Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 187

New Delhi Times (newspaper)


Editor in question is an SPA trying to promote the above website as a legitimate newspaper, and trying to create other articles related to its parent group. Seems like obvious UPE to me. See the AfD for additional context; Articles for deletion/New Delhi Times (newspaper). Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Article has been deleted by Explicit. No action taken towards editor. --SVTCobra 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Site-ban The group's sole purpose is to spread disinformation and they are now using Wikipedia to service such ends. The account is a SPA and their activities are functionally indistinguishable from UPE. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See Fake news in India for info about the New Delhi Times. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For some reason is all over the editor's talk page even though it's not in their edit history. Hamara Hind is yet another product of Srivastava Group's fake media network. Here's a little summary of EU DisinfoLab's findings. --SVTCobra 21:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Among the SPA's first edits seems to have been promoting the Srivastava Group as well. They have also added references to the New Delhi Times in a few other articles, and it is possible that there may be more evidence of this disinformation campaign on Wikipedia. Quite concerning. Tamptonato (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, I referred to this discussion at  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 02:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User:GIFTASEAN


User GIFTASEAN basically removed all the negative/controversial parts in the biography and then put up a tons of informations about the subject's publications, which he elaborated in detail. It looks like an advertisement and whitewashing, especially considering User GIFTASEAN only edited this page and nothing else. This make me believe User GIFTASEAN might has a WP:COI relationship with the subject. Someone97816 (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Someone97816, The editing pattern definitely appears to be sus. I left a warning on their talk page. Let's see if they declare themselves. On a side note, they did something similar on Chandran Nair, and received a warning for it by, well you. I think someone gotta keep an eye out for whatever they do next. Surely sus. Tame (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Eh, did they actually edit Chandran Nair or just Chandran Nair (businessman)? --SVTCobra 14:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @SVTCobra, My bad, I totally misjudged it from the start. Tame (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The username alone is grounds for a block (WP:CORPNAME role account). I've reported them to UAA. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Starizz Records

 * User:Starizz Records

This user appears to be a company who had created a page of a musician they are involved with. This article was removed under speedy deletion B2461 (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Account has already been blocked for advertising. --SVTCobra 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Tina & Her Pony


Best someone else talk to them, I'm not good at this. Skyerise (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They have been blocked.   scope_creep Talk  17:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Brown (film producer)


Several edits to the Stephen Brown (film producer) article were made by User:Sjoelbrown. It seems possible that this editor is the subject of the article. I've looked at their contributions and they're all either for the Stephen Brown (film producer) page or for Emily in Paris, which is a show that Stephen Joel Brown produces. Editing one's own biographical page is strongly discouraged according to Wikipedia's policy. This user was warned about this policy on their Talk page by User:331dot on June 9, 2016 and continued making edits. Libertyandjustice (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Since there are sometimes years between this editor using Wikipedia, we may not get a timely response on this noticeboard. Perhaps the best solution is a block under the WP:REALNAME policy with a kindly worded set of instructions on how to confirm identity with VRT. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * User has been given a uw-ublock-wellknown. The template has instructions for him to prove his identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2022 (UTUTC)

ESHEAssistant


User is ignoring notification of mandatory WP:PAID disclosure and continuing to edit in a pattern suggesting likely paid editing. Could an admin please consider necessary enforcement action? Mel ma nn  21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * User was blocked. The username is promotional and also indicates a role account. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Akorzen


Name makes it seem like the editor is the person in the article. They are adding promotional material to the article. Wgullyn ( talk ) 03:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . You must notify the user of this discussion. See the instructions in red at the top of this page. Cheers, --SVTCobra 10:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User was blocked by for WP:REALNAME. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Self-reporting under paid edit policy
On 27 October 2020, I undeleted Charity Bank, a page about my employer, for the purpose of moving it to my userspace at User:Stifle/Charity Bank as a draft. At the time, the intent was that one of my colleagues might edit it to a more acceptable state prior to potentially moving back to mainspace (though in fact, nobody has had time to touch the article). At the time, I did not realise that this would be a breach of admin/paid editing policy by using admin tools in conjunction with paid editing. I now realise that it is. However, I believe had I taken the appropriate action at the time, namely to lodge a request at WP:REFUND for the article to be restored to my userspace, any admin reviewing such a request would have performed it routinely, so my breach of the rules was technical.

I am self-reporting in the interest of full disclosure, both as a Wikipedia admin and as an officer of a bank which holds itself to high standards. I confirm that I will take no further administrative actions regarding the page and will continue to comply with all other aspects of WP:PAID. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On a purely technical note, that is not WP:PAID editing. Based on my reading of your claim here, the policy that you may have violated is rather WP:COI, unless you are additionally disclosing that you were paid for your editing. If your intent was disclosure of such an editing-for-pay relationship, then could you please clarify that in your post? This is, again, under the assumption that you did not (as I suspect) miscategorize your confession above.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 12:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am employed by Charity Bank (and have disclosed this on my userpage and on User talk:Stifle/Charity Bank since October 2020). My job description does not include editing the Charity Bank Wikipedia page (or indeed any Wikipedia page). I don't know whether that makes a difference ^^. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There an important distinction to be made here. According to my understanding, a paid editing relationship exists if you are being paid . It may also exist if you are just being paid (e.g. salaried) and are also being . Simply working for Charity Bank and editing Wikipedia does not inherently create a paid editing relationship. However, being paid by a business does create an apparent or actual conflict of interest (both terms are defined at WP:COI), because you have at the very least an indirect financial incentive in the continued success of the company that you are writing about. There may be more to it depending on the exact nature of your employment, but that's all I have for now. Someone may correct me on this, and if so, then I defer to their judgment  Changed my mind.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 15:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC) . That being said, if my understanding is more or less correct, then you should feel free to remove the paid editing userbox that you have added, and you can replace it with a COI notice at your discretion. I have one in the form of a userbox at User:AlexEng and a more detailed statement at User:AlexEng/COI. For COI, unlike WP:PAID, there is no affirmative requirement to self-disclose.   Alex Eng ( TALK ) 13:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I take a little broader view on what "paid editing" might mean per WP:PE. And I share that belief. Any stakeholder should be considered a paid editor. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * are you referring to the first sentence in the WP:PE section? It is describing financial COI in general terms. The subsequent paragraph classifies paid editing as a specific form of financial COI with special rules. Is that not how you read it? It is frankly a bit ridiculous to classify anyone with a job as a paid editor. I would be a paid editor by that definition because I am an employee of a company and thus have a financial stake. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 15:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We sometimes see users who are salespeople or marketers, and they will tell us that they aren't specifically 'paid to edit' (and strictly speaking they aren't), but they are paid to promote in general. We shouldn't get hung up on the technicalities. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably we get hung up on technicalities if we are intending to later enforce them. WP:COI is altogether toothless, as it contains almost no direct prohibitions of behavior. Most of the page constitutes stern finger-wagging, with the extremely notable exception of sections related to paid editing. If I sell washing machines at Best Buy, I'm going to laugh in the face of someone who calls me a paid editor on that basis. If my job is to promote Best Buy's public image and I edit at the company's behest, then it is reasonable to call that paid editing. I'm going to strike my earlier deferral, because I now feel well-equipped to comment on the subject myself. Unless we are missing some key information, Strifle sounds more like the washing machine guy than like PR. That's a financial COI, and that is not paid editing. The financial COI would be equally present if a user was, say, a majority stockholder and not an employee of the company. I would hope you agree that it would be silly to consider that paid editing. WP:PAID and WP:PAID are pretty clear on the definition of paid editing.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 15:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't clear at all. I don't think Stifle falls into this category, but plenty of editors will tell you 'I'm not being paid to edit' and then we'll subsequently find out that they're the CEO or the VP of marketing or something. I agree that it is reasonable to call that paid editing, and I'm sure the community would tend to agree, but that isn't made clear to a new user who shows up and reads our policy documents. - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * could you please specify what you mean by saying it isn't clear at all? Is the language in WP:PAID not clear? Or is this a general comment on the byzantine policies, guidelines, norms, and taboos on en-wiki? Alex Eng ( TALK ) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean that the language in WP:PAID is regularly misinterpreted by the new editors it is supposed to apply to. It is written in pseudo-legalese, and that style of writing lends itself to close reading and looking for loopholes. For one example: 'Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors' might be clear to you and me, but many people the community will call on the carpet for paid editing do not consider themselves to be publicists. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess I am, User:AlexEng. While you may be right that 'paid' needs to be direct compensation or instructions from an employer by the letter of the policies, I don't think that's how it is interpreted in general. And I don't think it is just me. "Financial COI" is a better term, I guess. This board has seen people try to prop up a company they invested in hopes it would make the price go up. The general consensus was it fell under 'paid' even if strictly speaking it wasn't. I don't know what you mean by your last part, unless you are talking about editing the article for the company for which you work. Cherrs, --SVTCobra 15:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair to your point, "paid" isn't necessarily a quid-pro-edit, so to speak. There is clear reasoning in WP:PAID that editors whom are paid not specifically to edit Wikipedia, but whom are paid to promote their company are still considered paid editors. PAGs exist to reflect consensus, and if there really is broad consensus that a financial COI, broadly construed, implies paid editing, then we should formalize that to avoid doubt. It's not fair to hold contributors to unwritten rules. For the last part, you're right, I was talking about editing about one's employer outside the bounds of what I consider "paid editing". I call this a COI but I do not consider it to be paid editing. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess that would include a disgruntled employee. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An addendum: I do think the gravitas of your mea culpa is unfortunately somewhat diminished by the assertion that the breach was merely technical and that any admin would have routinely provided a refund to your userspace. Any such admin would have been in error if they did so, assuming you had previously disclosed a conflict of interest with this subject. While there is no technical barrier to uninvolved editors re-drafting a deleted article, I would question both the wisdom of such action and the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. Tangentially, could you please elaborate on the discussions that you had, if any, with colleagues who had planned to edit the page in potential breach of WP:COI? Were these contributions actually planned and fell through? Or did you mean to say that you had hoped that someone in your organization would step up unprompted to remedy the lost page? Thanks for helping clarify! Alex Eng ( TALK ) 13:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate your honesty and full disclosure. Personally, I don't have a problem with the breach of protocol in moving it to your userspace (others may differ in opinion and I cannot be sure the REFUND would have been automatic). I will note, however, if you asked colleagues at Charity Bank to edit the page, they too would have the same shared COI but with a dash of meatpuppetry. Thankfully, that didn't come to pass. Looking at the page in your userspace, I don't think it is quite ready to go live, but it may be OK to move to draftspace. I am unsure about notability for this small bank. Secondary coverage seems limited at best. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I am not asked to edit on behalf of Charity Bank. Nevertheless, I have decided to maintain a paid editing disclosure out of an abundance of openness.
 * I'm not sure on what policy basis you feel any admin would have been in error to provide a REFUND of the article, whether with or without a COI disclosure on my behalf. To quote from REFUND, "This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon". If you wish to maintain that point, I would be grateful for a reference to/quote from the policy that you feel says this.
 * I don't expect any uninvolved editors are likely to want to do any work on the article in my userspace, though they are not, of course, prevented from so doing.
 * The contributions my colleague wished to make were planned and fell through; he was instructed that before making any edits he would need to make a paid editing disclosure in compliance with policy and which I would check immediately, and certainly well prior to any edits or content outside of my userspace. As he did not in fact make any edits, he has not breached policy.
 * As mentioned above, any edits by any Charity Bank employee will be subject to proper disclosure being made and process being followed.
 * I agree that notability is not yet evidenced.
 * I hope that clarifies matters further. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on what policy basis you feel any admin would have been in error to provide a REFUND of the article. Sure, that merits some additional discussion. This is a rather esoteric use case and is not specifically addressed by policy to my knowledge. WP:BEANS may apply.
 * There is general discussion on WP:DELETE: Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request. Refunds to userspace are still discretionary and can be denied.
 * There's some brief mention in the userification essay at WP:USERFYAFD. Content going into userspace indefinitely doesn't merit a refund. I would expect you to have an exit strategy that doesn't involve WP:MEAT or WP:COI violation if I were in a position to decide.
 * There's a lot in WP:MOP that may be relevant to the above.
 * Finally, if there's a suspicion that userification is going to result in violations of WP:PROMO or whatnot, I suspect there is a common sense justification for refusal to refund.
 * There's probably a lot of room for reasonable disagreement on this, and maybe even a nugget of a policy proposal in there somewhere. I did not intend to give the impression that there was a cut-and-dried proscription for the specific case that you described – more so that complying with such a request would constitute an error in judgment. When there is a specific and salient PAG for something, I tend to cite the page in line rather than nebulously claim violation, which is not what this was.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 15:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying and clarifying your view. I am happy to meet in the middle in that regard. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's probably a lot of room for reasonable disagreement on this, and maybe even a nugget of a policy proposal in there somewhere. I did not intend to give the impression that there was a cut-and-dried proscription for the specific case that you described – more so that complying with such a request would constitute an error in judgment. When there is a specific and salient PAG for something, I tend to cite the page in line rather than nebulously claim violation, which is not what this was.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 15:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying and clarifying your view. I am happy to meet in the middle in that regard. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Baseball Ontario


This editor has made grossly promotional edits to the article in excess. They appear to have a conflict of interest as they are the copyright owner of official photos of the organization's board members. –– FormalDude  talk  23:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a terrible accusation. Grossly promotional edits would imply that the edits I made were actually promotional.  They were edits that were factual including an update to the logo of the organization and the members of the volunteer Board of Directors.  Further updates would have included recent updates to award winners.  I request that another editor review my edits and engage me in this discussion.  I don't believe that  is capable of unbiased opinion on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck-2013 (talk • contribs)
 * Reviewed and the article needs to be reduced to a stub. It is entirely sourced from WP:PRIMARY documents and contains traditional promotional hints like listing Objectives of the organization, flowery language and excessive lists. needs to read and comply with WP:COI as they have already stated they are a volunteer.  I'd also encourage reading up on reliable sources.  And strongly suggest they not comment on other's editors motivations as  is merely complying with well established norms of wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has gone over a decade being in a poor state. While the organization is likely notable, no attempt has been made to provide WP:Secondary sources. A reduction to stub would be restoring article to its original creation edit, which will still be improperly sourced but at least remove all the promotional material that can be found on subjects own website if someone is so inclined to learn about them.Slywriter (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you even call that an "article"? It reads like the organization's website. The grossest violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST I've ever seen. Miracusaurs (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Miracusaurs, Indeed. I've removed all the problematic info, and currently it's more like a stub. Also, reported the user to WP:AIV. -- Tame (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (AIV report removed for now, as the user has stated they don't intend to continue editing. If there is further promotional editing, please notify me.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The Music Guides Playlists / Colin Larkin


Last month a discussion was had on this board (Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_182) that laid out evidence that User:Muso805 and User:Colin Larkin, two single purpose accounts devoted to adding mentions of Colin Larkin's books, were the same person. Colin Larkin stated that they had shared their password with Muso805, and the section faded into the archives without further action. Neither of those two accounts has edited since. Today I noticed a third single purpose account, User:The Music Guides Playlists, adding many, many mentions of Colin Larkin and his books. What should be done about this, if anything? - MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This post at the Teahouse from 2021 suggests that  and  are, or were, in communication with each other. Since we've had problems with Colin Larkin in the past, I think it's reasonable to ask TMGP if they have any personal or professional affiliations with him. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * May I presume Colin Larkin is relevant? --SVTCobra 04:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If so, we have a WP:REALNAME issue as well. --SVTCobra 04:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The contributions made in the past at the Colin Larkin page are minor, and don't justify including a tag on that page. I haven't looked at the other pages.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

To all concerned I am Colin Larkin. It is my real name. I have received notices this morning that I am not happy with, and  also do not really understand. I am not an experienced wiki user. I very much dislike the 'Since we've had problems with Colin Larkin in the past' comment. Furthermore I have already explained to someone else that I have only one Wiki account. I make very few edits, and do not go near my own entries for COI reasons you are aware. I am not the user muso805. I have received communications on my website in the past from him/her and allowed him/her access to my wiki account by unwisely giving my password. I subsequently realized not only was this foolish but it led me down a path of trolling and appears hard to defend. I changed the password and have not had any communication for some time on my email. I do not have the time to add items I am far too busy working on a new book. I have no idea who The Music Guides Playlist are. I am not linked to this company in any way and have not heard of them before. This is very annoying and I suggest you contact those concerned, none of this is anything to do with me and one day I hope I receive an apology from all those concerned.Colin Larkin (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , and  have all been indef'd per Sockpuppet investigations/Colin Larkin
 * has been indef'd as WP:ORGNAME
 * --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks are due to here! I've rolled back what I could of edits by  and . Question: should edits by  also be rolled back? As with the other two, all the edits are to spam a book by Colin Larkin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ping, , and  for comment. Seems to me we need to weigh the possible value of the edits (if any?) against the unacceptable promotion and the likelihood that this is meatpuppetry. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at some of their edits later today; their edit count is 500+. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Muso805 has hundreds of unreverted additions as well (they have been at this for years). I'm usually in favor of getting rid of stuff that has been so obviously spammed, but I got pushback about reverting Muso805 in the past. Maybe see what they think at WikiProject Music? - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of that. For what it's worth, I think that The Encyclopedia of Popular Music is considered a WP:RS. It's just a question of whether its use in these edits was inappropriate or self-serving. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This content is way out of my wheelhouse. Notifying the appropriate Wikiproject seems like the right thing to do. --SVTCobra 17:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Colin Larkin is a respected music writer who has written and/or edited a number of reliable sources on popular music over the decades. There is no good reason for his publications not to be treated as good sources for Wikipedia - and it is perfectly plausible that editors who have his publications would use them, in an organised way, to add citations to appropriate articles.  That is not necessarily "spamming" - it's organised editing.  The writer is presumably the same person as the editor  - who seems to be a relatively inexperienced editor who has tried to avoid editing articles in which they have a direct interest but who, on occasion, has seemingly failed to do so.  I have absolutely no idea whether  or  have any connection with him as an individual.  I've had a quick look at the edits by  - their content doesn't seem to me to be problematic in any way, but clearly they have an admitted connection with Larkin.  It does seem to me that the edits themselves, including those by  and, are in themselves uncontentious and largely unproblematic, and that errors in relation to COI editing could and should be dealt with by firm warnings, rather than by blocks.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , please see the SPI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't claim to have checked each and every edit that these accounts has ever made, but from a skim over them it's 95% adding references to Larkin's publications, and 5% minor typo fixes. I have not found any examples of substantial content additions other than mentions of Larkin's own work, or any examples of them using anything but Larkin's work as a source for anything they've added. This is classic, self-promitional WP:CITESPAM. However - that is not why I blocked them. Firm warnings have been tried, and they were ignored. They were challenged about COI under their original account, so created the Muso805 account to evade scrutiny and continue with the citespamming. When challenged again, they repeatedly lied about there being any connection, and created yet another account to carry on in the same vein. Blocks, not warnings, are how we deal with blatant, repeated and abusive sockpuppetry. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have put out a call for assistance here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:57, 26 Januaryuary 2022 (UTC)

Probable conflict of interest (Account on mission?)
A increasing problem are notorious LTA's operating in topics related to human genetics and racialist theories, and adding their 19th century babbling. The subject of concern here is currently the user "Hunan201p", who had several conflicts and disputes with other editors in topics related to human genetics and ethnography. Trying to remove content in conflict with his personal agenda (or POV) based on essays such as WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS, while including same or similar primary and secondary content in accordance with his agenda. He mostly got reverted, warned, and even blocked several times in 2020. 2021 was rather low activity, now he seems to try to propagate changes to Wikipedia policies to come closer to his goal again, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_policy_regarding_genetics_sources. I have summarized some interesting points below. In the beginning, I already want to say that the user does not appear to be here to build up an encyclopedia, but rather to push his personal views, as such I request a carefull analysis of his edit, as well as looking at the talk page disputes, which are the main content of his talk page. According to WP:NOTHERE, it is a rather clear case in my eyes. Another user, Vamlos, was blocked a week ago, for spreading outdated racialist arguments. Sadly one of many it seems.

I am honestly concerned by the motivation of Hunan201p. As presented us a link where Hunan201p includes dubious content applying to his worldview, he wants to remove large sections which are against his agenda. Fellow Wikipedians, carefully look at Hunan201p's talkpage and edit history. He is mostly focused on ethnography and genetic topics and is intensely concerned by pushing a "white supremacist" agenda, such as trying to prove Ghenghis Khan was blonde and blue eyed, ancient Mongolians were blone and blue eyed, haplogroup Q is Indo-European, various edits about blonde and red hair (simply look at the edit history of blonde hair [last 500 edits] and search Hunan) and its association with a "lost European tribe in Siberia"   , as well as controversial edits on historical racialist classifications, such as "Alpine race". This also includes heavy disputes with other editors regarding genetics and references/sources, even personally attacking experts such as Damgaard (geneticist and historian) , and trying to overrule WP:SCIRS and MEDRS. Simply take a look through his edits:. This all is not very encyclopedia friendly in my eyes. Now, as he did not succeed with pushing his agenda, he tries to get into Wikipedia policies and rules, to finally be able to remove the content he was trying to delete earlier! In my opinion this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Taking into account that he also seems to be active on reddit (as mentioned by another person), this is not a simple conflict of interest. I want to notify some editors which already know Hunan201p's agenda:, , , ,. I probably forgot to mention some more users, but you can see on his talk page that he had multiple disputes and problems with various users, always related to genetics and ethnography. I renew my observation that this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and "Account On A Mission".

I think we must be very careful these days, multiple sock farms and groups of people sharing interest in similar topics try to influence various topics, mostly associated with ethno-nationalist and racialist topics. Hunan201p is clearly part of such kind. He is obviously in clear opposition of another LTA (, or the notorious, but they all share a common interest in genetics and racialist topics. A special link between Hunan201p and Tirgil34 is the obsession with blonde hair among Turks, Mongols and Ghenghis Khan, but currently no other behavior evidence suggests a connection between them. I am not sure what to do with these kind of people, but they become an increasing problem for Wikipedia. Hunan201p is probable only one of such kind, operating on Wikipedia to spread their 19th century babbling.

I hope someone will monitor this behavior or take action if necessary. Wikipedia is not the playground for racialists or hobby geneticist spreading their own hypotheses.103.153.254.189 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on haplogroups and hair--I firmly believe that Diriliş: Ertuğrul proves that none of the Khans were blond. It is true that I've had a wary eye on this matter for a while. Short of banning racism in the world, we could stop having articles on Wikipedia about race in the first place. Short of that, we could topic-ban editors like Hunan201p, with their walls of text, their bludgeoning, their outdated scholarship, and their overzealous agenda. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, really? Most of the scholarship I have posted is up to date. As in, within the last 10 years. I've never said a Khan was blond in my entire life, much less on Wikipedia. I invite you to show me where I have. Hunan201p (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,, really: "Bodonchar Munkhag, a direct ancestor of Genghis Khan, was said to have blond hair." The whole "the last 10 years" is obviously incorrect. As in this edit--what you get out of the Gülensoy source (which is from 1986, so that was 34 years old) is...surprising and original. You could have cited it correctly, and that goes for the other sources there as well--in fact, there's not a single source in there that's cited correctly with full bibliographical informatoin, and they date to 1943, 1975, and oh wait this mysterious "Indian Antiquary, Volume 9" is from 1880--where besides the date you left out the author, title of article, page numbers. The author, it turns out, is Henry Hoyle Howorth, an amateur historian who was trained as a lawyer. In other words, that edit alone should disqualify you from editing in this area. Have a look at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence, items 1-3. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might want to read up on your history. Bodonchar Munkhag was not a Khan. But more importantly, why not read the comment you were referring to, and see the keyword "most". Indeed, most of the sources I have posted date to within the last 10 years. Your cherry-picking of this instance of me using a 34 year old source for an historical subject, and insistence that this warrants a ban, rather reveals your own bias against me. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * More to the above: I don't see why you're citing the Race and Intelligence arbitration page when literally nothing you quoted is about race or intelligence. It's about an oral historical figure's purported hair color (which members of any race or ethnic group can naturally have). Hunan201p (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow, he wasn't a khan but the ancestor of one--big deal. Cherry-picking? Hardly: none of the things you cited in that edit were recent, or properly cited, and most if not all of them were unacceptable. 1880-sheesh. It's pretty obvious. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you implying, then, that no Mongolian can have blond hair -- including any ancestor of a Khan? Because it is a fact that modern and ancient Mongolians can, and do have blond hair. The genetic data is available if you'd like to see it. The idea itself that Genghis Khan's ancestors had blond hair is not outdated, and continues to appear in mainstream secondary sources. For example, a quote from Frank McLynn:
 * - Hachette, 2015. pp. 25
 * If you think this is any evidence for bias or fringe views, I'm sorry my edits misled you, but that's simply not true. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat confused as to how this should be handled at COIN and not the fringe theories noticeboard (if related to outdated 19th century racial pseudoscience) or WP:ANI (if related to disruptive tendentious editing). Additionally, if related to socks that should be discussed at WP:SPI. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A strange COI request coming from an IP editor. I wonder why they chose not to register? I certainly have no conflict of interest and it's difficult to understand how anyone would assume that there is. I have never received or requested money for any edits and all content I have posted originates entirely from my own compulsion. Hunan201p (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that this COI case is a probable joe job attempt by a banned LTA . An individual making very similar allegations against me appeared at Talk:Xiongnu a few weeks ago, including the claim that I am somehow connected to Tigril34. User Austronesier agreed that this user was almost certainly WorldCreaterFighter, and I suspect that this IP editor is, as well. I once again assert no COI and deny all allegations against me in this investigation. Hunan201p (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like to correct noticeboard. Bias is not a conflict of interest. External relationships or roles are typically required for COI. --SVTCobra 17:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SVT, A. C. Santacruz, you're right; I think we should copy this entire thing to another board, like AN. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Apart from the fact that this is in the wrong noticeboard, I don't think it is of any merit to bring User:Hunan201p's pre-block disruptions to attention for sheer drama. I disagree a lot with Hunan201p, but I can't see anything gravely actionable in their edits from the past few months. If there is, it should be brought up at ANI with solid evidence and without demonizing or digging up dirty laundry. –Austronesier (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly looking at Hunan201p's talk page and the many disputes there with various users, always about topics concerning ethnic identity, genetics, and racialist characteristics, such as blonde hair, as well as the edit warring and block history, is enough to block a user of such kind without discussion. The argument that he was less disruptive in the last month is simply because he made only few edits, mostly on talk pages. He is simply waiting for it to strike again! Which constructive user is in such way obsessed with the topics of genetics and phenotypes or policies related to biomedicine, and has such kind of edit/conflict history? Observing the behavior, there is clearly a long-term goal. Multiple users have pointed that out, even calling him a racist. I can only repeat that any kind of such persons are WP:NOTHERE. For the sake of Wikipedia, such people will only cause disruption and troubles, and we already have enough from that.103.153.254.189 (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While I find Hunan201p's, erm, 'interest' in blonde hair a little weird, I did not *call him* a racist. I asked another user whether they thought that Hunan201p's 'interest' in blonde hair was motivated by racism.  Tewdar  (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * just know that everytime I see your signature my mind substitutes the cool characters :) They live on! A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Everytime I see my signature, I curse Apple for not providing proper font support on iOS... ☹️ (Ꞇewꝺar)  Tewdar  (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone can see from my edit history that I am anti-racist, and have made numerous efforts to remove racist POV from articles about crime in Europe, race, theories of ethnic differences, etc. The actual racist is the person behind this manipulative COI request, and those of us with experience know they're an LTA. -- Hunan201p (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't believe than Hunan201p is still arguing about this. I had an argument with him nearly two years ago about whether the mythic figure of the Yellow Emperor was blonde Talk:Yellow_Emperor. I think he should just stop editing anything to do with blondeness, period. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * *Yawn*. Not sure why you think that's a good example when you actually received a warning from an admin about your tendentious editing in there. That discussion reflects your problems, not mine. I hadn't edited blond for like a year until you folks mysteriously converged upon this COI to bring it all up again. -- Hunan201p (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * please discuss behavioural concerns at ANI and not at COI. This is not the proper noticeboard to vent or discuss editing behaviour unless a conflict of interest can be found. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Poneros


I was looking through the edit history of Political ponerology while reviewing it for a content dispute (tl;dr the so-called field of political ponerology is based on an antisemetic, ableist, and racist conspiracy theory) and noticed that the user that created the page, Poneros, has only made edits related to the book the field is based on, its author, and organizations related to the cult that published the English translation in the United States and Canada. The cult I am referring to is known as The Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind, which I will henceforth be referring to as The Fellowship. The two leaders of The Fellowship are Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczyk (and if that name sounds familiar, it's because he was one of the most staunch defenders of the Bogdanov brothers during the Bogdanov affair).

The user Poneros has made 10 edits from 2008 to 2010. Five of these edits were made to Political ponerology, the first of which created the page, one edit was made to Grande Prairie, one edit was made to Jagiellonian University, and three edits were made to a now-deleted page about Andrzej Łobaczewski, the author of Political Ponerology (the aforementioned book), the first of which created the page. Furthermore, the only source on the page about Andrzej Łobaczewski that wasn't the book itself was a fringe website known as Signs of the Times, which is owned and authored by The Fellowship. The only external link on the Political ponerology page leads to the official website for the book's English translation, a site which is owned by Red Pill Press, a publishing house run by The Fellowship. Their edit to the Jagiellonian University only corrected a typo and added Andrzej Łobaczewski to the list of notable alumni. And furthermore, their edit to Grande Prairie only corrected typos and added a mention of a bookstore named "The Rabbit Hole" to the article. If I had to guess, the "The Rabbit Hole" they were referring to was this one, which sells many of Laura Knight-Jadczyk's books as well as Political Ponerology. It is mentioned on the website that The Rabbit Hole is the "Official online store of QFG, Inc." QFG stands for Quantum Future Group, and according to their about page, Quantum Future Group is owned by Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, the leaders of The Fellowship. And as for why the edit was made to Grande Prairie specifically, Red Pill Press is based in Grande Prairie, Canada according to this entry in Canada's federal corporate database. From all of this I can only conclude that Poneros has an undisclosed connection to The Fellowship and/or one of the organizations run by them. Thus, the contents of the article should be scrutinized and someone should really go and verify that Kazimierz Dąbrowski's The Dynamics of Concepts really says what the article claims it says. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Poneros hasn't been active since 2010. However, I have taken the time to notify them of the discussion regardless. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that they haven't been active for a whopping 12 years, I don't see a reason to take any sort of action. If your concern is more about article content than user conduct, then this probably isn't the best noticeboard to address it. I'd recommend alerting WP:FTN about the Political ponerology page. Mlb96 (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, we will take our complaint there after compiling some notes about the book, the author, the cult that spread it in the US, etc. Might take a bit before we have all of that prepared though. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2022

Caledon, Ontario

 * Jordan Grant said here that they are associated with Headwaters Arts and Alton Mill Arts Centre. They were cautioned about COI editing.
 * Jordan Grant said here that they are associated with Headwaters Arts and Alton Mill Arts Centre. They were cautioned about COI editing.
 * Jordan Grant said here that they are associated with Headwaters Arts and Alton Mill Arts Centre. They were cautioned about COI editing.

With this edit they continue to add promotional content about these organizations. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I note the user has disclosed on their user page, though they don't seem to believe it constitutes a conflict of interest. It is a common misconception that direct financial benefit is needed for COI to exist. --SVTCobra 12:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:CollinsMann


@CollinsMann Has made suspicious editing centered around a private small university of Uganda, and a non-notable academic who is a professor at that institution. Has made serious copy vio edits, to the extent where revisions had to be deleted. The professor's page is currently up for AFD, and is likely to be deleted (the initial draft was declined at AFC, regardless they moved it to mainspace, then it again was draftified, but they went ahead and moved it to mainspace yet another time).

IMO, the they are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote subject(s) with which they might have COI.-- Tame (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Definitely COI and likely UPE at work here too. Dropped a uw-paid1 warning on their talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Drm310, They did violate your warning. The user should not be able to edit anymore. I propose a block. Tame (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean? I don't see any edits since 17 January. --SVTCobra 10:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @SVTCobra, My bad, I missed the date from revision history. Tame (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You may want to correct that on User talk:CollinsMann. No need to ping Drm310 all over the place. Cheers, --SVTCobra 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted the talk page to the version where I left the uw-paid1 warning. Let's give them a chance to respond; if they continue editing without disclosure, then harsher warnings and/or actions can follow. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2022 ( (UTC)

User:Vasey2020


Every single one of this editor's contributions seem to have something to do with Philip Proudfoot or the Northern Independence Party which he leads, dating back to November 2020. Most recently, this editor has been deliberately removing reliably sourced information from the Proudfoot article. As the NIP have acknowledged their Wikipedia article and have made several attempts to influence it, as has been discussed on the NIP talk page, I believe it's very possible that this editor may have some link to the party or potentially may be Proudfoot himself editing his own BLP. 148.252.133.185 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . Initial comments at WP:BLPN seem to have a problem with how that section was sourced. --SVTCobra 23:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to concede regarding issues with how that section was sourced, but this does not address the this user's potential conflict of interest. This is something that has clearly plagued NIP related articles for over a year to the point of multiple administrator interventions. 148.252.133.185 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User:PhilKukielski

 * Pages: too many to list
 * Pages: too many to list

PhilKukielski has been adding extensive content to US-military related articles, while citing books and articles written by Phil Kukielski. -  wolf  03:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is upsetting to learn that my factual, objective contributions on military topics to Wikipedia are being perceived as a possible a conflict of interest. I have recently published a book and associated professional articles on the 1983 invasion of Grenada, based mostly on newly declassified information that is not found elsewhere in the public arena. At the suggestion of my book publicist, I have been making selective additions and amplifications to Grenada-related Wikipedia pages that freely share my unique, original historical research. (Many of my contributions corrected errors or added desired citations.) This is my first book, but my targeted contributions seemed to me to conform to the promotional standards of contemporary media. (Every talking head I see on cable TV these days has their book mentioned, or prominently displayed in the background.) From what I have observed, much of Wikipedia's expert content is also motivated at least in part by some self-interest by the originator. If my offerings are unwelcome, I will delete or undo any and all that your think stepped across the line from the reporting of newly disclosed historical facts tied to reputable published sources into self-promotion.PhilKukielski (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Transcribed from User talk:PhilKukielski. --SVTCobra 14:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read Expert editors. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:54, 23 January 2022 2022 (UTC)

Inspirar Health Tech


Insertcleverphrasehere has raised uw-paid1 against CaptainShrimpy and a uw-coi against Denilson G Sousa. CaptainShrimpy is a relatively inexperienced who created an article and gave a "paid" defence here:. If we assume AGF CaptainShrimpy is not a paid editor, though it is possible via his friend CaptainShrimpy has a conflict of interest as there is no indication if his friend has a COI or not. Denilson G Sousa's contributions appear to indicate they the made an entry at the AfD first and then added links to the article which Special:Diff/1064832212 were reverted. While they were inappropraitely place as external links entries such as appear to a Brazilian newspaper, perhaps indicating this is a national story. There are questions if there are two relatively new users who have been reasonably and correctly assessed as having a COI, or who alternatively are new users who are being unduly targeted, which neither seemlying have been given a welcome-type help template before being hammered with Paid/COI concerns. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * At a glance, the article looks promotional and it uses photos which are probably not licensed correctly. Sorry, I don't have time to study the interactions of editors. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning the images. I think photo is CaptainShrimpy's copy from company to commons with no appropriate license. At glance a typical newbie mistake.I haven't seen an appopriately licenced alternative. The logo, which is on commons but would qualify free use on English wikipedia, seems to have been uploaded by Denilson G Sousa 2 years ago. If there was an article about the entity at the same time under a different name I have found it.  @: Can you give any reasons why you did this?  NB: I've nominated the logo for deletion on commons but happy to add a free use to English Wikipedia in due course.  I note CaptainShrimpy has likely done primary article development here but has copied to Portugese Wikipedia (for Brazil - pt:Inspirar Health Tech ) and Spanish Wikipedia's (es:Inspirar Health Tech) later. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed CaptainShrimpy also created Inspirar Health Tech, Inspirar Health Tech and Inspirar Health Tech articles. The friend must be in urgent need of getting the word out about Inspirar Health Tech which is asking for donations. --SVTCobra 15:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not unhappy with a copy to Portugese and even Spanish for a Brazil organiaztion, but I'd half assumed (without checking whatsover) that the Russian article must have been done by bot - it wasn't, it was CaptainShrimpy, silly me. Hmmm. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor CaptainShrimpy is an undeclared paid editor.   scope_creep Talk  17:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC).ll
 * The editor Denilson G Sousa. is the CEO of Inspirar Health Tech.  scope_creep Talk  17:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it survives the deletion request it is going to need a complete rewrite. It appears to massively misrepresent the information in the sources. For example, it is a social project, not a manufacturing company and it is not a subsidiary of Tacom, but two people from Tacom have provided assistance. --SVTCobra 18:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am increasingly finding 's analysis highly probable with a indef block of CaptainShrimpy (can we do global?) likely in order which failing explanation the same should likely be true for Denilson G Sousa. While I am nominated the logo for copyright issues c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inspirar.png there are indications policy based consensus may indicate it should survive which I will totally accept, in all events it could be reloaded "fair use" on the English wikipedia but that would not help other Wikipedias.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk)
 * The logo will probably survive on Commons as PD-text with basic geometry. The photo of the device will not unless CaptainShrimpy gets someone at Inspirar to email VRT. I do think we should notify our other language sister Wikipedias about our final conclusions. They likely have fewer eyes on these matters. --SVTCobra 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Page was deleted by Explicit after AfD. I will try to notify sister projects, but not sure how best to do it. --SVTCobra 05:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Should these two editors not be blocked as they clearly UPE?   scope_creep Talk  23:10, 25 January 2022 (UTCC)

ThePageCollective


ThePageCollective has been adding in references to and quotes from Orrick Glenday Johns wherever it may be relevant, sometimes with undue weight. Many of these edits are in good faith and contribute positively, but I have reason to believe the user is related to the subject of the article due to off-Wiki uses of the same username, which they confirm they use elsewhere. I will refrain from linking the relevant evidence here to avoid outing the editor. Please advise on the best way to approach this. Note: the user has explicitly denied any relation to Orrick Glenday Johns on their talk page.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * . As you said, many of the edits appear to be in good faith and constructive. Seeing as the subject died in 1946, I have hope this can be solved as a content dispute and about due weight. It is not the first time I have seen people have an adverse reaction to uw-coi; it feels very confrontational and adversarial. I don't know if we have a gentler way to approach what is probably borderline cases. If the edits violate WP:NPOV and/or become more problematic, there are ways to report this issue. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Cedceggn
Repeatedly created promo article about an insignificant institution, which is up for deletion again. It was up for delete, then draftified, then speedy delete, then again created.
 * added by SVTCobra 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * added by SVTCobra 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * added by SVTCobra 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Fo shizzle, this user is not here to build/contribute to the encyclopedia, but to promote their agenda and subjects they have COI with. Tame (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't forget to notify the editor of this discussion. --SVTCobra 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @SVTCobra, my bad, I always do, somehow missed this time. Anyway did drop a notice.-- Tame (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If this editor is indeed affiliated with this educational institution, their grammar reflects poorly on the quality of education. --SVTCobra 15:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @SVTCobra, LMAO, wiki is missing a haha react button. Tame (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Cedceggn has resumed editing without addressing this discussion. --SVTCobra 22:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * AIV d.-- Tame (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagged the other page they new created about the same non notable institution with CSD. Tame (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AIV seems like an unnecessary escalation. --SVTCobra 11:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The editor had never been informed of the conflict of interest guideline until I did it a few minutes ago. Many editors start editing in good faith, sincerely not realising that editing to publicise their business/band/institution/whatever will not be acceptable. The reasonable thing to do is to politely explain the situation to such editors, and take things further only if they continue after that. Now that I have warned, we should wait and see whether they respond. JBW (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Myholidaysqatar


Keeps adding links to myholidays.com. Name indicates a COI, and edits are disruptive. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just straight up spam. --SVTCobra 12:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeffed. Another time with a similar case, A. C. Santacruz, WP:UAA is the board for you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Ah, didn't know. Thanks for the link, :) A.C.S.Alt - Talk to main account 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Jay Faison


Hello! I submitted requested edits for [] back on the 13th, with an acknowledgement of a potential COI. I represent a company that is contracted with Mr. Faison, so i wanted to make that COI clear. I also know that it has only been two weeks since the request. Mainly, i just wanted to check in with this board to ensure that i had documented the COI properly and take any advice you all may have. I'm pretty new to the process and am open to any feedback you all may have that will ensure that my edits are reviewed and given a fair shake. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtcookie (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . So far it looks like you are doing the right things. You can, however, use Paid template on your user page to list the articles of your clients. It makes it very clear to everyone. That is a substantial edit request you submitted and the backlog is substantial. I ask for your patience. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Index of Sciences LTD

 * Sockpuppet investigations/Thaiboy43

Index of Sciences LTD is a predatory publisher who also publishes paid Wikipedia biographies for academics. They run massive spam campaigns offering to publish Wikipedia articles since late 2018. Many academics have emailed us in the past warning about this activity, so I asked for permission to disclose the following information:


 * We are aware of 65+ emails from a paid editing company since December 2018 to present.
 * The company has occasionally self-identified as Index of Sciences LTD.
 * They target academics, writing to their work email addresses, offering to create biographies on Wikipedia for pay.
 * They claim to have multiple accounts.
 * They claim to have new page reviewer rights.
 * They claim 9+ years of experience as of 2021.
 * There is evidence of this company connection to at least one blocked account on the English Wikipedia.

I think it's interesting that the community is aware of this activity related to biographies of academics. Specially since they've been doing this successfully for a few years and in a significant volume. Based on their recent creations, I don't give much credibility to their claims about new page reviewer rights (after all, given WP:NPROF, NPP wouldn't be so valuable for them). MarioGom (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You can find some interesting tweets about this case: . MarioGom (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This has been happening for a while. Miracusaurs (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Jackson T. Williams


Their edits to the listed articles may not seem like a conflict of interest, they seem to have only added a candidate here. However, they have also spammed endorsements of the supposed candidate into various other election articles, which honestly makes it frustrating to clean up.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 09:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This feels more like vandalism than COI. An 8th grader? --SVTCobra 15:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wanted to AGF only because their edits until the 24th had been constructive.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Until this, I suppose. --SVTCobra 13:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

ForTheScience
This user has only made around 20 edits since they began editing two years ago. All of these edits have been to add research papers that are authored by Dogancan Uzun, Savas Sezen, Refik Ozyurt, Mehmet Atlar and Osman Turan, who are all based at  Naval Architecture, Ocean And Marine Engineering at the University of Strathclyde. They have been continually edit warring to add reference to their work in the second sentence of the Barnacle article in a prominence that I would consider inappropriate. Since I warned them about COI, they gave a very dismissive response on my talkpage diff and promptly added the reference back to the lead of the Barnacle article again, proclaiming themselves as an "expert in the field" diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * he or she did thank me for asking him or her to read the Expert editors page, so there's hope they will get the message. <b style="color:white">rsjaffe</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 23:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a users who dismisses other editors that they deem "non-expert" can ever collaboratively work on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I recently chanced upon the essay Relationships with academic editors - it gives a good insight into the minds of academic editors and their difficulty adapting to the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor editing his own article
Adding unsourced material as well. There are only two sources to the article although I believe the subject is notable. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, passes notability with flying colors, imho. Page needs serious cleanup. I did some of the basics. --SVTCobra 12:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to notify users when starting a discussion. I have done so this time. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry. I keep forgetting ping notifications aren’t considered sufficient. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked for WP:REALNAME until we get proof of identity. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Geoff Wilson (Australian explorer)


Ensam65 initially created Draft:Geoff Wilson (Australian explorer), which I moved to draftspace upon review. They stated on their talk page that publishing the article was their only option, apparently implying a deadline. I ask if they are being paid to write the article and they did not respond. They've now republished the article in mainspace. –– FormalDude  talk  11:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment, except to note that I have moved it to Geoff Wilson (veterinarian), as "explorer" seems promotional and unsupported by sources. I will also note that I question whether the article meets WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this comment also doesn't have a bearing on the potential COI either, but veterinarian is clearly not what the potential notability is based upon, perhaps adventurer would have been better. I do agree explorer was a poor choice. --SVTCobra 02:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I considered adventurer, but there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage using that term either. BilledMammal (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I note, the original draft and the live article have become forked in the process. --SVTCobra 15:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

EFdnV, EFjacob


Apologies in advance for any faux pas, new to editing.

While editing the page for Eclipse Foundation, I found several edits that seem to have been made by members of the Foundation, which seems to me like a COI. They have EF at the start of their names (which very well could stand for Eclipse Foundation). These users are EFdnV and EFjacob. In past, the user C.smith eclipefoundation has made contributions to the Foundation's page; this might be a pattern. Both have only contributed to the page for the Foundation. Their contributions are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EFdnV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EFjacob

Lkb335 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed as both accounts use "EF" in the username and they are SPAs for Eclipse Foundation it is highly suggestive of COI. I have no idea if Eclipse Foundation meets WP:NORG but all 23 of the references are from Eclipse itself. 320 members could be a club or a serious organization. --SVTCobra 21:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it meets WP:NCORP to me either (google string: Eclipse Foundation -microsoft.com -eclipse.org; this cuts out basically everything substantive, though I haven't dug past that). Since it's also a pretty likely COI, I was just about to write a note on the talk page asking @Lkb335 if they wanted to try Newbie's First WP:AFD Nomination. -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure! I can try my hand at that. I will say that I personally do think it qualifies as WP:NCORP, given the ubiquity of its IDE in Java development; its support from major organizations like Microsoft, Oracle, and Red Hat; and its general role in creating widely-used open source software. Lkb335 (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I started a note on the talk page for the Foundation so this doesn't get too off-topic. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 30 Jan(UTC)

Adoptium


User Gdams1 is, according to their user page, a contributor to AdoptOpenJDK, the project that became Eclipse Adoptium. They have edited the Adoptium article and that of the Eclipse Foundation (an article with at least 7 other COI editors). Lkb335 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Relevant editor has been appropriately notified. The relationship between AdoptOpenJDK and Adoptium is documented. please read WP:COIDISCLOSE for guidance in properly disclosing your conflict of interest in the Adoptium article talk page. A COI is not a bad thing necessarily, just changes a bit how the community expects you to edit. If you need any assistance in figuring how to abide by the COI guidelines feel free to ask here. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Barbara Rutto


Newly created user who has made 91 edits in the past day, almost completely focused on articles related to companies and organizations. Shows editing behavior that seems to indicate previous editing experience- I suspect that there's some paid editing going on here. User has not responded to a previous COI warning on their talkpage. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 10:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that they has written Write, translate and edit articles about business, companies and startups. on their user page, suggesting that that is the only purpose of this account. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Editing in a singular, albeit wide, topic area is not what WP:SPA is about. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While true, I find the likelihood of there being some undisclosed editing relatively high based on their behavior. Padgriffin  Griffin's Nest 10:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They're continuing to edit without even acknowledging this thread. Miracusaurs (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dale A. Martin

 * added by SVTCobra 21:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * added by SVTCobra 21:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Pelicanegg declared an interest on Draft:Dale A. Martin but moved it to main space rather than submiting for review, I have trimmed the CV like contentand re-written in prose instead of list format, they are now edit warring to get their preferred version rather than requesting edits on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Theroadislong, thank you for your intention to help, as I am new to editing on wikipedia. However, removing well referenced pieces of text as well as whole sections is counterproductive. Please go after the references/citations if you have a problem with the text. Formatting should be the least of one's worries on wikipedia... Thank you for your understandingPelicanegg (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear User:Pigsonthewing, thank you for reviewing my other articles/edits! Would you be so kind as to mediate this confilct, please? I feel as though a lot of the work which was clearly referenced was unjustly removed due to opinions on formatting... Thank you in advance! :) Pelicanegg (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The content was removed because it was not notable and was not independently sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Theroadislong, even the information from the Hungarian National gazette (Magyar közlöny)? Pelicanegg (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That content is still in the article with that source. Theroadislong (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I dare suggest László Károlyi also doesn't look notable and the sources don't look reliable. --SVTCobra 21:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All that remains is 2 self sources, a link to what I assume is a book he wrote, and the award lists. No secondary sources. No indication of notability.Slywriter (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

, Please review WP:COI and make the necessary declarations for any articles you have edited. Wikipedia doesn't care that you have a conflict of interest, but the community does care when you publish poorly sourced articles into main space or try and hide the conflict while editing against community consensus. You should also read guide to first article as publishing an article is one of the most difficult tasks on wikipedia and editors are encouraged to do smaller tasks or complete the wikipedia adventure so they get a better understanding of wikipedia's policies.Slywriter (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Slywriter When have I 'publish poorly sourced articles into main space or try and hide the conflict'? Please show us the poorly sourced articles. Thank you in advance! Pelicanegg (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , seriously?, see above for at least 2 examples, one of which is almost certainly headed to AfDSlywriter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, my article on Dale A. Martin was gutted. Please look at the state in which it was in before Theroadislong deleted whole sections. Thank you in advance! Pelicanegg (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes it was poorly sourced hence the gutting. As I also have reduced László Károlyi and what remains does not show WP:NOTABILITY.Slywriter (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Corey Paris


I created this page on May 7, 2021, along with many other pages for members of the Connecticut Legislature, and it has attracted a lot of edits that seem to be in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:PROMO. Now, with one WP:SPA repeatedly inserting unsourced promotional material into the page and moving it (in violation of WP:COMMONNAME), I have decided to bring this to the attention of others. The page was protected on May 9, 2021, and I am requesting that the page be given some form of protection again to prevent these changes. KidAd •  SPEAK  00:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I suspect it is more of a political affinity rather than an actual direct COI, but we will have to see how it plays out. As for the inactive editor, I immediately felt WP:ISU might apply, but it might be overreaching. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly I disagree with your characterizations of my contributions. I will concede that the page move may not have been within the spirit of COMMONNAME. Other contributions however included citations and should have remained on the page. Further I have no conlict of Interest that would disqualify me from participation in developing this page. DamaniRD (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nate Ruegger


User is editing their own article, which does not include any reliable sources. Wgullyn ( talk ) 01:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I did some looking around for decent sources and didn't find any. Nominated at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Rhodes Piano


I improved this article to good article status some time back, and have maintained it since, adding new and better sources as I can find them. However, I can't let an edit like this, which is unsourced and reads like a press release from someone with a self-declared conflict of interest, to stand. So my question is, what should we do? I'd quite like to start a dialogue, in particular if there is stuff that is in reliable sources that we might have a reasonable assumption of being factually incorrect or questionable. But given the edits so far, I'm not sure I'd be successful. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, removing the edit was necessary as it appears to contain flagrant WP:COPYRIGHT violations as entire paragraphs have been copy-pasted from here, here (the latter is the company's own site), and possibly elsewhere. Second, the edit is obviously incredibly promotional with testimonials from customers, etc. Third, Christian.Dumouchel has admitted a conflict of interest in this edit where they state: I was tasked by our CEO to edit the Wiki page as there were a few inaccuracies and a lot of missing information about the companies new history. which means we are talking about paid editing. --SVTCobra 14:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

hello,

Yes, 100%. This has got slightly ahead of me. I really wasn't at all aware of any of this. I am thankful it has been deleted as I didn't fully realise how many guidelines I was breaking. This definitely isn't a task, I personally, should see through. I am very much underqualified and underskilled in this area to complete this task successfully.

I think this should be left for now and maybe await someone, such as yourself, to form this article to a correct standard.

Apologies again for all this. I will refrain from making any edits on this page.

Regards, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Dumouchel (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * While everything you say is correct, there are a couple of significant differences between this and stereotypical paid advocacy. Firstly, the edits were on an unquestionably notable topic which has been independently improved to GA anyway. Secondly, the underlying the substance of the edits is, at least in part, backed up in multiple, independent, reliable sources like MusicRadar and Sound on Sound. Thirdly, not understanding how to write neutral prose without close paraphrasing is a mistake new editors make all the time, but it's only a problem if they repeatedly do it, which I don't think is the case here, because .... Fourthly, Christian has apologised for not understanding Wikipedia policy on their first few edits - and who can honestly blame him? I've had a chat and I think an understanding has been achieved, so at this point I'm going to recommend no further action. Or, to put it another way, I will be profoundly unimpressed if I find Christian is blocked by any administrator in the next 48 hours. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . Just to be clear, I did not recommend a block for Christian. I was primarily affirming, you were right to revert the entire edit as you said ought not be left to stand. People familiar with me on this board know, I am the last person to recommend blocks for COI or even paid editors unless, of course, they refuse to admit what they are doing. This is obviously not the case here. Now that Christian has responded and acknowledged their edit ran afoul of some policies, we can turn to recommended best practices for them. I see Andy has already begun that process below. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We do want you - and companies like yours - to contribute. Firstly you can suggest changes, such as those you made, on the talk page of the article. You know best when things fall out of date, after all. But equally importantly, your company can share images of your products, and your key people, and your buildings, under an open licence (and you'd need to first understand what that means), on our companion project Wikimedia Commons. We can then select which to use in the article and add a link to the Commons category page, where they can all be viewed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . I would like to augment Andy's comment above. It looks like Andy overlooked that the article in question is about a piano and not the company which produces the piano. So, photographs of employees, buildings and other products will most likely not be appropriate. Photos of the piano are always welcome on Commons, but it looking at c:Category:Rhodes pianos there are currently enough to illustrate the Rhodes piano. Should an article about the company come into being, Andy's comment applies. --SVTCobra 21:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I overlooked no such thing. An image of the designer of the piano, or the workshop in which it is made, for example, could both be appropriate for the article in question. Absent an article on a company (or in some cases an inventor), it's also usual to include a basic outline in the article on their product, at is done in this case. Note that I concluded "We can then select which to use in the article..." Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , No? Well, I think you overlooked quite a few things. There's already an article about the inventor Harold Rhodes who died more than two decades ago and the piano was invented in the 40s or 50s with the first commercial venture in 1959. Since then the Rhodes name has been passed around mostly like an IP. Why would you think an employee of the company which acquired the rights for the Rhodes piano in 2021 would own copyrights for images of Harold Rhodes? Why would you think images of the employees and buildings of of a company formed in 2021 would serve well in an article about a historic piano? I already said, they would be good for an article about the company which I understand to be called Rhodes Music Group Ltd. I think you were instilling unreasonable expectations for Christian. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not overlook that an article about Harold Rhodes exists. I did not say, nor think, that "an employee of the company which acquired the rights for the Rhodes piano in 2021 would own copyrights for images of Harold Rhodes", though precedent shows that the company may well do so. I did not say, nor think, that "images of the employees and buildings of of a company formed in 2021 would serve well in an article about a historic piano" (perhaps you missed that this article is in part about "a new model, the MK8... with 500 units planned for production in 2022"). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . I would recommend you disclose your connection on your user page with this handy template: paid. For more information, read Paid-contribution disclosure. While you are not disallowed from editing the article directly, it is best practice if you use request edit on the talk page of the article to notify other Wikipedia articles [editors] that a correction or an update is needed. I see has made a number of edits adding information after the initial revert of your edit, so I have hopes the article is current in a satisfactory state. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello all,

I don't believe I should make any further edits, personally. There are a lot of guidelines and a certain way of writing which I think is way beyond me. The section that Richie333 added is perfect. I believe the Rhodes Piano site is highlighting the original pianos and not the companies that make the pianos - as SVTCobra so rightly put it. You really won't see me making any more edits on this page in the future. However, if I do, I will make sure to request edit as SVTCobra mentioned.

I do just want to make a point that this has truly been a great learning experience for me, I have the utmost respect for the hard work and attention to detail that goes into creating these sites. You have provided me with some sound sources to familiarise myself with the rules and guidelines, so if I do decide to make a request edit I hope it will be up to your excellent standard.

Thank you all, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.Dumouchel (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

COI - DTAS


I work for DTAS and discovered we are on wikipedia and updated the key people section. However, i got a message saying their could be a conflict of interest. My colleagues also wanted to expand the section for our COSS team, for example, and wondered if/how we are able to do this? I'd be grateful if you could advise. PS: We have no idea who or how the DTAS wiki page was created....thanks for your help.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheilaDTAS (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @SheilaDTAS: The article was created by a user called back in 2011. You can see all edits in the page history. Per our Terms of Service, your first step should be to declare your connection to your employer on  (see WP:PAID for more details). You can do so by editing your userpage and adding the following code: . The same applies to all your colleagues who might want to make such edits on behalf of your employer.You can learn more about editing with a conflict of interest at our guide at Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Generally, it is advised to not edit the article directly but instead place the  template on the talk page of the article with a list of changes you would like to be made. An experienced editor will then answer the request and make the edits if they think them useful. Regards  So  Why  10:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks so much for coming to this noticeboard and contributing to Wikipedia, we're glad to help you understand our COI guidelines. The page Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is a good introduction to the expectations and procedures we have in place for editors such as yourself or your colleagues. WP:DISCLOSE is a link to the section of our COI guideline you might find most useful, i.e. how to properly communicate with other editors that you have a COI, while Edit requests is an information page on the procedure you're expected to follow when there is information you want to add, change, or remove from the DTAS article. I understand that getting acquainted with all the different rules and expectations of Wikipedia can be a challenge at first, so if there is any issue or question you want help with please don't hesitate to respond in this thread or ping me and I'll be glad to help :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That "plain and simple" guide has over 5,300 words. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might be the many, many examples and pieces of advice given. Perhaps there's a need for a Even more plain and simple conflict on interest guide? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 02:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one from the very top of WP:COI: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Elevations RTC


Sometime last year, after seeing an off-wiki discussion about Wikipedia's coverage of the "troubled teen" industry, I decided to try and clean up some of these articles, many of which were subject to POV pushing by both apparent proponents and detractors of these facilities. On the whole it has actually gone better that I would've expected, but this one is currently the subject of edit warring by parties who are not using the talk page but have been sniping at one another on user talk pages. There are also older edits in the article's history that still seem a bit problematic. I feel like more eyes from experienced Wikipedians might help curb some of this and bring the article into line with WP:NPOV. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You are not giving us anything to work with. I'll put userlinks and pagelinks above for you to fill in order to make it easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVTCobra (talk • contribs)
 * The article in question is linked in the section header, I would think a quick glance at the history would make it clear what's the problem is. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk) keeps adding irrelevant information to the Elevations RTC page and it looks like they have a conflict of interest, being someone closely connected to the place. What they are writing is incoherent and has nothing to do with Elevations RTC. The information looks like it is somewhat connected to Paris Hilton so I suggested that the editor perhaps put the information on a different page where it might be more relevant. The entries that HiRachel420 is putting again make no sense and many are not sourced. The sources they do have mention nothing about Elevations RTC.Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given your 1st edit is an interesting revert edit summary and the page has been your sole focus thus far, just curious if you have a conflict of your own to reveal?Slywriter (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter No, I had edited before but from my IP address so I made a username finally. Farr4h2004 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting An Indef Block Per clearly WP:NOTHERE



 * On September 2021,  notified them about our policy on COI, they didn’t respond
 * On February 1, 2022, tagged the named article for a CSD G11 as it was overtly promotional
 * Today they recreate this same article which I have tagged for speedy deletion.


 * I honestly do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia, rather, to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote a subject (organization) they have an apparent COI with Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

RixZZFeller (WikiProfessionals Inc.)




I have just blocked this user based on compelling off-wiki evidence (for CUs: ticket:2022012310002161) that they work for WikiProfessionals Inc., who are collectively banned.

They do not have any live articles outside of draftspace, but I think it would be worth following up to review their drafts (to tag/decline/CSD as appropriate) and look for any indications of sock-puppetry. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done a first pass. One is likely notable, Lucy Thairu. One I've CSDed as having no chance of being an article, Kyle Hittle. Marko Jones Ekamba makes a claim that would likely meet NSPORT if citations were found. The rest have potential but include puffery especially in the ledes.Slywriter (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo 2016 UEFA Super Cup & 2008 community shield


The talk page in mention is : Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo. I've followed this discussion on and off lately for months, and apparently it was brought up several times over the past 5 years. A reliable source references states (Real Madrid - Cristiano Ronaldo) Ronaldo had won 3 UEFA Cup medals with Real Madrid including the 2016 UEFA Super Cup which he did not participate in, however Ronaldo was a part of the 2015–16 UEFA Champions League squad for Real Madrid CF in Spain, and it seems as listed on the Real Madrid website he received a winners medal for the 2016 Super cup competition. This issue also is prevalent to the 2008 FA Community Shield where it is stated Ronaldo won a medal but wasn't included in the match day squad. A reference point to follow would be Ronaldo's advesary Lionel Messi who in the 2005–06 UEFA Champions League was awarded with a winner's medal and is stated in his honours with a note explaining his wasn't in the match day squad, but it is considered a trophy, whilst the Ronaldo page refuses to acknowledge the Real Madrid website reference which states the 2016 Super cup as being one of 3 Ronaldo won with the club.

Please help with the reluctance of the editors controlling Ronaldo's article to see the Messi example and understand the correct approach to specifying honours and medal's won by a football (soccer) player and to keep continuity between similar articles. Cltjames (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference to the 2005-06 Champions League is spurious, since Messi played in that competition several times throughout the season. He wasn't involved in the final, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether he got a medal or is credited with winning that competition. Furthermore, Ronaldo being in the squad for the 2015-16 Champions League is not relevant to the Super Cup title, since they are separate competitions; yes, one leads to the other, but being in the squad for the Champions League does not mean he should be credited with the Super Cup as well. In actual fact, he was not included in the 2016 Super Cup squad at all (see here) and did not travel to Norway for the game. Finally, what Real Madrid have to say about the matter is moot, since they are not an impartial source; they have a vested interest in making their players look as good as possible, especially a player who might be described as their best ever. – PeeJay 22:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion that has been created revolves around the titles won by Cristiano Ronaldo in the Community Shield of 2008 and the European Supercup of 2016, which would total 34 titles. It is argued that Ronaldo did not play the decisive matches and therefore these titles should not be counted in his honors by not contributing anything relevant. However, other sources such as these show another version in which such titles must be included: PeeJay argues that the content published on the official website of Real Madrid is an impartial source since it "exalts its players to make believe that they are bigger than they are". However, to assert that way you need reliable sources that effectively demonstrate the impartiality of the page, and on the other hand, this would be a double-edged sword since, in theory, any club "exalts their players to make them believe that they are bigger than they are" so in my opinion, this statement is meaningless. – Judasly(talk) 19:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Wait a minute, this isn't even the right page for this discussion. Please disregard all of the above, admins. – PeeJay 22:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Kay Firth-Butterfield


Heavy on the autobio and lack of NPOV; K200620 claims to be the subject, and the other account is an S.P.A. which never edited on any other topic. The lede is clunky. There are lots of sweeping claims of expertise and fame, and not much actual article improvement going on. Apparently some people are above italicizing The New York Times, far less wikilinking to it. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The second account, while stale, was created only a day after the first one. I've left uw-agf-sock notices for each of them. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

National Processing LLC


Here's what they said when warned about their user name and COI:


 * As soon as this page is autoconfirmed, it will be a high-level overview of National Processing LLC, much in the way of any other business listed on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you need anything else!

Skyerise (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * At any rate, it's a blatant UPOL violation, so I've sent it to UAA. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Username was changed to . This looks like a clear case of undisclosed paid editing, and I have warned them about it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Scot Kerns
Regarding the page: These editors appear to me to be SPAs or IPs (which all geolocate to the subject's town) performing CoI edits:

The article itself was largely self-sourced puffery. I've trimmed it down a bit, but the subject appears to be continuing to edit his own article, using a variety of IPs and accounts. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP range User:2600:100E:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been blocked from more than a dozen articles between September 2020 and the present, for a history of disruptive editing.
 * 161.7.39.7 was also blocked from editing List of the youngest state legislators in the United States with unsourced information about Kerns' predecessor in office by Benicio2020 on 24 January 2021.
 * Kernsds was warned about CoI editing by Indyguy on 2 February 2022, and again by me on 4 February 2022.

matches Scot Kerns' last name and initials, so WP:REALNAME probably applies. --SVTCobra 23:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * appears to be a new sockpuppet, after Kerns' main account, Kernsds, was blocked. ? MCEricBlair (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting this username matches the name of Scot Kern's mother, yet sought to remove that information from the article. --SVTCobra 23:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Precision Ltd


User:Hugotopping has created Cambridge Precision Ltd, which reads very promotionally – they had received a COI warning for a previous article, Simply Business, and they got another one for Cambridge Precision in May (the article ended up being moved to a draft at that time, and they moved it back to mainspace on Feb. 1). I suspect they have a UPE situation with both articles, for further reasons which I will be sending to paid-en-wp (WP:OUTING). I would give them the benefit of the doubt here that they didn't really know what to do/how to talk, but they've received two COI templates and they have communicated with people when articles were nominated for deletion (which are the only times they have communicated). They have also removed COI/Advert tags from at least the Simply Business article (I only discovered that they had even edited that article when going through their contributions). I attempted to clean up the Cambridge Precision article, but it looks rough. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  12:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Can confirm that the evidence sent to paid-en-wp@ shows a financial COI. Since he's already received and ignored multiple notices, I've blocked, though I'm not opposed to an unblock if he starts communicating and following the rules. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Madhyamam


This user was trying to whitewash Madhyamam newspaper, a mouthpiece of Kerala chapter of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, by removing content that cites its affiliation to the organization and criticism on glorification of Taliban - along with the addition of highly questionable claim that "It is India's first international newspaper" with a non-RS to conform with their official promotional claim - it is unknown on what criteria they are claiming it. Digging further, the user was found to be a WP:SPA for "maintaining" and promotion of the newspaper. Also adds spam links on other articles. . Suhail Aerath's google results shows that he is the SEO Analyst of Madhyamam. It was only recently that their TV channel MediaOne TV was banned by the government based on intelligence report. 2409:4073:2003:B090:91BE:84D1:82D3:F799 (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OUTING. --SVTCobra 19:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bhargav Sri Prakash

 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list
 * Literally dozens of other IP addresses it's not constructive to list

I was alerted to this COI situation by an extremely suspicious edit by to the Metaverse article. The user seems to be a SPA focused on the life of Bhargav Sri Prakash across a number of years and posts very promotional material. The wikipedia articles of Bhargav and his mother Sheila are very WP:PROMO and I do in fact believe they fail GNG. The promotional edits mostly come from IP addresses, I figure that the Pastacho account was used because I requested that Metaverse be semi-protected a while back (ironically to stop all the promotional editing). BrigadierG (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, my! The two articles (ignoring the issue of notability) look extremely promotional. The images seem to be on Commons via Flickr whitewashing. This is quite some mess. --SVTCobra 16:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, I do not have conflict of interest issues to disclose with Bhargav Sri Prakash, Sheila Sri Prakash or metaverse. In my defense, I will share that I am graduate of college of engineering, guindy and that I started editing Wikipedia when I was a student at CEG. My interest in Wikipedia started with topics relate to College of Engineering, Guindy, Anna University, famous faculty and alumni. Bhargav Sri Prakash is listed as a notable alumnus of CEG according to the alumni association


 * Not sure if because I am a CEG graduate it is making my contributions to CEG institution wiki page or that of other alumni be reversible because of conflict of interest. If so, I apologize. I did not know that I should not edit fellow alumni my alma mater pages. I generally follow topics related to AI/Web3.0 because I am in IT field. I do edit without logging in most of the time but I live in Singapore. I got the interesting engineering article via a WhatsApp group. When I googled metaverse the Wikipedia article came up. Since the Interesting Engineering came many months ago (6th October 2021) and it was from a magazine i follow online, I thought I should add it because i recognized bhargav sri prakash's name. I must highlight that my edit which has been reverted was mostly about the Education application of Metaverse at University of Michigan.


 * There are numerous articles in India's top newspapers and news channels that I think may support notability of Bhargav Sri Prakash. I list a few for consideration of anyone who wants to review.
 * https://www.timesnownews.com/health/article/indian-health-tech-pioneer-develops-the-worlds-first-digital-vaccine-candidate-for-covid/630113
 * https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/play-and-learn/article4500838.ece
 * https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/now-digital-vaccines-to-help-promote-healthy-eating-in-kids/articleshow/80010923.cms
 * https://www.expresshealthcare.in/covid19-updates/our-digital-vaccines-build-resistance-to-covid-19-causing-hygiene-related-behaviours/424541/
 * https://www.thehindu.com/children/fooya-app-inculcates-healthy-diets-among-children/article31099233.ece
 * https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/a-chennai-based-companys-game-app-is-teaching-kids-how-to-eat-healthy-and-stay-fit-3508553.html


 * To your other point, yes, I have made edits to Sheila Sri Prakash in the past because she is also Anna University School of Architecture graduate. I do not have any conflict of interest with her or her work in architecture. Here are a few articles that seem to suggest that her accomplishments demonstrate levels of notability


 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-property-idUSKBN1CE15E
 * https://www.thehindu.com/features/homes-and-gardens/dancing-about-architecture/article7872561.ece
 * https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/know-your-architects/a648-sheila-sri-prakash-indias-first-woman-to-establish-her-own-architectural-practice/
 * http://www.madrasmusings.com/vol-29-no-22/profile-of-an-architect/


 * If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. If I should not edit these pages, I fully respect the community's decision and will not do so anymore. Best regards, Pastacho (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This may be the case of related topics being related. I don't think that @Pastacho has a COI—based on their edit history. FWICT, their edits are not bad (with the exception of this one adding promotional language). But Pastacho, I would suggest you reread WP:RS to improve your edits. SWinxy (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you talk for suggesting me to read WP:RS. I have read but will study further but I think Indian english writing style may be bit different. I am having a question whether I am not supposed to edit the articles pertaining to College of Engineering, Guindy or the other famous students/faculty/alumni because I am an alumni of CEG. Is that COI? WP:RS does not seem to clarify my doubt? The article for Bhargav Sri Prakash has been nominated for deletion because of my edit to metaverse . I am not sure if there is any thing I can should or not do. I definitely do not want to be the one who made a mistake that caused article of one famous CEG alumni and Chennai person who is doing some good for society to become deleted. Feeling guilty:( there are many articles which I found on google search which are not appearing in Bhargav Sri Prakash wiki article. Can those be submitted as proof of notability. This reference can be added to the article or because Edex Indian Express and Chennai there is COI?


 * https://www.edexlive.com/people/2019/may/31/chennai-based-parent-develops-an-app-that-gets-kids-to-fight-junk-monsters-and-count-their-calories-6373.html
 * https://lifestyle.livemint.com/relationships/raising-parents/now-an-app-to-educate-children-on-healthy-food-choices-111615007066164.html
 * https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210211/Pediatric-dietary-mobile-game-improved-childrene28099s-short-term-food-choices.aspx


 * It would be helpful to have your advice Cobra talk SWinxy Talk and any others who are having more experience with such topics. Thanks and best regards Pastacho (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't fret Pastacho. Students/alumni generally not considered to have a COI, but an potential COI, meaning that you have a relation, but do not need to exercise disclosure of the relation. You are free to continue editing. My suggestion to read RS was to improve the quality of your citations (i.e. what to keep and what to toss). SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you SWinxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastacho (talk • contribs) 07:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Norco College Logo Update


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. LeslieReneeVargas (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Everyone. The Norco College logo thumbnail is not the correct logo. How do I get the correct logo on there? https://www.norcocollege.edu/about/Documents/identity/LogoIdentity.pdf
 * See Help_desk. This is not the proper venue.  GoingBatty (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Onel5969

 * The user is harassing me with false/baseless allegation of UPE/COI. His/her allegation has/have no evidence at all and he/she is even unable to address his/her allegation against me. I do appeal to WIKI:Admin for a fair resolution.. --  NeverTry4Me  - <b style="color:white">TT Page</b> 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The user is harassing me with false/baseless allegation of UPE/COI. His/her allegation has/have no evidence at all and he/she is even unable to address his/her allegation against me. I do appeal to WIKI:Admin for a fair resolution.. --  NeverTry4Me  - <b style="color:white">TT Page</b> 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The user is harassing me with false/baseless allegation of UPE/COI. His/her allegation has/have no evidence at all and he/she is even unable to address his/her allegation against me. I do appeal to WIKI:Admin for a fair resolution.. --  NeverTry4Me  - <b style="color:white">TT Page</b> 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Surely a matter for the WP:ANI noticeboard and not the COIN noticeboard? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear, kindly refrain from this discussion as you are closely ssocitaed with . I request you to not to be invoolved to support your friend . -- NeverTry4Me  - <b style="color:white">TT Page</b> 09:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @: As you've persisted in interferring with one of Onel5969's XfD !votes there is now a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so feel free to make your allegations there. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wong venue. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

SmartStudy / The Pinkfong Company


I have concerns that this company is attempting to promote themselves using Wikipedia, but disregarding CoI rules to do so (or straight up not knowing them), and even got one account softblocked because they did not choose a proper username (Pnkfngcomms). The page Baby Shark Live! was also started by an account with the name of the company and a song they were known for, likely as an attempt at promotion. Content added by the account Tpccmt was also flagged as copyvio from a press release from the company, and the SmartStudy page has a template on it that I added that states that the page may promote the subject without any real information, as I also feel that the page reads like an advertisement. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  22:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tpccmt has removed the COI template from the company page. Extremely suspicious. I highly suggest you stop editing the Pinkfong Company page immediately and declare your COI.  wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  03:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This a straight up on WP:COI on . Been editing for more than a year using that name and no declaration.   scope_creep Talk  14:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found that out and added it to the discussion at the start. for cleaning up the promo, though  wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  15:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have to let it work. What may be obvious to yourself may not be so obvious to folk on here. The Admin Corps are quite a canny lot. The machinery of administration they're running, for want of a better phrase, is working all the time. You don't see what is going, because all you see is the talk page and often you think nothing is happening. You just have wait until it catches up.   scope_creep Talk  17:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that has added a coi notice on their user page and they are now using edit requests. I've not finished with that article. They are going to try and puff it right up.    scope_creep Talk  16:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Canada's Got Talent


Attempting to update article with, "talent and network updates", though most of the changes are incorrect (as I've included within this edit summary). User has also uploaded the onto Commons, claiming to be the owner of the work (though I'm not even sure the distributor or the show would 'own' the logo???).

As I sort of alluded to in the previous sentence, the account is named 'RogersMedia' and the distributor of the show- at least, what's been listed in the infobox since June 2011 (I assume Rogers TV is related...? Not quite sure, as I'm not from Canada, lol), is 'Rogers Media Television'- so I'd say quite a clear COI here... Magitroopa (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reported to WP:UAA for violation of WP:CORPNAME. I think, however, Rogers Sports & Media is the more appropriate entity, though they are all assets of Rogers Communications. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)