmith0909 began editing in 2019, and this is the only article they edit. Today, they attempting to add a very large, promotional edit to the Georgia College & State University article, and it was reverted. Jsmith0909 then added their edit back two more times. I attempted to discuss the matter on their talk page, writing "I'm not sure if you read the details of COI editing, but adding an enormous promotional edit to the Wikipedia page for your employer is kind of a no no. Will you be willing to revert your edit, and instead propose the changes you wish to see, on the article's talk page?  Thank you."  My message was deleted. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've reverted their 64k addition as well. Clearly, as a paid editor, they should not be making edits like that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 pointed out to me that I needed to disclose the fact that I am an employee of Georgia College. While I am an employee and have disclosed that, Georgia College has not influenced that information that we placed in the article. Instead we were asked to update it to make it more reflective of the campus and more informative for people unfamiliar with the college. Our edits were based on University of Georgia which is also in our system of schools. Since their information was sourced and not removed, we wanted to model our page in a similar manner. We have gone out of our way to source and write the information in a non-biased way and we were not paid any handout for the article. I am fine with going through the proposed method which is standard on Wikipedia if someone can point it out to me. I am not as experienced as some users on here so I apologize in advance for not following some of the protocols. I would also like to point out that does have a history of being antagonistic with users who are trying to make good faith edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith0909 (talk • contribs)
 * If there are other editors contributing with you on this project, those accounts need to disclose their connection as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:C.Fred I am the only editor that contributed to this project and I dont mind being as open as possible. I am more in line with the University Editors mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cry_COI.
 * I also dont mind going through the proper channels per Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. I am sorry if I missed those and will follow them immediately if the content I have proposed can be vetted properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith0909 (talk • contribs)
 * The "we" in your prior message implied that you were working with other people.The page WP:COI, which you were provided a link to on your user talk page, includes instructions on going to the talk page of the articles in question and using Request edit to request edits. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * please see my comments on the article talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Parastoo Hashemi


IP belonging to Imperial College London extensively editing article about a senior lecturer at the college. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * notable, citations for most cited papers,445 226, 202, 201. Most of the additions are helpful.  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Francisco Rodríguez (economist)


Earlier this year, Naldox revealed having interviewed the subject of the article in December 2019, whose picture was uploaded by the user and is currently included in the page's infobox. Francisco Rodríguez is currently the article the user as edited the most in, and they have rarely edited in other articles besides Rodríguez's. Despite being created in 2010, Naldox started expanding it substantially on April 2019 (before the interview took place); as of this date, they stand as the user that has included more than half of its content and has the most edits in the article.

Considering this information, I'm opening this discussion after Naldox tried removing the COI tag placed in the article. Best regards. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is a common thing, but I will disclose this onformation. In April 2019, I Was transitioning from a position as Digital Editor in Ecuavisa (Guayaquil, Ecuador) to a position in América Digital in Caracas. I had a ton of free time (which is a rarity for me) and I stumble upon Francisco's Wikipedia page. I met Francisco in September 2017 in Caracas, but didn't have a chance to interview the guy. But he left mark. I believe he is one of the most intelligent people I have met. So I did my research. The number of edits is actually a reflection of thorough work because I, being a journalist, dislike typos and sentences that could be written in a better way. Also is because Venezuelan Wikipedia editors seem to have a bias problem. A political bias problem, to be precise. You can check out the edits. It could've been two or three, and not ten or 15 if not because editors wanted to be right. My Caterina Valentino project had four edits. It could have been the same thing here. Political discussion (in the case of Rodríguez) takes time. And I have the page under surveilance. I can say it out loud, I like the things I right, I believe they are not biased in any way and clearly reflect the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, I do have a job. And being a journalist (and soon a book writer) takes time to edit Wikipedia. I do have two interviews with Rodríguez. One for print in September, 2019 and one for TV in December, 2019 (the one I took the picture associated with his profile). But I do not have interviewed the subject since. I have read his papers, yes. And I haven't updated his profile since, although the guy has done some heavy criticzing of the interim government and the Maduro's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic because I don't have time (and sincerely I do not want to, this has been a horrible experience overall). The Spanish Wiki was untouched by me until Monday, because a third-party pointed me to it. SO, I sincerely do not care anymore. Congratulations, you sucked the joy of editing some things due to your diligent approach on Wikipedia editing. It is a shame, Venezuelan articles need better editors. FAR BETTER. --Naldox (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear, I'll include a response to this also as a follow up to your message in your talk page. Please do not take this notice personally: this discussion only has the purpose of determining if your relation to Rodríguez constitutes a conflict of interest. As I have mentioned before, you are still allowed to freely edit and improve the article (as you have done up to this date). --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:UPE


I’m not sure the correct avenue for this question, so please direct me if I should post this elsewhere. I’ve seen a lot of pages with this flag and I was trying to figure out what the process is for A) resolving the issue, and B) removing the flags once the issues have been resolved.

The template documentation doesn’t provide any guidance on how to actually address the issue. The template itself says “It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.” It doesn’t look like WP:CLEANUP is the proper avenue because it clearly states that is not for COI issues. This led me to WP:NPOV. So am I correct in interpreting this to mean that the article just needs to be reviewed to ensure it meets the following criteria at WP:NPOV? Or does it involve additional steps (ie. removing content added by concerning editors regardless of neutrality/sourcing)? Lastly, is there a noticeboard where editors can post requests for others to review an article specifically around neutrality issues? Thank you. NQUENTas (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts.
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
 * Avoid stating facts as opinions.
 * Prefer nonjudgmental language.
 * Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
 * Hi - for info on the COI policy, look here. As for articles with a UPE flag, there are a couple things that need to happen.  First off, the article needs to be reviewed by non-COI editors, to see if it meets NPOV, notability, etc. It's possible that the paid contributor's edits are all entirely value-add, without any POV, puffery, etc. In that case, the article doesn't need to be changed. In my experience, that's rarely the case. Second, if there's an acknowledged paid contribution, then the article's talk page should get a Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag. Once the article meets WP standards for quality and NPOV, then the UPE tag can be removed. In terms of neutrality issues, if there's a dispute around the neutrality of an article, and it hasn't been resolved on the talk page, then there's the WP:NPOVN noticeboard. If the dispute is with an editor that you believe has a COI, then this board is the best place to report it. Hope this helps! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Fallen Fruit art collective
Normally I would wait to see what an editor says about a COI template, but this is blatantly obvious. Since 2014, user SNisMagical has focused largely on the above three articles; Burns and Young are the founders of the Fallen Fruit collective. The very stale account Davburns1970 (1970 matches the bio details in the David Allen Burns draft) was the original creator of Fallen Fruit, and also uploaded most of the images. Just your basic artist promotional work, but it has gone on for far too long without any disclosure. --- Possibly &#9742; 01:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Nano-oligosaccharide factor (NOSF)


I came across this article because it got linked into Dressing (medical), presumably to keep it from being an orphan. This is a very technical, obscure medical topic, which just happens to be a product from one company, linked in-line in the article, and the one ref is a paper whose final author works for the company in question, and for which I do not readily see any disclosures of conflicts of interest from any of the other authors:. A quick gander through 's edits shows nothing remotely similar in the last two years. Per WP:DUCK, it's hard to imagine any other prompting for this editing other than undisclosed paid editing. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a bit of an odd subject, that nano-oligosaccharide page. However the user's contributions are overwhelmingly positive and do not look self-serving. --- Possibly &#9742; 06:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am the creator of this article, a retired British subject living in Spain where this product was prescribed for me by a medical professional. I always check before committing to new treatments and did not find anything on Wikipedia, so published my investigation as best I could as a non-specialist, long-time WikiGnome with no commercial or professional axes to grind! Timpo (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Tactical Fiend
Quick notification that I blocked a fairly large and sophisticated UPE farm yesterday, see Sockpuppet investigations/Tactical Fiend. I don't have the time to go through all edits and page creations, so additional eyes would be appreciated. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's a table of the pages they contributed to, with some gnoming filtered out:

--MarioGom (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This sockfarm seems to be involved primarily in reputation management, like suppressing or watering down information about scandals. They are fairly competent and sometimes subtle. When they know they cannot completely remove something, they will tone down in subtle ways, with a superficial appearance of policy compliance. MarioGom (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Operation Red Card

 * Websites


 * Accounts


 * Articles (non-exhaustive)

In March 2020, Graphika published a report about the takedown of an influence operation (code-named as Operation Red Card by the researchers) involving various fake news outlets, as well as accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, etc. The operation focused on promoting Qatar interests, attacking the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and had a particular focus on association football and human rights. The listed websites in this thread are those named in the Graphika report. mirrorherald.com, truenewssource.com, and asktruth24.com ceased operations after being exposed and are now offline. I'm not sure if today's raventribune.com is the same website it used to be in 2019-2020 since old references to it are not found.

At the time, there were at least 3 accounts on English Wikipedia focused on adding content from these websites. I have only listed articles where the named accounts introduced links to the listed websites, but there are other edits that merit scrutiny too (e.g. Saudi Aramco, Hazza Al Mansouri, 2019 FIFA Club World Cup).

There's also a known UPE sockfarm (Radovicdarko538) that seems to be the same group, picking up this work after the other accounts ceased activity, but I'll open a separate thread about that.

Any help reviewing and cleaning up these contributions, and removing the references to these websites, will be appreciated. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for highlighting this. Qatar-related (as well as UAE-related) articles have a lot of weird patterns of editing, with frequent editing by accounts that exclusively seek to whitewash the authoritarian regime in the country. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would the websites be good material for blacklisting? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. There's obviously a pending clean up of all links to these sources, as well as information supported by them. But it's unlikely that new references are added, since the sites are dead (except Raven Tribune, which seems to have changed owners). I wouldn't oppose blacklisting though. MarioGom (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking again about this, would blacklisting help drawing attention to them and accelerate clean up? MarioGom (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

General Motors do Brasil
User claimed WP:COI and proceeded with personal attacks in edit summaries. LTA - did a similar thing in my talkpage. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Appears related to this recent discussion. --SVTCobra 05:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Bill Woodcock


–Eqvinox (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) user requested "test" for CoI (after strenuous discussion in Talk:Internet_exchange_point)
 * 2) Bill Woodcock is paid by PCH according to
 * 3) According to its own description, PCH provides services and engages in advocacy for IXPs
 * 4) PCH's funding, particularly as a non-profit, may be influenced by the broader public's perception of Internet Exchange Points, which the very article considered here describes.


 * Without commenting on #1 through #3 as I have not looked into the matter, I don't believe #4 will contribute to a COI, as the connection is this case is too tenuous even without considering Bill's reply. By the way, Bill, I have taken the liberty of WP:SIGNING your post; for future reference, it would be appreciated if you could conclude your comment with four tildes ; this will sign it for you. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, sorry, yeah. It was my last edit of the night, at nearly 3am local time. :-/  Anyway, please let me know if there's any further information it would be helpful for me to provide. Bill Woodcock (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can meaningfully contribute to this discussion at this point, having lost any kind of neutral perspective to my frustration from the IXP discussion. If needed, I'm happy to discuss with or explain my perspective to any 3rd party.  Some WP:Mediation might be useful here. --Eqvinox (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps just greater specificity? I wear many hats, particularly in my roles as trustee and board member of organizations, so have to navigate CoI frequently; so I'm perfectly happy to discuss this, and perfectly happy to recuse myself if I believe, or there's a consensus, that a conflict exists. Can you explain what about (2) or (3) you feel constitutes a conflict of interest, particularly relative to Wikipedia's COI policies? Or what about (4) you feel is substantial enough to be worrisome? Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Response
Hi. I'm Bill Woodcock. I've taken the liberty of converting Eqvinox's bullet-points to a numbered list, for clarity of response. The specific thread at issue is here.


 * 1) Sure, since I was unable to elicit any details from Eqvinox in the thread in which he said that he was going to open a COI discussion, eventually I gave up. It's not my intention to waste y'all's esteemed time.
 * 2) Yep, not in question. Although I am, in net, far more a donor to PCH than an employee of PCH, I have, at times, been on PCH's payroll, though not presently, and never in the top tier of compensation. If folks would like a clearer disclosure than those found on my user page and in PCH's independent financial audits, please let me know. But, again, this is not a matter of dispute. It is also not the case that I am, in any way, representing PCH in my Wikipedia editing. IXPs are one of many areas in which PCH works, and IXPs are a subject I've studied for a long time, but I am not part of the group within PCH which principally deals with IXPs, and my work with IXPs predates PCH's existence. At whatever point I leave PCH, I will no doubt continue to work with IXPs. There's neither causal linkage nor financial linkage between myself, PCH, and IXPs. I think it's fair to say that we'd all like to see IXPs succeed, generally, but I think that's true of pretty much anyone who knows what they are.
 * 3) Also not in dispute. As is made clear in the audits and our policies, we do not accept any reimbursement or compensation for services rendered or goods provided. There is no quid-pro-quo, no transaction. Neither the "business" nor the "commerce" that Eqvinox alleges exist, and again, that's made clear in PCH's USG-mandated independent financial audits.
 * 4) Is unfalsifiable speculation, and is thus impossible to refute, but I'm very hard-pressed to find any relevance in it. IXPs are an area in which PCH, a public-benefit, not-for-profit organization which I both work for and donate to, performs charitable donations and advocacy. PCH works in many other areas, and receives very few directed donations (i.e. donations which are earmarked for specific projects or fields of work), and of those few which are directed, the vast majority are for the cybersecurity and DNS work areas; less than 1% for IXPs. The amounts vary from year to year, but it's safe to say that we're talking about less than 1% (IXP) of 1% (directed), or less than a fifth of a fully-loaded FTE. A negligible amount, and not one sufficient to incentivize PCH to take action in one direction or other. I'll note that PCH purposefully gave up $1.5M/year in funding in 2020, an amount fifty times larger than the maximum possible amount being discussed here, as a matter of principle when we found that one of our donors was collaborating in an effort to undermine the .ORG top-level domain (within which, of course, Wikipedia resides). It's hard to reconcile the notion that PCH would give up $1.5M in order to avoid CoI, yet actively engage in CoI in order to (hypothetically? perhaps?) retain some portion of $30k.

So, I'm used to dealing with CoI disclosures, I make them for essentially every board I sit on, and I give them thought and take them seriously. I've considered this matter and I see fully-disclosed synergies, everyone hoping for the same happy outcomes, but I cannot identify any conflict of interest or personal gain that I might receive in connection with editing a Wikipedia article about Internet exchange points. But I'm always happy to improve, if others see what I do not. I await the collective wisdom. Bill Woodcock (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Jillian Becker
The above user has been prolifically editing the article about herself and promoting her work across Wikipedia; her formatting has generally not really been very good. She has said who she is but has either disregarded or not gotten the warning about conflict of interest posted on her talk page. I've blocked her to get her attention, tagged both the article and talk page, and trimmed the article as far as I could manage (though it probably needs more work on this front and any help there would be greatly appreciated!) I'm posting here basically because I've never encountered a situation of this scope before and am wondering if anything else needs to be done here. Graham 87 09:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on this thorny situation, . I understand that you needed to block the user, as she may well not be aware that she has a talkpage. Though I'm not sure "Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes" was the best rationale for the block log — kind of harsh. For blocking people who may not have found their talkpage, I think it helps to put a link to the page in the block log. Anyway, I hope she finds it now. I have put some considerations and a couple of links for her on User talk: Seneca62. Besides promotion, which I agree she has been doing, she has also removed unsourced negative information — removals which seem entirely reasonable. More about that on her page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the advice. Yeah my thought process was something like "... check last few edits and see lots of promotion of own references, check end of the list of the first 50 (and notice the name Jillian Becker also there), skin talk page, notice that they'd been warned about this *years* ago, block for advertising!" ... which might not have been ideal. I agree that their removal of negative unsourced info (or, sometimes, negative info with perhaps a dubious source) was OK. Graham 87 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Pramod Bhagat


User admitted that he has COI with the subject, but now he is denying it and continuing to edit war.

I have some more evidence which would be violation of WP:OUTING if I posted here. If any admin is interested in resolving this one out then I can mail them the private evidence. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Notified. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Doreen Group


User has denied UPE despite the username and admitting that he/she is editing "on behalf of company". Continues to add promotional content after multiple warnings.-KH-1 (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reported to WP:UFAA and now blocked by an admin. --- Possibly &#9742; 12:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So there seems to be another user,, who has article-like content titled "Doreen Limited" as their userpage and also used a logo uploaded by . The similiarity between this page and the promotional content added to Doreen Group is striking, see ; they may be editing on behalf of the company as well.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 08:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Amar Singh (activist)
Is a single purpose account, likely to have a COI with the subject they are writing about, who appears to be using Wikipedia to promote their own interests, e.g. this | diff. Uhooep (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to notify Editorworldwide14 about this discussion, see the top of this page. Also, did you ask them if they have COI before coming here? That is the first step, also per the top of this page. --- Possibly &#9742; 06:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, this is pretty funny: you were caught using a sockpuppet User:Daiaespera on the same page that you are now reporting, per this investigation? I stopped counting at 100 for the edits to Amar Sing made by your sockpuppet Daiaespera! Have you heard the expression "leave well enough alone"? I agree there is something funny going on with that page (see user Byebyecovid, which is at the 88 day mark for checkuser data life), but I am not sure which account is which as there appear to have been so many socks and SPAs. --- Possibly &#9742; 06:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Possibly, yes I used to have more than one Wikipedia account. This is sometimes permitted and I did not think I was breaching any rules by having more than one editing account, but I was blocked for this in May 2021 and unblocked in June 2021 on the proviso that I stick to just this one going forward, which I have done, as you can see and check if you wish. Despite prior controversy around the article I notice that career highlights continue to be added to this article on a piecemeal basis, in a very promotional non-neutral tone from suspected COI accounts, and since nobody else is flagging this, I felt it appropriate to raise it. I agree its a bit of a minefield of accounts. I had suspected that User:Sk1728 was related to User:Editorworldwide14 but a checkuser came back negative and only one of these accounts seems to be editing for the time being. My only interest in the article is that it doesn't become a PR piece written by persons with a COI. Uhooep (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You were blocked twice, in 2018 and 2021 for socking. You also did not disclose here that he page/editor you are reporting is someone that you had edit conflicts with, when you edited the page with your sockpuppet. That gives you very low credibility in my eyes. You also still have not notified Editorworldwide14 as required. See the top of this page. --- Possibly &#9742; 16:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly I have left a message on User:Editorworldwide14's talk page. I am not sure if I have done this correctly. You can call me low credibility if you want, but i'm the only person trying to resolve likely COI issues here, and endeavouring to go about it the proper way. It takes many pairs of eyes to build a reliable encyclopedia. Uhooep (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * since you still have not notified them properly, I did it for you. It's at the top of this page in bold and red text.  --- Possibly &#9742; 18:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

C. S. Burrough


QLitBabel has created a promotional biography of an author C. S. Burrough of questionable notability. I looked and saw what to me was a conflict of interest and tagged the page and QLit's talk page. QLitBabel says there is no conflict of interest. "I am aware of the COI guidelines and assure you there is none involved in any of my Wikipedia articles, including this one. I have no close connection with my articles' subjects,". Xe went on to say my "unfounded ‘COI accusation’ is personal, presumptuous and out of line." and that I was the one with "some ‘reverse’ COI", asking "So again, who has the COI here?" . If we look at the portrait used on this page we will see it was QLitBabel's own work and QLitBabel is the copyright owner. If we check references provided in the article we will find that same portrait on his profile at his publishers website (© Silky Oak Press 2013) and his goodreads profile. Maybe there is no COI, maybe xe created that page because they are so alike. Like said author QLitBabel was born in Britain in 1959 and relocated to Sydney in the 80s. They both studied Performing Arts in the UK and worked in theatre before becoming a writer. What do others think? Am I way off base here? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * QLitBabel, before I comment further, could I ask how it came about that you owned the copyright to the images at C. S. Burrough and Peter Draffin? BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal Thanks for your question. I’ve attended dozens of arts and literary festivals over decades and, like hundreds of fellow audience members, photographed podium speakers and others appearing, as well as close-up shots of said artists in various settings. If our photos were posted on blogs and social media, then whoever chooses to use them may do so (including the subjects or their affiliates). Photos from our phones are ours to put where we like. (NB The C.S. Burrough photo is searchable online with two slightly different facial expressions as Burrough speaks – the other version is someone else’s, not mine.) Sincerely, QLitBabel (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that none of the three photos identified by duffbeerforme are identical, though clearly taken at the same session. I noticed someone on Commons tagged both the portraits of Peter Draffin and C.S. Burrough for speedy deletion due to lack of permission. If you are indeed the photographer, you should follow the instructions for challenging the speedy deletion. --SVTCobra 14:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that, I don't think there is an issue for us to address here. However, I note that the tone in both the C.S. Burrough article and the Peter Draffin article could be improved, as it currently comes across as a little advocational, particularly with lines such as His books remain in Australia's State and National Libraries, while his portrait remains with the National Museum of Australia. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal, so you don't think that someone writing a promotional autobiography is a coi issue? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we have sufficient reason to believe there is a COI at the present time. It is possible that it exists, and future articles with a similar tone and questions about notability will add weight to that possibility, but for the moment I don't believe there is an issue for us to address here. I did, however, forget to note that I don't believe that C. S. Burrough meets GNG or BLP, and as such would support deletion if it is brought to AfD.
 * PS: For some strange reason I didn't receive that ping. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:BilledMammal but I don't understand how someone writing a promotional autobiography cannot automatically be seen as a conflict of interest. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Call me dense, but there's something puzzling about the studio photo scenario. Are literary festivals are providing multiple photographers a well lit studio setup to photograph the author? I'm talking about this image. Call me old, but in the old days my recollection was that only one photographer was invited to each photo session. The author bio image above, as well as the slightly different Commons image are both prepared lighting shots, not some off-the cuff photos. I'm straining to see why these would not be by the same photographer using the same camera under the same light. And if that is the case, then QLitBabel has provided numerous official portraits of the author. How could that not be a COI? Doing so has to involve some back and forth communication. QLitBabel are you in touch with C. S. Burrough, or have you been in the past? --- Possibly &#9742; 04:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I interpreted the explanation as the individual giving a talk from a podium, with them talking to a bunch of people standing/sitting who might be taking pictures with their phones during the event, possibly during a period where the author stops talking to pose for such photos. However, your comment has given me cause to reconsider, and on reflection this neither meshes with their full explanation (as well as close-up shots of said artists in various settings) nor the appearance of the photos, which suggests that they are all taken from the same location.
 * Further, examining the data, it doesn't quite mesh with what QLitBabel was saying; they were talking about Photos from our phones, while the data states that it was taken with a Canon EOS 60D. It seems I may have leapt to AGF a little too quickly. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the data for the Silky Oak Press image; it was taken using the same camera, with the same settings, one minute apart. Then, just over a year later, both photographs were modified just ten minutes apart in Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that they were taken by the same person, and I definitely leapt to AGF too quickly; thank you for making me reconsider Possibly. BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for looking at the EXIF data! This is starting to get clearer now. We just need to hear from an explanation for why the photo they uploaded to Commons is from the same camera, a minute apart, as the one used as an official bio photo by the author.  --- Possibly &#9742; 11:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I had also looked at EXIF data, and found that the image on Amazon was taken with the same camera (Body Serial Number: 0480203317) as that on Commons; however, I didn't find any evidence that it was not copied there from us., please respond here to the question above, and note that communication is required – you are expected to reply truthfully to reasonable questions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal Said camera photos were taken by shared Literary Festival attendance group camera (fewer people had smartphones back then and, from recollection, I attended with a reading group), with each of our own shots routinely uploaded and claimed – mine was then stored on my phone. As said in my previous comment, the other online C.S. Burrough photo is not mine, so I can’t be answerable as to how other parties source their content.

Re "used as an official biog photo by the author" comment (above) by someone – again, that refers to a different photo, not mine (see my explanation above). My own photo is definitely not used as an "official biog photo" by anyone, as it is my property. (Nor does it even state anywhere that I’ve found, that said other shot is "an official biog" photo) - mine is distinctly different from the one mistakenly perceived as such in this discussion (again, see above, this has been covered). Re earlier question by Possibly - no, I do not know and have never been "in touch" with C. S. Burrough. We live on the same continent, he is a well-known author, I am an attendee of arts & literary events, we have never spoken. As with other such writers, I have watched his speeches and read his work, nothing more. And re your last comment Justlettersandnumbers, agreed, these questions seem reasonable.

Please all excuse my response delay, there's a big international time-zone difference, so while you're awake I'm asleep (and having local lockdown-style IT issues, further delaying my online access).

Hope all this clarifies. Sincerely, QLitBabel (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi QLitBabel
 * First, no worries about the response delay; as long as you aren't active on the encyclopaedia during it we don't mind waiting a day or two if needed - and I hope your IT issues resolve soon!
 * You mention that these photos are "uploaded and claimed". If you recall, can I ask what sort of entity they are uploaded to (limited access database, open access database, etc), and how long (ballpark figure) it typically takes for this upload to happen? BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear BilledMammal Thanks for your understanding re time delay - am able to reply immediately to this. Re your question about uploading and claiming: as this was at least seven years ago, I'm unable to answer specifically - my vague recollection is that our group system back then (long since disused as we all nowadays have smartphone cameras) was initially to a limited access/private group database, enabling each person to claim their own shot. People were at liberty to then post their own shots on public databases. From memory the upload to private database was one or two days, but this was so long ago I couldn't now be absolutely certain. Hope this helps. Regards, QLitBabel (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the C. S. Burrough article for deletion Articles for deletion/C. S. Burrough along with the above mentioned Peter Draffin page Articles for deletion/Peter Draffin. 12:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi BilledMammal, so here we go again, said article (2 actually) once again tagged for deletion, i.e. Peter Draffin and C.S. Burrough - the editor behind the previous afd tag (which expired only 4 weeks ago due to no consensus), @duffbeerforme, is under investigation pending an official harassment complaint from me at a higher level. You may witness the record of harassment from @duffbeerforme on my user talk page at: User talk:QLitBabel. I'll no doubt feel unable to continue giving my free time to such a toxic work environment, but thanks anyway for your kindliness. All the best, QLitBabel (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello all. Just to note that I have blocked User:QLitBabel - not due to the COI issue (which I still find concerning) but for personal attacks. Regards, The Land (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * the "Literary Festival attendance group camera " sounds like baloney to me. Even if people did not have smartphones, they had cameras. Who wants to attend a festival and then receive a high quality digital image that is basically the same photo that all the other people who attended? It's just silly. The only way I can see that happening is if the photos were meant for use by journalists... but it is still a weird proposition to set up a studio to take nearly identical photos for distribution to different people. That is not how PR is done. Anyway, my hunch is that there is COI here. --- Possibly &#9742; 19:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I've had a chance to take a proper look at the material here I have to say that the correspondence of the photo, and also the remarkably similar biography in this QLitBabel's userpage history to that of C S Burrough, and the nature of his reaction to this thread, all leaves me in no doubt that this is a case of COI editing. However I applaud peoples' efforts to assume good faith. The Land (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , that was a fairly moderate block in the circumstances – thank you for enacting it. There has indeed been a Herculean attempt to AGF here, but mine is now exhausted. Unless anyone has any objection or any good reasons why I shouldn't, I intend to make the block indefinite, for failure to disclose a WP:COI after repeated requests and in the face of overwhelming evidence. I'll leave that until tomorrow (European time) in case there's any comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Mary Lynne Gasaway Hill
I have recently posted to the Draft section a proposed new article of a living person, Mary Lynne Gasaway Hill, and I am requesting review of the article because I have a Conflict of interest (COI)- I am related to the subject of the article. Thank you for your time and expertise. Best wishes, Andrewincowtown (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have submitted the article for review on your behalf. It is now at Draft:Mary Lynne Gasaway Hill Vexations (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Antonio Giordano


FYI I've just locked a bunch of sockpuppets and SPAs pushing this article crosswiki, all of them active here on en.wiki. Vituzzu (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us which accounts? I don't see any accounts in the page history for EN Antonio Giordano that have been blocked in the last month.  --- Possibly &#9742; 17:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,, certainly Harshamahalley and Interspazio123, globally locked by on 6 October; I don't immediately see any others. Reverting to  would take the page back to before those two started, but I'm not sure that's the best solution – a couple of stout farmers with brush hooks might do a better job (or maybe a combination of both approaches?). Volunteers? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, I was looking for blocks and not locks, it seems. Added to above list. --- Possibly &#9742; 19:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also and . --Vituzzu (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Home-Start International


a trustee of  Home-Start International  has completely changed the article to add promotional content after a draft here Draft:Home-Start UK was declined. Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, it does appear to be WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, something that it might be worth warning the editor over, if I am allowed to suggest such an action (seriously, someone please tell me if this is out of line). However, as much as the existence of the COI makes me wish otherwise (a bias I probably should work on), it does appear that the content they added is sufficiently verifiable for inclusion under the broader heading of the international organization per WP:BRANCH.
 * As such, I'll go copy-edit the article now to remove the more advertorial aspects, and perhaps it should be moved to Home-Start Worldwide, but apart from that I am not seeing much we can do. BilledMammal (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done some extensive CE; hopefully it reads less like an advert now, but I'll leave the current tags there so that another editor can assess. BilledMammal (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. This episode feels like harassment. I always use my real name; I first read the COI policy, posted my COI and then wrote a draft piece for review by others. Unfortunately honesty does not seem to be the best policy. It was immediately slapped with a banner with a dollar sign suggesting undisclosed payment, despite the fact that I had declared my role as an unpaid Trustee exactly on the Talk page as required by wikipedia policy. That was clumsy, hurtful and wrong, a polite message would have sufficed. It was also libellous, it is accurate to say, I am glad it has disappeared. That editor said the piece read like an advert, which was a clear-cut exaggeration. He asked that it be written by some-one else, ignoring the central issue - no-one in a decade has written anything on this notable organisation on wikipedia. On rewriting the piece under the defunct Home-Start International page, as he suggested in one of the many banners, I was accused of "WP: gaming the system". This is one of repeated references to imminent WP warnings and cautions, which are intimidating. Why resort to jargon and threats so readily? The editors responses were imperious, curt and thoughtless. No credit was given for responding positively with laborious re-writes, clearly prompted by the viewpoint given by the editor. I received exactly zero acknowledgment, just more censure. I am an unpaid charity Trustee who naturally wishes to see the work of thousands of volunteers get a fair mention on wikipedia. I am still being seen as a Board member of a for-profit company, which is not remotely an appropriate comparison. You are not dealing with a devious paid corporate marketeer, so please stop treating me like one. If asked to make amendments I am always happy to do so. Why not respond to my repeated request and suggest the kind of things that need amendment? As volunteers on wikipedia, your attachment to its purposes (in this case the understandable preoccupation with paid commercial postings) is just as likely to cloud your judgement, which in my eyes explains the rather toxic culture I have strayed into. The quick edits made by others without subject knowledge have not been too good, IMHO. We are left with a rather poorly written page, in terms of grammar and content, which I am not allowed to correct, despite being the only person involved with any knowledge of the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Sugarman (talk • contribs)
 * you are welcome to make a formal edit request ·(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed, preferably sourced to independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding expertise in the subject area, this is not a necessity as we simply restate what others have already said. Regarding your COI, we are simply alerting you to our COI guideline. The three editors you have been dealing with, myself included, have no personal interest or other COI in Home-Start. As someone with a COI, if you continue to directly edit Home-Start articles, this will create continued problems. If you can commit to use talk pages for requests, and avoid editing any Home-Start article(s) directly (except for very minor non-controversial edits), there will be no problem.   --- Possibly &#9742; 07:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @possibly Please be assured I have got the message about not being allowed to edit. I do feel I have been rudely treated, and you saying that others were "simply" doing this or that is no substitute for reflecting on your editing culture, in which provoking others seems to be part of the game, it feels like gaslighting. Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @theroadislong I am troubled that at no point have you responded to any of the substantive issues I have raised about the article or the way you have dealt with it; but you are motivated to send me obscure corrective messages about tildes. The edit request policy seems long technical and complicated, it would be so much simpler if you had allowed me to re-edit a draft, prompting me with some of the examples that you felt were promotional. You could have done this, as your fellow says, subject matter expertise is not a necessity. Perhaps you might consider as an editor dealing more constructively with others in the future Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit request facility is quite simple, you suggest changing x to y and give a reliable independent source for the change. The "obscure corrective messages about tildes" is to ensure that we know who has written what on a talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip Sugarman thank you for engaging with us here, and apologies if my comment came across as imperious or curt, as well as for the associated commentary which upon reflection would have been better left out of this forum.
 * In terms of the quick edits I made and bringing the article up to standard you are satisfied with; any edit requests you make that involve prose and not content or tone changes will likely be seen as uncontroversial, even if they are a substantial rewrite. In terms of content, if you request alterations that are reliably SOURCED and balanced, they are again likely to be uncontroversial to implement. For context, I will note that the content I removed was because it was not sourced, while the largest area I rewrote - regarding the effectiveness statistics - was because of an apparent lack of balance caused by including the most positive figures from the '82 study, and not the less effusive figures from the volunteers and social workers. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. The imperiousness and curtness was from the main initial editor, calling himself "the road is long", who seems unable to admit any fault except on my part. You seem willing to reflect on your part, which is very refreshing.
 * The imbalanced reporting of the 82 study was in the long-standing text of the Home-Start International page, I did not input this and had no particularly reason to check that paper or doubt the summary. I do not dispute your re-edit which may well be accurate.
 * On further edits, I am waiting for a friend to send me a pile of cuttings about Home-Start, as unfortunately I can find very little on-line to fill out the article if Home-Start data can 100% not be reported in any way at all. To be honest, I do think the page reads so blandly now that a reader might feel the charity was hardly worth bothering with.
 * If you compare, say, the page for Oxfam, it re-states their mission and values and masses of other corporate material. Same is true for NSPCC, a family/ child charity smaller than Home-Start Worldwide. Why are NSPCC Royal Patrons discussed at length, drawn from NSPCC publications or unreferenced, but a bit of the same is removed for Home-Start? Why is such gross inconsistency stark in the first two charity pages I checked? Surely your take on what is promotional/verifiable is not "simply" following COI policy, it is discretionary. It is clearly gaslighting if you say such comparisons are not relevant or not allowed because of another " WP: arbitrary rule you have not heard of which suits my argument".
 * In truth others have treated charities in a relaxed way, whereas you have taken a stance as if it were a commercial venture. All this won't affect me personally, but Home-Start across the world may see a few less volunteers and donations. So I do think Home-Start and the families it tries to help have been rather punished here by overzealous rulings.
 * I would be pleased if you tried to address not avoid the substantive points here. Philip Sugarman (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause which says “We do not exist to promote your "brand", and will not tolerate efforts to abuse this project with that goal in mind.” Theroadislong (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * seriously, quit complaining. We caught you editing the Home-Start International page, for which you had a very strong COI as a board member. Now that that is dealt with, instead of letting everyone move along to other topics you continue to complain about your treatment. Nobody owes you any kind of explanation here; Wikipedia is voluntary, and everyone you have interacted with has done so within policy. Further, this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard; we have determined you have a COI and you have agreed not to edit the page directly. Issues about article content that are not COI-related and about your AFC review does not belong here, take it somewhere else. --- Possibly &#9742; 03:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @possibly. Thanks for the put down. I was answering the rather politer note from Billed mammal. Here is an answer to you. A few facts. You did not "catch" me, that is your fantasy about what you do. I declared my full name, COI upfront and asked for a review of a page for Home-Start UK. The reviewer suggested the page be folded into the Home-Start International page, and I did so, omitting what I guessed he felt was promotional. Secondly I am not a board member of Home-Start International, you have that muddled. It remains that my really substantive points about what you guys have deleted when it is routinely allowed elsewhere have been avoided by you; you seem unaccountable for this. Your point about the nature of this particular noticeboard is a perfect example of  " WP: arbitrary rule you have not heard of which suits me". I would be more impressed if you used your real name, answered my points, and considered whether the article is as good and fair as it might be. Philip Sugarman (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh.  --- Possibly &#9742; 10:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Philip Sugarman's points are valid, and should be taken onboard; your response is inappropriate, Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan
The user SOFAZ01 uses the acronym for the State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan in their username. The account is removing reliably sourced content from the SOFAZ page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Added --SVTCobra 04:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Added --SVTCobra 04:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Added --SVTCobra 04:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The user's edit summary of choice, "prevent dissemination of information", is also very telling. --SVTCobra 17:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Just advised user of 3RR, including that they may be blocked indefinitely from the article in question, because of their apparent COI. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I added an IP which may be editing in block evasion. I did not request checkuser. --SVTCobra 04:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit skeptic that a COI editor would use this edit summary, so it could be a joe job. Anyway, the username is not valid, and the account should be blocked. MarioGom (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added OngoTard, whose first and only edit is to sumbit an edit request to whitewash the page by replacing the paragraph SOFAZ01 and the IP tried to remove. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * is no longer on his break from editing and started edit warring to enter in promotional information into the I think it is time for a longer break. Say indefinite.  VViking Talk Edits 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The SOFAZ01 account has been blocked for edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RightDigital – A Republican Party-aligned "digital PR agency"


I've raised concerns about editing on the Frank LaRose page before, see this. The editing by these accounts bear all the hallmarks of a COI: removal of reliably sourced content, addition of poorly sourced puffery and trivia, and addition of photos and personal content about the subject. I raised the question of COI at the talk page for 'RightDigital'. Rather than answers whether they had a COI, they wanted to interact with me through email. User talk:RightDigital Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I've changed the title. This seems like a much serious problem now. The username "RightDigital" refers to a PR firm by that name that bills itself as "Ohio's #1 GOP digital agency." This, along with weird patterns of editing on Wikipedia pages related to Ohio politicians, suggests that a PR firm might be engaging in a coordinated campaign to edit pages for pay. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 136. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Response
The edits to the Frank LaRose page were simply to remove politically biased content that was clearly written by a staffer at the Ohio Democratic Party or known affiliate with the intended purpose of damaging the reputation of this person. The edits made were simply to remove the content that was not objective or properly sourced. There was no addition of extra content and no wiki rules were broken. The goal of each editor should be to provide objective, neutral and factually honest content. --RightDigital (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and adhere to the discretionary sanctions in place in the topic area. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 23:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)